The Debate Over Defunding the Police

 
 

Demands to “defund the police” have increased, especially following the killing of George Floyd in June of 2020 and the nationwide social justice protests that followed. These demands are often seen as radical when in fact, they are not.  While few are suggesting an end to policing, it is time to end the exceptional place that police — and public safety and law enforcement in general — have held in budget debates in cities and counties across the nation.

Over the last few decades, the starting point for most debate regarding local government budgeting has been to put police at the top of the priority list. This was born out of the explosion in crime — especially violent crime — in the late 1980s and early 1990s. This resulted in more funding, more police officers and more jail beds, even as crime declined significantly starting in the mid-90’s and leading up to today.

Based on Census Bureau data, the number of sworn police officers in local government grew from approximately 375,000 in 1992 to nearly 470,000 in 2016. While this was roughly in line with population growth, the growth in police departments did not abate when crime dramatically declined.

At the same time, the number of inmates held in local jails increased too, from just under 445,000 to slightly over 740,000. Only in recent years has there been a modest reduction in local jail population, mostly in larger cities and counties.

 
 

 
fred-moon-ofBf15Ps_0k-unsplash.jpg
 

For mayors and city councils, spending and the number of sworn officers became a way to communicate a commitment to crime reduction and, in some cases, their guarantee that things would never go back to the high crime rates of the early 1990s. Different strategies that called for fewer police and less incarceration were rejected as soft on crime. 

Police and corrections became sacred cows in the local budget process. In the face of fiscal pressures, other departments had to make cuts, but police and corrections agencies were typically deemed “essential services” and distinguished from “discretionary spending” such as education or housing. When law enforcement agencies did make cuts, it was often to civilians which resulted in sworn officers performing the same work previously done by civilians but at a higher cost.

By the 2000s, many cities across the country essentially became public safety departments, with most city employees serving in either the police or fire departments. For example, 38% of total general fund spending in Memphis, Tennessee, goes to the police department — with another 26% going to the fire department. Spending for parks, libraries and housing combined account for less than 10 percent.

 
 

The call to defund the police is really a call to rethink how local governments budget for safety and justice.

 
 

It rejects an approach that measures success on the amount of spending on law enforcement and recognizes that a prevention-first approach may be a better investment.

This rethinking would likely lead to better policing. Arresting powers would be more narrowly applied and used only in response to more serious offenses. Fewer officers would also make it easier for departments to set higher standards for who becomes and remains as a police officer.

Defunding the police is not a panacea. Just as the level of spending on police was a poor substitute for measuring a community’s commitment to crime reduction, it will also fail if it is the primary measure of a commitment to justice and safety. But the debate over how to defund the police is a vital one for local governments, and long overdue.

 

Get in Touch.

For questions or to learn more, send us an email at:

JusticeSafetyFinance@pfm.com