- So what happens once we actually defund the police?
Glad you asked.
OK, after exploring why the issue of police violence
isn't just about good cops versus bad cops,
why it's almost impossible to prosecute police
due to qualified immunity,
the Hollywood lie that cops spend all of their time
catching dangerous criminals,
and the history of law enforcement
from its very racist origins
through the still very racist war on drugs,
we're finally here,
a place of hope, where we can explore what we'll do
when, and if we defund the police.
But first, let's knock over one straw man argument.
No one who is advocating for defunding the police
actually believes that you can take money away
from the police departments overnight
and end up in some magical utopia with zero crime.
Defunding the police is a long-term goal
that works from a broader
framework of divest-invest,
where you take money budgeted for police
and redirect it towards
a variety of programs
that get at the root of social harm.
Why?
Because reducing contact with cops,
aka the people legally allowed to murder you
if they think you might be a threat,
will guarantee police violence does not occur.
And don't just take my word for it.
Decades of research show that when community-led efforts
are given resources and money,
they're able to prevent violence and harm
just as effectively, if not more effectively, than police.
So why defund the police?
Well, in the words of former police officer Kyle Kazan,
"Law enforcement is the dumping ground.
When you don't know who to call, you call the cops."
So who else can we call?
Well, let's start with the most common way
people interact with the police:
If you don't think traffic stops result in police violence,
maybe try asking Sandra Bland
or Samuel DuBose.
Oh wait, you can't.
Because the police killed Bland
after she failed to use a turn signal
and Dubose dared to drive
with a missing front license plate.
Fortunately, data shows us we don't need gun-toting officers
to deal with traffic stops.
Instead of police officers, we can use more traffic cameras,
which are proven to make roads safer,
or we can create programs like Highways England,
a British program, which hires traffic officers
who are distinct from police, in that they're unarmed
and actually carry equipment
to help with breakdowns or car trouble.
Imagine a world where you have a broken taillight
and government officials send someone
to help you fix the taillight
and create a safer road for everyone.
Wild, right?
Let's move on to another area
where police are often undertrained and overly aggressive:
Approximately 10 percent of police calls
involve a person with mental illness,
making police the nation's de facto first responders
to mental health crises,
which is, surprise, a terrible idea.
Because as recently as 2017,
people with untreated mental illness
were 16 times more likely to be killed by law enforcement
and one in four people killed by police
were living with severe mental illness.
Like George Zapantis, a man in Queens who was killed
after police responded to a nonviolent conflict
with his neighbor and tased him at least five times.
Or Gay Plack, a woman
in Richmond, Virginia,
who was killed by police in her own home
after a doctor requested a wellness check.
Fortunately, new solutions are being explored in cities like
Dallas, Texas, and Eugene, Oregon.
In Dallas, mental health clinicians and paramedics
are now being dispatched to 911 calls
involving mental health emergencies.
The program, called Right Care, has resulted in a 19-percent drop
in mental health calls that end up requiring an ambulance
and fewer people arrested or apprehended by police.
In Eugene, Oregon, the Cahoots Program,
which serves as an alternative to police involvement,
sends civilian crisis intervention teams
trained in mental health and de-escalation tactics
in response to 911 calls involving mental health.
Cahoots estimates that at least 20 percent
of all 911 calls in Eugene
are directed towards them instead of police,
and they've helped resolve emergencies
using nonviolent, compassionate means
while saving taxpayers over $15 million annually.
Less horrific violence against marginalized communities
and saving money in my America, who could have guessed?
Oh wait,
all the people who've been calling for this for decades,
like the Treatment Advocacy Center,
a national nonprofit advocating
for diverting people with mental illness
from the criminal justice system
and into appropriate treatment since 1998.
The issue really boils down to budgets.
One 'New York Times' survey found that
out of 150 cities in the U.S.,
police budgets have consistently risen across the board
up until this year.
And as federal aid for anti-poverty programs
and social services dropped,
the survey says local police
were frequently asked to fill those gaps.
The money is there,
it's just not being allocated effectively.
And within the movement to defund the police,
how cities spend their money
once they've divested from law enforcement is crucial
because the question isn't just,
how do you deal with the emergency after it's happened?
It's also, how can you prevent the emergency
by addressing the root cause?
Now, before we move on, let's remind ourselves
that officers only spend about 5 percent of their time
dealing with violent crime.
But for instances where violence still happens,
because it likely will,
there is real evidence that shows
civic and community-based
organizations and initiatives
can build safe neighborhoods
without the costs and violence
that come along with police and prisons.
These models include programs like Safe Streets in Baltimore
and Cease Fire in Chicago,
which rely on teams that include
violence prevention coordinators
and full-time outreach workers.
They specifically help communities
impacted by gun homicides and gang violence,
working with young people to find work
and education opportunities,
as well as de-escalating potentially violent conflicts.
Many of their outreach workers are former gang members
or formerly incarcerated people
with ties to the communities they help.
Over the span of about nine years,
Baltimore's Safe Streets program
resulted in fewer homicides and nonfatal shootings.
In the neighborhood of Cherry Hill,
the program actually reduced homicide rates by 56 percent.
But these initiatives are often given pennies on the dollar
to do the kind of work that can stop cycles of harm,
if they're funded by the government at all.
How that money is spent matters.
Programs run in conjunction with the crime lab
at the University of Chicago are very effective
and have data to back up their work.
The Becoming a Man and Choose to Change Programs
rely on a combination
of mentoring and cognitive behavioral therapy.
They've reduced participants involvement in violence
by about 50 percent, and summer jobs programs
have led to an over-40 percent decrease in violence.
Even something as simple
as creating more community gardens helps.
Seriously, a decades-long study in Philadelphia
found that transforming vacant lots into green spaces
correlated with a drop in gun assaults
and a rise in healthy activity among residents.
So we basically need cities to reboot 'Parks and [Recreation]'
and put it in ['Law & Order']'s time slot.
Look, we already know that 150 years of policing
hasn't eradicated violent crime
and expecting new solutions to do so immediately
is equally unrealistic.
Defunding the police isn't actually just one idea,
but an umbrella term
for the many things we're going to need to try
in order to create safer communities.
And we'll be honest, some of these programs may not work.
Sociologist Patrick Sharkey made a great point
that leaders and lawmakers need a long-term commitment
to building new coalitions to give them a chance.
As he said in an interview with Vox,
"I'm calling for a 10-year commitment.
Give it a chance to fail.
Give it a chance to go through scandals and mishaps
and bumps along the way,
and know that it's still going to be there in 10 years.
There's no easy way to respond
to every challenge in a community."
This is hard work and it asks for the cooperation
of activists, community organizers, academics, lawmakers,
and regular people, in answering complicated questions.
And not everyone agrees
on whether we need to reduce the size and scope of policing
or if police need to be dismantled altogether.
But beyond logistical questions,
it's also going to be difficult
because it's a fundamental reimagining of society.
In her 'New York Times' opinion piece,
activist Mariame Kaba describes her alternative
to policing and incarceration
as "a vision of a different society,
built on cooperation instead of individualism,
on mutual aid, instead of self-preservation."
She asks, "What would the country look like
if it had billions of extra dollars
to spend on housing, food, and education for all?"
The important thing is not to let up.
We've got decades of data showing us the real devastation
police forces enact within our communities.
But research also shows us
there are solutions to community safety
that cut off the need for police at its root
by providing opportunities and education.
So what have we got to lose in imagining a better future?
Thanks for watching, I'm Franchesca Ramsey.
We'll see you next time right here on Decoded.