Modern policing is a very challenging endeavor. It requires a large degree of foresight, nimbleness, adaptability, risk taking, and commitment. In addition to the practical challenges involved in reducing crime and making communities safe, law enforcement has been challenged with sharp reductions in budgets, and, thus, resources. For instance, the number of sworn police officers in California fell from 81,286 in 2008 to 77,584 in 2011, a decline of roughly 5 percent, which translates to a 7 percent decline in the number of officers per 10,000 residents.1 To deal with the ongoing fiscal pressure, leaders have made some tough choices, and some departments have been forced to slash services, eliminate specialty units, and focus only on basic core functions and the most violent crimes. In Sacramento, California, police officers no longer respond to burglaries, misdemeanors, and minor traffic accidents. The traffic enforcement unit has been disbanded. Some detectives have been sent back to the streets. The department conducts only follow-up investigations on the most serious crimes, like homicide and sexual assault.2 Sadly, Sacramento is not unique.
In 2014, Camden, New Jersey, disbanded its entire police force as rising crime and a lack of funds led the city to transfer law enforcement duties to the county. Officials in Camden said that generous union contracts and declining aid from the state made it financially impossible to keep enough officers on the street.3 Similarly, in 2011, Millbrae, California, dissolved its police force and contracted with the San Mateo County Sheriff’s Department in an effort to save $1.1 million per year, and two other cities in that county, San Carlos and Half Moon Bay, have also dissolved their forces to contract with the sheriff’s department.4 These are not isolated instances—local California governments continue to struggle with ongoing financial issues, as evidenced by the high-profile bankruptcies of Vallejo, San Bernardino, and Stockton. Fiscal constraints, high pension costs, and changing public opinion have made it much easier for local leaders to cut services, including police forces. In the future, law enforcement leaders must plan ways to provide quality service with fewer resources to their communities.
How Are Departments Coping?
Technology and new crime strategies have allowed agencies to be more efficient and effective with their resources. An example of this is online reporting. In Sacramento, citizens filed more than 18,256 online reports in 2012.5 The online reporting program has saved thousands of labor hours and hundreds of thousands of dollars, while also allowing officers to focus on proactive patrol and smart policing strategies.
However, online reporting is impersonal and relatively unresponsive compared to in-person reporting, and there is little to no data on whether it helps reduce crime rates. During a recent round of community meetings in Sacramento, residents expressed a clear preference for face-to-face interactions between the police and victims of crimes. Many communities complain they have not seen the money saved by such a program reinvested back into the community through increased police presence or interaction.
The online reporting solution has not appeared to make much of a difference in Sacramento, which remains in the top 10 of California cities for violent and property crimes.6 Furthermore, a recent survey of Sacramento residents showed that their number one concern was crime. When asked if their neighborhoods had gotten better, stayed the same, or gotten worse, 33.3 percent thought their neighborhoods had gotten better or much better, 39.4 percent thought they stayed the same, and 26.6 percent thought their neighborhood was “somewhat worse” or “much worse.” The fact that about two-thirds of Sacramento residents felt their neighborhoods had either stayed the same or gotten worse in recent years reflects both a serious concern and an opportunity for change.7
As police leaders must continue to create new strategies on how to best close the gaps between budgets and essential services, technology and evidence-based policing strategies will be part of the answer. However, as demonstrated by Sacramento’s experience with online reporting, those strategies cannot solve every issue. Another area left largely unexplored to date are the ways that the privatization of policing might have a significant and beneficial impact on policing in the future.
Rising Feelings of Vulnerability
A 2013 poll by Gallup revealed that 64 percent of U.S. citizens believe crime is getting worse. This number has fluctuated over the past decade or so, from a low of 53 percent in 2004 to a high of 74 percent in 2009.8 That statistic is concerning, when one considers that the crime rate fell significantly over the same period of time. In many communities throughout the United States, violent crime fell by more than 50 percent.9 So what is at work here? Why do people feel that crime is going up, when the facts show it is going down?
One factor may be the well-publicized and large-scale incidents such as school shootings; the Boston Marathon bombing; and the Aurora, Colorado, shooting have contributed to a perception that people are less safe—even as crime continues to fall. The terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, intensified those perceptions, as evidenced by the resulting federal legislation permitting airline pilots to carry guns aboard flights as the last line of defense against hijackings.10 The 2012 shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary created a renewed demand for the safety of school children In the United States, and schoolteachers in Israel and Thailand now carry concealed handguns on the job. In fact, in areas where the threat is considered the greatest, teachers have been given guns for free.11 In the United States, people are beginning to think that the changes made in the wake of the 1999 Columbine shooting did not go far enough. For example, in Colorado, Briggsdale School District allows trained teachers to be armed at school, and, in 2014, elected officials in Ohio approved a bill that would allow school boards to designate some school employees to carry concealed firearms.12 The feeling that these defense strategies are needed reflects the growing sense of fear among the public.
Dwindling Police Department Resources
As a result of the reductions in police personnel, many local law enforcement agencies are struggling to provide basic service to their communities. According to New York Times columnist Kate Zernike, as budgets shrink, it is no longer possible for each community to offer a full buffet of government services.13 This statement is bolstered by the fact that, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, law enforcement will grow by a paltry 41,400 jobs or approximately 5 percent of the 780,000 now employed.14 When paired with the increased feelings of vulnerability, the inability of the police to provide quality service to communities has caused some neighborhoods to seek out alternatives.
“You have to walk around in your house with a gun to feel safe,” said Oakland, California, resident Alaska Tarvins, who went on to say, “We don’t have a choice. Either die or hire some security ourselves, because we can’t depend on the police department.”15 That may seem extreme, but Tarvins’s statement does illustrate the attitude and frustration of some community members—and it seems the number of those feeling that way is growing. In 2014, Detroit, Michigan, Police Chief James Craig said, “There’s a number of CPL (concealed pistol license) holders running around the city of Detroit. I think it acts as a deterrent. Good Americans with CPLs translates to crime reduction.”16 Despite this perspective, an armed citizenry as an alternative to the police is not viable; instead, what may be a more realistic option is to engage the private sector to protect our communities.
From Police Chief Magazine, here.