Democrats seeking the 2020 presidential nomination find themselves in the odd situation of trying to prove they aren’t tough on crime.
Joe Biden hasn’t officially declared, but to keep his options open he’s already apologized for his role in criminal justice policy in the 1980s and 1990s. “Kamala is a cop” has been deployed as an insult, though Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) assures voters that she is “taking full responsibility” for excesses as a prosecutor in California. Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ), meanwhile, has earned plaudits from Vox for being the rare politician to express openness to shorter prison sentences, even for violent offenders.
The swing toward greater attention to racial disparities in the criminal justice system and desire to find more humane methods of crime control is long overdue. But there’s a very real risk that in the wake of the leftward swing in the Black Lives Matter era, Democrats are leaving behind genuinely effective and politically appealing approaches to criminal justice that the party has championed in the recent past.
Solid data suggests that even if you take a realistic view of the police, spending money to hire more police officers — an idea espoused by both Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama — is a sound approach to the multifaceted problem of criminal justice. More police officers, in particular, doesn’t need to mean more arrests and more incarceration. More beat cops walking the streets seems to deter crime and reduce the need to arrest anyone. And some of the best-validated approaches to reducing excessive use of force by police officers require departments to adopt more manpower-intensive practices.
In terms of the intersection of criminal justice policy and racial politics, new polling provided exclusively to Vox from the leading Democratic data firm Civis Analytics shows that black voters — just like white ones — support the idea of hiring more police officers. Black voters are likely aware that they are disproportionately likely to be victims of crime and disproportionately likely to benefit from extra police staffing in high-crime areas. Indeed, as Jenée Desmond-Harris wrote for Vox in 2015, one primary grievance African Americans have with the criminal justice systems is that black neighborhoods are paradoxically underpoliced.
Especially with America’s police departments facing staffing challenges as they’re squeezed between tight budgets and a recovering labor market, the political and policy case for more federal help hiring cops is impeccable.
The research is clear: more cops = less crime
In a 2005 paper, Jonathan Glick and Alex Tabarrok found a clever instrument to measure the effects of officer increases through the terrorism “alert levels” that were a feature of the early to mid-aughts. During high-alert periods, the Washington, DC, police force would mobilize extra officers, especially in and around the capital’s core, centered on the National Mall. Using daily crime data, they found that the level of crime decreased significantly on high-alert days, and the decrease was especially concentrated on the National Mall.
Critically, the finding was not that adding police officers leads to more arrests and then locking up crooks leads to lower crime in the long run. It’s simply that with more officers around, fewer people commit crimes in the first place. That seems to be the criminal justice ideal, in which fewer people are getting locked up because fewer people are being victimized by criminals.
This sounds a little paradoxical, but the reality is the size of the prison population is driven largely by the harshness of the sentencing, not the number of police stops. The criminologist Lawrence Sherman has observed that the United States is very unusual in spending much more money on the prison system than on our police departments. This suggests the possibility of switching to a formula Tabarrok has summarized as “more police, fewer prisons, less crime”: uniformed officers patrolling the streets stopping crime before it starts rather than working in prisons surveilling convicts.
About a year ago, Stephen Mello of Princeton University assessed the Obama-era increase in federal police funding. Thanks to the stimulus bill, funding for Clinton’s Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) hiring grant program surged from about $20 million a year in the late-Bush era to $1 billion in 2009. The program design allowed Mello to assess some quasi-random variation in which cities got grants. The data shows that compared to cities that missed out, those that made the cut ended up with police staffing levels that were 3.2 percent higher and crime levels that were 3.5 percent lower.
A larger historical survey by Aaron Chalfin and Justin McCrary looked at a large set of police and crime data for midsize to large cities from 1960 to 2010 and concluded that every $1 spent on extra policing generates about $1.63 in social benefits, primarily through fewer murders.
Better staffing could reduce citizen complaints
Of course, much of the progressive turn against law enforcement has been driven not by skepticism about police officers’ ability to deter crime but by concern about overly aggressive policing. It’s important in that context to note a recent study by John MacDonald, Jeffrey Fagan, and Amanda Geller that looked at localized policing surges in New York City (dubbed “Operation Impact” by the NYPD) over a period of years.
They found that surges led to both less crime and more “stop and frisk”-type incidents where officers stopped citizens (typically young black or Latino men) without probable cause. That suggests a sharp trade-off between crime reduction and civil rights. But the same study, by looking at the covariance of “stop and frisks” and crime reduction, found that the additional stops were doing nothing to reduce crime. All of the anti-crime impact, in other words, came from putting more cops on the beat rather than from the use of aggressive tactics. New York City, not coincidentally, has continued to enjoy low and falling crime rates since stop and frisk tactics were curtailed. What’s helpful is more officers, not more harassment.
And there is at least some evidence that increased staffing levels would reduce the number of excessive force incidents. At a minimum, a big new federal police funding stream could also be tied to various reforms.
The key mechanism here is fatigue — which while obviously not a substitute for curing systemic racism, is a lot easier to fix with concrete short-term steps. Tired officers, across a variety of studies, generate more complaints from the civilians they interact with.
Obviously, police departments could (and probably should) reform their practices around shift assignment and overtime. But it would be much easier for police departments to maintain adequate police presence on the street without overscheduling officers if they had more officers around. Indeed, linking extra money for hiring officers to reforms of scheduling practices could be an element of a greatly expanded COPS hiring grant program.
Other proven strategies could, likewise, be bundled into a funding package. UCLA psychologist Philip Goff, for example, worked with the Las Vegas Police Department to change their approach to on-foot chase situations after discovering that arrests following chases were unusually likely to lead to excessive force situations.
They adopted a new policy stipulating that the chasing officer — who is usually tired and angry, for understandable reasons, by the time the suspect gives up — would not be the one to touch the suspect, leaving the job to backup officers who’d be less emotional. The results were striking, including a 23 percent drop in the use of force and an 11 percent fall in officer injuries, along with a reduction in racial disparities.
“Safer for the officer, safer for the suspects,” Goff told Vox’s German Lopez when describing the research a few years ago. “I didn’t have to talk about race to reduce a disparity that has racial components to it. I had to change the fundamental situation where police are chronically engaging with suspects.”
The sort of reforms Goff is talking about are things that departments can and should make without an infusion of new funds. But money for more officers would make it easier to implement while also giving cities whose political leaders may not be super woke an incentive to do the right thing.
Ideally, of course, we’d like to know specifically if these measures would reduce police shootings — and especially deadly ones. Shootings are rare enough that they’re difficult to study statistically in this context, beyond the hypothesis that a significant reduction in violence and complaints should lead to fewer shootings.
Meanwhile, the political reality is that hiring more police officers is popular — including with the communities that are most concerned about the problem of police misconduct.
Hiring more cops is popular — even with African Americans
When Obama pumped a billion dollars into local police hiring there was no significant controversy on the left, even though it was no secret in 2009 that officers sometimes use excessive force and that the law enforcement system features systemic biases against blacks and Latinos. The killing of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, and the subsequent protests there, followed by high-profile controversies over the deaths of Tamir Rice, Philando Castile, and others transformed the political dynamic on the left.
By the 2016 cycle, it was de rigueur for Democratic Party politicians to say “black lives matter” and for the Mothers of the Movement to appear at the 2016 convention. Now, Harris is under accusations of having been too tough on crime as a California prosecutor. Shaun King, in a July 2018 article hailing Sen. Bernie Sanders’s (I-VT) embrace of criminal justice reform, nevertheless criticized him for taking time in a speech on the subject to tell the crowd “how hard the jobs of cops are, and how essential their role is in keeping communities safe.”
Obviously, the reality is that different communities will and do feel differently about the police. But to rely on data rather than anecdotes, Civis Analytics ran a mid-January poll on a range of policing subjects and shared the results with Vox — finding that extra policing is broadly popular across racial groups and that most African Americans and Latinos express favorable views of their local police.
The firm framed the issue this way: “Some members of your state legislature are proposing increasing the budget for the police force and hiring more police officers in high crime areas. If you have to choose, do you support or oppose increasing the number of police officers?”
The results were unequivocally favorable to the proposal, with 60 percent of African Americans, 65 percent of Latinos, and 74 percent of whites saying they support it.
That’s not to say that the conventional wisdom about race, public opinion, and policing is completely wrong. African Americans were, in the same survey, about 20 points less likely than whites to express a favorable view of their local police department. But that still leaves local police with a 58 percent favorable rating (27 percent say they take an unfavorable view), which is pretty strong.
Conversely, potential reforms are generally more popular with black voters than white ones. But many ideas are popular across racial lines, including guaranteed independent investigations of police shootings (backed by 62 percent of likely voters) and mandatory body cameras (backed by 74 percent of likely voters). A generous federal grant program could be a perfect lever to induce police departments to implement changes without incurring the wrath of police officers. And extra police hiring is extremely popular with the kind of voters Democrats most need to win over.
A perennial vote-getter that deserves to make a comeback
As broadly popular as the idea of additional police hiring is, it’s especially popular with a critical bloc of voters: those who backed Obama in 2012 and flipped to Trump in 2016.
In the Civis poll, 75 percent of Obama-Trump switchers say they like the idea of hiring more cops — a topic that directly indicates the kind of economically progressive, culturally conservative voters who were pulled to the GOP side by the racialized themes of the 2016 campaign.
No one issue is going to be decisive in a presidential campaign, and certainly not something as small-bore as federal police funding. But the fact that this idea was embraced by the past two victorious Democratic presidential candidates, is broadly popular, is especially popular with key swing voters, and is also well-grounded in policy amounts to a powerful case that it deserves to make a comeback.
That’s especially true precisely because it’s a slightly odd thematic fit for a Black Lives Matter-conscious Democratic Party. It’s both politically and substantively important for a political movement that wants to advance reforms of the criminal justice system to emphasize that reform does not mean indifference to crime.
Providing money to put more cops on the beat is a proven and cost-effective means of bringing crime down that offers a humane alternative to harsh prison sentences as a deterrent and at least offers some prospect of cutting down on disproportionate use of force as well. The total amount of money involved is, moreover, pretty small. Even at the peak of Obama’s local police funding program, he allocated “only” $1 billion. But the symbolism is large, a clear statement that Democrats take the problem of crime seriously and see the value of police officers’ work.
The sums are also usefully comparable to the kind of money Trump wants to spend on his endless border security drives and offer a useful counterpoint to the fanciful “build the wall and crime will fall” slogan he has Republicans pushing. Adding $5.7 billion worth of steel slats to lightly populated regions of the US-Mexico border will have a minimal impact on America’s high-crime communities, but putting that kind of money into extra police hiring could be transformative.
It’s one idea from the “tough on crime” 1990s that actually worked out well and deserves to make a comeback in 2020.
Would you like to know more? Subscribe to The Weeds, our podcast about politics and policy, join the Weeds Facebook group, or follow Matthew Yglesias on Twitter.
Oakland teachers strike: Union calls strike for pay, smaller classes
Teacher frustration keeps spreading.
Public school teachers in Oakland, California, said they will strike on Thursday, following 18 months of tense negotiations with district officials over pay raises and classroom sizes.
“We have had it. Enough is enough, bargaining with our school district has not worked,” said Keith Brown, a middle school teacher and president of the Oakland Education Association, during a press conference on Saturday. “Our schools have been starved of resources for years.”
If they don’t reach a deal before Thursday, about 3,000 teachers won’t show up to work in one of the state’s largest school districts, which has struggled from years of budget cuts and poor student performance.
Teachers say the lack of investment in city schools is hurting student performance. The cost of living in Oakland has also skyrocketed in recent years, due to an influx of high-skilled workers unable to afford housing across the bay in San Francisco, making it impossible for teachers to live there on their current salaries, Keith said. Teachers want a pay raise, smaller class sizes, and more counselors and nurses.
The strike in Oakland would come a month after teachers in Los Angeles walked off the job with similar demands — and ended up getting a lot of what they wanted. At the time, LA officials said the same thing Oakland officials are now saying: We just don’t have the money.
Oakland schools are facing a $56 million budget deficit in the next two years, so the school board wants to cut school spending, not increase it. School officials are trying to get more money from the state, but teachers are ready to walk out. And they know they have leverage.
It’s just the latest strike in what’s becoming a national trend. More than 100,000 public school teachers in six states have walked out of class in the past year, rebelling from years of stagnant wages, crumbling infrastructure, and deep budget cuts to education. The strikes in Arizona, West Virginia, Kentucky, Oklahoma, California, and Colorado had broad public support, forcing state lawmakers to raise pay and fueling a national movement to boost investment in public education.
So far, that momentum shows no signs of slowing down.
Funding for public schools in California is a mess
Oakland teachers share a lot of the same frustrations that led LA teachers to walk out of class in January. They say school districts are spending too much money on privately run charter schools that have little public oversight. They also believe they are paid too little working in a state with much wealth.
California is among states spending the least on each student (adjusted for the cost of living), largely because of the state’s strict limits on property tax rates.
The Oakland Education Association, a labor union representing 3,000 educators, has been trying to negotiate a new contract since the last one expired in 2017. Teachers want a 12 percent pay raise over three years, smaller classes, and more support staff. One school counselor for every 600 students is not conducive to a student’s success, says Keith Brown, the group’s president.
The district has offered a 5 percent raise over three years.
Teachers rejected the offer.
“Unless there are dramatic changes to the district’s approach, including spending more money on students and for nurses and counselors, lower class size, and a living wage that will keep Oakland teachers in the classrooms, we will strike,” Brown said.
The school district has said it is willing to keep negotiating for a better deal to avert the strike, and would consider some recommendations from an independent panel, which found that low teacher pay, large class sizes, and school privatization were hurting Oakland schools. The report also acknowledges the state’s “complicated, flawed” system for funding public education.
“Despite our challenges, we are prepared with a comprehensive proposal to reach an agreement. If both sides are committed to settling the contract before a strike occurs —and we are — an agreement can certainly be reached without disrupting the educational experience for students, families and staff,” Oakland Schools Superintendent Kyla Johnson-Trammell said in a statement Saturday.
They have three days to try and reach a deal.
Teachers are leading a national workers revolt
A record number of US workers went on strike or stopped working in 2018 because of labor disputes with employers, according to new data released last week by the US Bureau of Labor Statistics. A total of 485,000 employees were involved in major work stoppages last year — the highest number since 1986, when flight attendants, garbage collectors, and steelworkers walked off the job.
Frustrated public school teachers were behind the year’s largest walkouts, but hotel housekeepers and steelworkers also organized strikes that lasted for days.
There are no signs that worker angst has subsided. So far, in 2019, teachers in two major cities have launched their own strikes. And in January, the Los Angeles teachers strike shut down the nation’s second-largest school district for more than a week.
As part of their deal with city officials, teachers agreed to a 6 percent raise and slightly fewer students in each classroom, according to Alex Caputo-Pearl, president of United Teachers Los Angeles, a labor union that represents about 34,000 public school teachers, nurses, librarians, and support staff in the city.
Last week, more than 2,000 teachers in Denver went on strike for three days. The school district ended up giving educators and extra $23 million in pay and agreed to overhaul the compensation system, which relied heavily on annual bonuses.
Now Oakland teachers are prepared to walk out, and Sacramento teachers may follow.
Read Now Go Viral!: The Most Effective Viral Marketing Strategies To Launch Your Online Business
Kamala Harris’s 2020 presidential campaign: news and updates
The longtime lawmaker announced her candidacy at a rally in Oakland, California, on January 27.
Kamala Harris, a California lawmaker and longtime prosecutor, is running for the Democratic nomination for president. She made her announcement during an appearance on ABC’s Good Morning America on Martin Luther King Jr. Day 2019.
Harris is only the second African-American woman to serve in the Senate, and her entry into the 2020 race is potentially historic: If she secures the nomination, she’d be the first African-American woman and the first Asian-American woman to become a major-party nominee.
The lawmaker has a long record of public service. She served as California attorney general and San Francisco district attorney for a combined 12 years before she was elected to the Senate in 2016, and buzz about her potential presidential run has been building ever since. She’s considered a prominent champion for racial equality, though some have questioned her past approach to criminal justice. She has backed some progressive policies within the Democratic Party, including Medicare-for-all and marijuana legalization.
Viral News2 months ago
Tony Robbins: HOW TO START OVER – 2019
Viral News3 months ago
16 Game of Thrones Actors You Wouldn’t Recognize Without Makeup
Viral News2 months ago
15 Famous Men We Didn’t Know Were Handsome in Their Youth
Viral News3 months ago
10 Star Couples We Couldn’t Think Would Be Together, but It’s So Cool to See Them Happy
Viral News2 months ago
12 Celebs Who Got Tired of Their Image and Decided to Change Beyond Recognition
Viral News3 months ago
10 Weird Facts Proving Your Body Is a Mysterious System
Viral News2 months ago
We Imagined What 20th-Century Style Icons Would Look Like Today, and the Results Are Curious
Viral News3 months ago
20 Fantastic Tattoos That Make Birthmarks and Scars Come Alive