Can Proactive Policing Save American Cities?
/Can Proactive Policing Save American Cities?
By: Leonard Adam Sipes, Jr.
There is nothing more important to cities than crime control. Nothing prospers when fear rules. Economic development disappears. Stores close or cut hours. Communities become food deserts. Education suffers. Residents and children are emotionally and physically hurt.
There is endless debate as to what controls violent crime. Suggestions range from violence interrupters to social workers responding to mental health calls to economic investments in high-crime communities. None have a research base indicating that they lower rates of violent or property crime.
The only effort that indicates reductions in crime are proactive police strategies via the US Department of Justice and the National Academies of Sciences. Proactivity means that officers will take their own initiative to approach someone when they have the legal right to question or search. Proactive policing embraces a variety of tactics. But proactivity has major challenges.
Riots and demonstrations costing well over $2 billion in insurance claims set off a chain reaction of dramatically increased violent crime and fear of crime, an explosion in firearm and security sales, and people fleeing cities. Businesses are closing or reducing their hours. Economic development in troubled areas is dead. Most of the protests focused on events germane to proactive police tactics or the use of force.
Police officers in urban areas heard the voices of residents that proactive police efforts were unwelcome. Cops understood the message; how could they not? Officers responded by pulling back, virtually eliminating proactivity.
They gave citizens what they demanded.
I will forever remember a photograph and media account in Baltimore where approximately 30 people surrounded police officers making a felony arrest, taunting cops and recording the event. Every conceivable profanity was employed in the most threatening manner. This was immediately after the riots.
I knew from that event that police proactivity was dead.
Crime in Baltimore and a wide variety of cities became ungovernable, resulting in a big increase in the criminal victimization of urban households in 2021; 30 percent compared to 22 percent in 2020. Local fear of crime is at a 25-year high. A recent article in the Baltimore Sun by a liberal columnist stated that Baltimore needs to control its crime or lose businesses and residents. Similar stories are being published throughout the nation.
Now activists and mayors are condemning cops for inaction leading to exploding violence, fear and business loss.
Per ProPublica, in Atlanta, the police union has responded to the pressure for accountability and reform by blaming its critics. “Officers are fed up. They’ve been treated like crap both by their fellow citizens and their own legislators,” said Vince Champion, the southeast regional director for the International Brotherhood of Police Officers, which represents most Atlanta officers.
The police profession suffered through an onslaught of brutally negative media coverage. While some of it was justified based on illegal acts by a small number of officers, the message was clear: all cops are the problem.
Police officers stopped being proactive. They returned to traditional policing practices of responding to calls and patrolling communities. Violence skyrocketed. Per the Department of Labor Statistics, an increasing number of officers are leaving the job. Response times for 911 calls are increasing, if they are responded to at all.
Police officers traditionally respond to calls from citizens and patrol communities; there is nothing in the history of policing that mandates proactive policing. It’s a relatively new concept.
As a new cop, I was warned both in the academy and by more experienced officers that proactive criminal stops were dangerous for everyone involved. It’s too easy for crap to hit the fan, some said. You had better be able to justify what you did and what brought you to take action.
The lesson? Don’t take chances unless absolutely necessary, and you’d better be on sound legal grounds or the system would grind you into pulp.
Then crime went up considerably in the 1980s and 1990s and cops were urged to proactively respond. Communities condemned cops for not taking harsh action. I attended community meetings where law enforcement was damned for not being aggressive enough. Some suggested racism or said that we simply didn’t care. “I don’t care how you do it,” said one community leader. “Just get them off my block.”
Mothers Against Drunk Driving demanded arrests where in the past, we called cabs for people on the edge of intoxication. Advocates insisted that arrests be made for domestic violence resulting in the apprehension of both parties when they accused each other of violence. In the past, it was mostly males arrested based on physical evidence (i.e., a badly beaten woman). Everyone became arrest-happy. Society decided that arrests solved problems.
New York City implemented the “miracle” of aggressive-proactive policing tactics that dramatically reduced crime. No American city has matched New York’s achievement, with overall crime dropping at over twice the national rate — and sustained over a 20-year period. The so-called New York “miracle” has triggered a cottage industry of criminological research into its roots and reasons. The concept was exported to many additional cities. Media and civic leaders throughout the country applauded the results and asked why it wasn’t happening in their communities.
Cops, on the other hand, were worried. Aggressive proactivity was filled with endless risks and pitfalls. The concerns of police unions and individual officers were dismissed. Cities needed crime control if their residents were to prosper.
Now, we are going through the proactive policing cycle all over again. Mayors understand that proactivity is necessary. Critics are pushing back. A Black Lives Matter leader has threatened “riots” and “bloodshed” in the streets of New York City if Mayor-elect Eric Adams reinstates the NYPD’s anti-crime units – a vow Adams later doubled down on the following day.
There isn’t a more important issue for American cities than proactive policing. Violence is destroying communities; it touches every aspect of urban life. It literally destroys the soul of urban residents. A report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine provides an extensive literature review of research as it pertains to proactive policing. It may be one of the most significant studies of law enforcement tactics in America. It was financed by the U.S. Justice Department’s National Institute of Justice and the Laura and John Arnold Foundation. The bottom line? Proactive policing reduces crime. Now, mayors and critics throughout the country want a return to proactivity. They want cops to “do their job.”
What constitutes proactivity? What are the ground rules? How much proactivity? Is the focus on violence or all crime? Is the community supportive? Should communities have a say or veto power in the kind of policing that occurs in their neighborhoods? These are all questions that the US Department of Justice and the criminological community should have answered decades ago. There isn’t a more important issue for cities. There has to be a consensus.
But no, we are about to throw cops to the wolves once again. They will be told to get out there and be proactive. There won’t be guidance. There won’t be a universal agreement. The crap will hit the fan again when something goes wrong, cops will pull back and we will begin the cycle of violence all over again.
Mayors and council people and community leaders and the media and critics are cowards. No one is willing to state firmly what cops could or should do. They will be the first in line to condemn police actions or mistakes when cops do their bidding.
Somehow, someone in power (i.e., President Biden) needs to stand up and begin the process of examining police proactivity. Mayors need to have the backbone to work with communities and spell out in detail what citizens want. I would love to witness these discussions. Whatever communities decide, they will have to live with their decisions without complaint.
Don’t want traffic stops? Then don’t complain when a nine-year-old crossing the street is hit by someone speeding. Don’t want drug use prosecuted? Then remain silent when people loudly use it on the corner at 1:00 a.m. We all have to agree on tactics. Cops need to be supported for doing what others won’t.
There is nothing mandating that cops stay on the job. Per the Bureau of Labor Statistics, we are losing a ton of police officers. If they are placed in impossible positions of demanded proactivity once again without consensus and without backing for legal and ethical stops, cities will die.
Per the New York Post, “Then it will be a matter of whether New York has the intelligence, courage and self-respect needed to avoid the abyss.”
You could say the same for many American cities.
Leonard Adam Sipes, Jr.is a retired federal senior spokesperson. A former Adjunct Associate Professor of Criminology and Public Affairs - University of Maryland. Former advisor to the “McGruff-Take a Bite Out of Crime” national media campaign. Past police officer. Aspiring drummer. Operator of CrimeinAmerica.net. His book based on thirty-five years of criminal justice public relations,” Success with the Media: Everything You Need to Survive Reporters and Your Organization” is available at Amazon and additional booksellers. He can also be found @ leonardsipes.com
