警察不在維持治安了嗎證據(jù)回顧

1、ContentsTOC o 1-1 h z u HYPERLINK l _TOC_250010 Executive Summary 4 HYPERLINK l _TOC_250009 Introduction: Moving Forward from “Defund the Police” 5 HYPERLINK l _TOC_250008 The Follies of Replacing the Police 6 HYPERLINK l _TOC_250007 Civilian Alternatives for Fighting Crime 6 HYPERLINK l _TOC_250006

2、 Reallocating Police Funding to Reduce Crime 9 HYPERLINK l _TOC_250005 Complements to the Police: What the Research Supports 10 HYPERLINK l _TOC_250004 Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design 10 HYPERLINK l _TOC_250003 Nonpolice Guardians 11 HYPERLINK l _TOC_250002 Controlling Alcohol 13 HYPER

3、LINK l _TOC_250001 Conclusion 14 HYPERLINK l _TOC_250000 Endnotes 16Policing Without the Police? A Review of the Evidence4Policing Without the Police? A Review of the EvidenceExecutive SummaryIn the wake of the death of George Floyd and the summer of protests and riots that followed, left-wing activ

4、ists and politicians have called not simply for reforms to policing, but for its abolition. In order to eliminate the pos- sibility of wrongful killing of civilians, these advocates say, we should defund police departments, reroute their budgets to social services, and replace beat cops with unarmed

5、 civilian alternatives wherever possible.In the first half of this brief, I outline why such proposals would be a disaster for public safety. In short, they: Have little basis in evidence; Would increase the risk posed to civilian employees; Would diminish the crime-reduction benefits of current pol

6、ice work; and Would have little impact on the size, and therefore effect, of social welfare spending.While replacing the police is a misguided idea, that does not mean that lawmakers should dismiss altogether the idea of nonpolice crime-fighting tools. Indeed, there are several evidence-based, effec

7、tive means to mitigate crime through channels other than more police work. These complementary tools can help relieve stress on over- taxed and understaffed police forces.In the second half of this report, I lay out the evidence behind three options: Reducing crime through changes to the built envir

8、onment, such as cleaning up vacant lots and green public spaces; Using “nonpolice guardians,” such as neighborhood watches and CCTV cameras, to extend the polices reach; Targeting problematic alcohol use, a major cause of crime.POLICING WITHOUT THE POLICE?A Review of the EvidenceIntroduction: Moving

9、 Forward from “Defund the Police”In the wake of the death of George Floyd and the summer of protests and riots that followed, police reform has once again caught the nations attention. But whereas past cycles of this debate have focused on changes to the police as an institutionantibias trainings, n

10、ew use-of-force policies, or adoption of body cameras, for example1 the loudest voices now push a more radical program: defund police departments, reroute their budgets to social services, and replace beat cops with unarmed civilian alternatives wherever possible. The idea is not to reform the polic

11、e but to replace them.These proposals originated in left-wing activist communities but have obtained surprising purchase among mu- nicipal leaders. NYC comptroller and mayoral contender Scott Stringer called for redirecting funds away from the New York Police Department (NYPD) and toward “trained so

12、cial workers, counselors, and outreach staff.” The L.A. City Council proposed replacing police with crisis response teams for “nonviolent” calls, and San Fran- cisco Mayor London Breed said in June that police would no longer respond to “noncriminal” complaints.2 These proposals are dramatically unp

13、opulardefunding was regularly opposed by large majorities in polls3but that has not dissuaded city councils from Minneapolis to Seattle from pushing to replace their police departments with “holistic,” “public health”-oriented alternatives.4There are, roughly speaking, two models of police defunding

14、 that have been proposed. Some have suggested shifting police duties to otherpresumably unarmedpublic employees, such as social workers. Others suggest rerouting police funding to welfare, education, and other social services meant to target the “root” causes of crime. Both envision a world in which

15、 crime can be prevented without the possibility of wrongful killing of civil- iansand where order can be maintained without force.In the first half of this report, I outline why policymakers should not be so sanguine at the prospect of replacing the police, either with unarmed municipal officials or

16、 through the redirection of police funding. In short, civilian “alternatives” both stand on shaky evidentiary ground and, more important, are not well suited to the fundamen- tal function of stopping crime. The efficacy of redirecting police funding to social services, meanwhile, runs afoul of basic

17、 budget math: the roughly 3% of government dollars spent on policing every year would be just a drop in the bucket of major social welfare programs but would be devastating to the communities deprived of policing.At the same time, there is plainly a desire among policymakers for proven crime-prevent

18、ion methods that could complement police work. That desire is political, responding, as it does, to the concerns of the thousands who took to the streets last summer. But it is also practical, insofar as municipal leaders have an interest in reducing crime in the most effective way possible. Althoug

19、h the “alternatives or police” approach of defunders is unten- able, many evidence-based, effective tools to mitigate crime through channels other than more police work are available. The police, after all, are just a part of the broader schema of public safety.5 City officials can pursuePolicing Wi

20、thout the Police? A Review of the Evidencea “both/and” approach by complementing the police rather than replacing them.In pursuing this more positive both/and approach, it is important to focus on policies that have actually been shown to be effective in reducing crime, not to simply make vague prom

21、ises for more spending on a wide variety of social services. In the second half of this report, I lay out the evidence behind three options:Reducing crime through changes to the built envi- ronment, such as cleaning up vacant lots and green public spacesUsing “nonpolice guardians,” such as neighbor-

22、 hood watches and CCTV cameras, to extend the polices reachTargeting problematic alcohol use, a major cause of crimeThis report intends to move the conversation about alternatives to the police in a more fruitful direction. Defunding and replacing the police, the key institution of American public s

23、afety, is a nonstarter. But we can support the polices mission through other tools, man- aging public safety and order through more than just law enforcement.The Follies of Replacing the PoliceTo a concerning extent, American city leaders have bought in to the police-defunding movement. Politi- cian

24、s, particularly in progressive-controlled cities, have slashed budgets, reduced roles, and installed new civil- ian alternatives in their place.6 In New York, for example, Mayor Bill de Blasio cut $350 million from the NYPDs budget to reallocate to education, mental-health, and homeless services. Th

25、e mayor also disbanded the de- partments plainclothes anticrime unit, while emphasiz- ing his continued support for “violence interrupters” as a “root-of-the-problem” alternative to the police.7Civilian Alternatives for Fighting CrimeMuch of the contemporary dispute around policing comes down to hig

26、hly publicized use of force, deadlyor otherwise, particularly against black or disabled cit- izens. Insofar as policing is distinguished, in part, by the legal right to use force in certain circumstances, advocates of defunding argue that successful reform read: a reduction in use of (deadly) forcer

27、equires replacing police with unarmed civilian municipal em- ployees who will combat crime through any number of proposed techniques.To be sure, precedent exists for civilians supporting police officers in crime reduction. As far back as 1968, the federal government provided funding for police de- p

28、artments to hire social workers through the Law En- forcement Assistance Administration.8 Today, many cities have addiction counselors, social workers, and “violence interrupters” who work alongside the police to control crime.9Surprisingly, little evidence supports the crime-fighting efficacy of ma

29、ny of these alternatives, especially when compared with the robust evidence base supporting cops effect on crime. Limited evidence supports some of these programsall of which exist alongside police departmentsand not nearly enough evidence sug- gests that the programs would be able to replace police

30、 altogether.Consider de-escalation training. De-escalation entails the use of verbal and nonverbal tools to defuse a poten- tially violent or dangerous situation. Teaching de-es- calation to police officers is relatively uncontroversial and has appeared in numerous “police reform” legis- lative prop

31、osals.10 Some advocates of defunding have argued that professional de-escalators could mitigate violence before it occurs, rather than reacting to vio- lence, as police do.Despite widespread support, scant evidence shows that de-escalation works. A systematic review of decades of research found esse

32、ntially no high-quality study to support de-escalation.11 In a survey of 64 studies, the authors find that most of the research conducted on de- escalation is not of a sufficiently robust experimental design to infer causality (i.e., to claim that de-escalation training led to the measured outcomes)

33、. Moreover, many of the studies were conducted on the use of de- escalation by nurses and those who work with the mentally illzero studies were identified pertaining to criminal justice. Many did not even measure the actual effect on the incidence of violence but only how subjects feel about de-esca

34、lation after training. Where studies do measure outcomes, the results are inconsistent: sometimes, the number of violent incidents decreased; in others, there was either an increase or no effect.Preliminary evidence from a well-designed study conducted by the authors of an analysis with the Louisvil

35、le Police Department suggests that de- escalation training reduces use of force, but the durability of those effects and the external validity of the findings remain unclear. Importantly, even if de- escalation can be helpful when used by police officers, we cannot infer that de-escalators alone cou

36、ld be a substitute for the police.12 Anecdotally, de-escalation techniques are frequently forgotten in the high- stress situations that policing entails, suggesting that civilians would be left ill-equipped to manage such situations.13Similar problems plague Crisis Intervention Team training, a set

37、of practices meant to mitigate the risks in police interactions with people with mental or sub- stance-abuse disorders. Individuals with CIT training could conceivably “take over” for police in such cases. Yet, just as with de-escalation, CITs efficacy is unclear. A systematic review of research on

38、the practice found that while it improved police officers subjective well-being, it had no impact on “objective measures of arrests, officer injury, citizen injury, or use of force.”14Real-world evidence shows both the effectiveness and limits of CIT. Eugene, Oregon, has for over threedecades run CA

39、HOOTS (Crisis Assistance Helping Out On The Streets), a nonprofit-administered program that deploys unarmed CITs to deal with crises involv- ing “mental illness, homelessness, and addiction.”But CAHOOTS responders are highly specialized. In 2019, they covered just 17% of Eugene 911 calls,15 with 75%

40、 of those calls being a welfare check, provid- ing transportation to someone (usually homeless or in need), or assisting the police already on the beat. Even in those relatively limited circumstances, CAHOOTS responders still called for backup in roughly one in every 67 calls for service in 2019.16I

41、t is hard to see that model scaling up to cover the other 83% of 911 calls to the Eugene PD. Doing so would involve not only dramatically scaling up CAHOOTSs $2.1 million budget but also identifying a large population of trained CIT professionals and, most significantly, asking those professionals t

42、o handle situations that grow increasingly risky as responsibility expands. In other words, though it doubtless provides a useful service now, groups like CAHOOTS are not a model for how to replace the police. But as a complement to policing, it may be a useful model for other cities to adopt.Polici

43、ng Without the Police? A Review of the EvidencePerhaps the most promising alternative practices are “violence interrupters,” whofollowing the “Cure Violence” framework developed by Dr. Gary Slutkin work in high-crime areas (where they often also live) to identify and diffuse potentially violent situ

44、ations or feuds before they escalate into conflict. The practice has been implemented in more than 25 cities, including New York and Chicago.17 Advocates like sociologist Patrick Sharkey have argued that interrupters could play a key role in fighting violent crime without armed police officers and h

45、ave called for greater experimentation with such substitutions.18But the actual evidence supporting Cure Violence, while promising, is less robust than would be neces- sary for the program to be a viable replacement for the police. A National Institute of Justice analysis of Chi- cagos program, for

46、example, found that Cure Violence reduced shootings in three of the seven neighborhoods studiedbut gun homicides in just one and gang ho- micides in none.19 In a study in New York City, Cure Violence reduced shooting victimizations in only one of two neighborhoods.20 In a Pittsburgh pilot program wh

47、ich included violence interrupters, rates of homi- cide, aggravated assault, and gun assault all rose fol- lowing implementation.21 In short, the evidence sug-gests that Cure Violence can be useful, and a violence interruption program is likely a beneficial addition to traditional police work, but t

48、heres little reason to believe that one can replace the other.The bar for replacing the police is particularly high because there is very strong evidence supporting cops crime-fighting efficacy. Research using the surge in police funded by the 1994 Crime Bill, for example, found that adding one cop

49、per 10,000 people reduced violent crimes by 3.7%, robberies by 5%, murders by 3.2%, and burglaries by 2.2%.22 Another study examin- ing the same federal funding source during the Great Recession found that a 3.6% increase in police cut violent crimes by 4.8% and property crimes by 3%.23 Research usi

50、ng changes in the terror alert level on the National Mall found that periods of high police pres- ence slashed crime substantially,24 while evidence from beat cops in Dallas found that a 10% decrease in police presence led to a 7.4% increase in crime in a given beat.25These are just a few of the man

51、y studies that causal- ly link the level of police to the level of crime. This is perhaps why in a survey just a month after the onset of protests last summer, 86% of all Americans and 81% ofblack Americans said that they would want the police to spend the same length of time or longer in their neig

52、hborhoodsthey dont want less policing.26In order to be viable replacements, alternative civilians would need to have similar levels of efficacy, meaning that they would need to provide the same or larger crime-reducing effects, absent the presence of police officers. But even working alongside polic

53、e officers, they do not, which suggests that a largely or exclusively alternative police force would be a poor substitute.Even if the evidence for civilian alternatives were not so underwhelming, there would be good reason for skep- ticism about expanding the scope of these programs. Police work is

54、dangerous; and it is far from obvious that civilian alternatives are prepared to shoulder the risks and duties that it entails entirely on their own.Advocates of defunding tend to envision reducing the police role only to those situations that call for the use of force, neatly distributing all other

55、 functions to unarmed alternatives. Yet the nature of policingin- teracting with people and situations not bound by the usual rules of polite conductdoes not allow for such an easy assessment of risk.Consider the case of traffic enforcement. Some have proposed that traffic cops should be systematica

56、l- ly disarmed, and the city of Berkeley, California, has even taken steps to do so, reasoning that traffic stops account for a large share of police shootings, partic- ularly of black people.27 But traffic stops can be dan- gerous for the police, too: of the 257 police officers feloniously killed b

57、etween 2015 and 2019, 16 were killed during traffic violation stopsmore than during arrests, crimes in progress, or in unprovoked attacks.28 An unarmed traffic cop, in other words, is being asked to bear risk without the means to mitigate it.Other nominally “safe” police tasks carry risk, too. Socia

58、l workers, whom some defunders envision re- placing police, have been killed by clients while filling the exact role envisioned for them.29 Such events may be rare, but their infrequency must be weighed against the severity of the harm. Police do not often draw their weaponsjust 27% of officers have

59、 ever discharged their firearms, and just 0.3% of use-of-force incidents involve a gun being drawn or firedbut they are armed precisely for the set of circumstances where the poten- tial costs are highest.30What advocates of civilian alternatives propose to do, in effect, is send individuals into th

60、ese same circum- stances without the capacity to defend themselves in worst-case scenarios. The risk of violence is not routineor predictable, and the point of empowering police with the means to physically keep the peacethe fundamen- tal function of a stateis to allow them to manage those unpredict