[ColdNoMore]

From a city that recognized a problem with their police department and knew, after trying to change the "culture" many times, failed because of the power of the union...and had to do something drastic.


Making a change (click here)

And that debate has quickly brought to light the shining example and metamorphosis of policing in Camden, New Jersey, a city that was once among the nation’s most dangerous with a homicide rate equivalent to that of El Salvador before a funding upheaval and list of reforms resulted in the lowest murder rate the town had seen since 1987. Add to the fact that local police have accomplished as much with a noted drop in use of lethal force and the viral image of its Chief of Police marching hand-in-hand with protesters, and it’s easy to see why people are quick to look to replicate it.

But digging deeper into how Camden was able to spark its amazing transformation reveals that substantive police reform has never been as simple as an issue of funding.

First, it’s worth defining “defunding the police” as policymakers are debating it. Despite some opponents fear mongering with scenes from the movie “The Purge,” in which all crimes are made legal for a 12-hour period, the policy has more to do with allocating a city’s funding away from policing and more towards efforts that might reduce the need for policing, such as mental health resources, public education, or employee training programs. As House Speaker Nancy Pelosi recently summarized, “what it means is [with] the resources that we have, let us spend it in a way that gives the most protection for the American people — protection for their safety, protection for their rights.”

Mainly, that Americans of color are more likely to be stopped by police, and more likely to have police use lethal force against them than white Americans. As New York City data showed during the peak of its notorious stop and frisk policy, for example, blacks were stopped by police at roughly eight-times the rate of whites.

In Camden, the latter issue has been at the forefront of its shift in policing since crime reached its peak in 2012. The following year, the city sought to put more cops on the street, but due to budgetary constraints wound up disbanding the city’s police force and created a county community force instead. The move let the city shed costs by ridding itself of unionized police that cost $182,168 on average with benefits, in favor of hiring back holdovers and new recruits as non-unionized county employees at $99,605 per officer, according to county statistics.

While the move doesn’t necessarily equate to “defunding” police as it’s being discussed today in a perfect sense, what ensued in Camden was more parallel to the thesis, as more resources were allowed to be shifted to other community building initiatives in the following years. Education reform and workplace development programs boosted the local economy and a more than $8 million dollar program to remove blighted and abandoned properties helped eliminate areas once used by drug dealers.

Complaints of excessive force have come down 95% since 2014, according to the department’s own metrics, and unlike violent protests across the Delaware River in Philadelphia last week, Camden enjoyed shared, peaceful protests between police and demonstrators.

Rutrow though...

It’s worth noting, however, that Camden’s county police force eventually unionized after disbanding the city’s prior unionized police force, and its operating costs have soared. Camden budgeted $68.45 million for police this year, accounting for nearly a third of the city’s overall budget. An internal state analysis cited by the Philadelphia Inquirer notes that its police spending “compels the contraction of other vital city departments and services.”

[GoodLife]

From your link

First, it’s worth defining “defunding the police” as policymakers are debating it. Despite some opponents fear mongering with scenes from the movie “The Purge,” in which all crimes are made legal for a 12-hour period, the policy has more to do with allocating a city’s funding away from policing and more towards efforts that might reduce the need for policing, such as mental health resources, public education, or employee training programs. As House Speaker Nancy Pelosi recently summarized, “what it means is [with] the resources that we have, let us spend it in a way that gives the most protection for the American people — protection for their safety, protection for their rights.”

I don't think violent criminals tend to partake in these programs they divert police funds to

According to the most recent data from the FBI, the total crime rate in Camden is 4,671.9 per 100,000 people. That's 81.90% higher than the national rate of 2,568.4 per 100,000 people and 189.64% higher than the New Jersey total crime rate of 1,613.0 per 100,000 people.

From your link;

It’s worth noting, however, that Camden’s county police force eventually unionized after disbanding the city’s prior unionized police force, and its operating costs have soared. Camden budgeted $68.45 million for police this year, accounting for nearly a third of the city’s overall budget. An internal state analysis cited by the Philadelphia Inquirer notes that its police spending “compels the contraction of other vital city departments and services

So they have police unions again, made some feel good diversions of funds, and now their costs are soaring and still have one of the highest crime rates in New Jersey.

Good Plan

[mtdjed]

This is an example of good or bad?

With a crime rate of 47 per one thousand residents, Camden has one of the highest crime rates in America compared to all communities of all sizes - from the smallest towns to the very largest cities. One's chance of becoming a victim of either violent or property crime here is one in 21.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by GoodLife

From your link

First, it’s worth defining “defunding the police” as policymakers are debating it. Despite some opponents fear mongering with scenes from the movie “The Purge,” in which all crimes are made legal for a 12-hour period, the policy has more to do with allocating a city’s funding away from policing and more towards efforts that might reduce the need for policing, such as mental health resources, public education, or employee training programs. As House Speaker Nancy Pelosi recently summarized, “what it means is [with] the resources that we have, let us spend it in a way that gives the most protection for the American people — protection for their safety, protection for their rights.”

I don't think violent criminals tend to partake in these programs they divert police funds to

According to the most recent data from the FBI, the total crime rate in Camden is 4,671.9 per 100,000 people. That's 81.90% higher than the national rate of 2,568.4 per 100,000 people and 189.64% higher than the New Jersey total crime rate of 1,613.0 per 100,000 people.

From your link;

It’s worth noting, however, that Camden’s county police force eventually unionized after disbanding the city’s prior unionized police force, and its operating costs have soared. Camden budgeted $68.45 million for police this year, accounting for nearly a third of the city’s overall budget. An internal state analysis cited by the Philadelphia Inquirer notes that its police spending “compels the contraction of other vital city departments and services

So they have police unions again, made some feel good diversions of funds, and now their costs are soaring and still have one of the highest crime rates in New Jersey.

Good Plan

The goal is to reduce the risk that a person will BECOME a violent criminal in the first place. It isn't to stop people who are already violent criminals.

Most violent criminals have "issues" in their backgrounds that lead them to become violent criminals. It's not a goal. You don't hear Jimbob Villager's grandson say "I wanna be a violent criminal when I grow up, Pappy." You also don't hear Bobby Sue Trailermom's 14-year-old daughter say "Mama can I be a violent criminal when I get my drivers license?"

No - that doesn't happen. Something "happens" to cause people to become violent criminals. By improving education systems, social health and welfare, you increase the odds that kids will grow up to become productive members of society, and decrease the odds that they'll end up violent criminals.

This is all probability and statistics. Ask your local bookie, see what he thinks about it.

[graciegirl]

I am trying to look at all sides of this. CMN didn't link us to his source. Here is an article from NPR;

How Camden, N.J., Remade Its Police Force : Live Updates: Protests For Racial Justice : NPR

I am concerned about what will work opposed to what sounds nice. That is usually the issue that we are constantly at odds about. Yes. Yes. Yes. We want it, will it be practical, will it address the needs of real humans? Will it keep us safe or just spend more money? Or both???

[ColdNoMore]

Originally Posted by graciegirl

CMN didn't link us to his source.

Say what?

You need to go look at the post again.

P.S. It looks like this

Making a change (click here)

[GoodLife]

Originally Posted by ColdNoMore

Say what?

You need to go look at the post again.

P.S. It looks like this

Making a change (click here)

Thanks for showing us how defunding doesn't work and ends up costing more.

Very helpful

[ColdNoMore]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

The goal is to reduce the risk that a person will BECOME a violent criminal in the first place. It isn't to stop people who are already violent criminals.

Most violent criminals have "issues" in their backgrounds that lead them to become violent criminals. It's not a goal. You don't hear Jimbob Villager's grandson say "I wanna be a violent criminal when I grow up, Pappy." You also don't hear Bobby Sue Trailermom's 14-year-old daughter say "Mama can I be a violent criminal when I get my drivers license?"

No - that doesn't happen. Something "happens" to cause people to become violent criminals. By improving education systems, social health and welfare, you increase the odds that kids will grow up to become productive members of society, and decrease the odds that they'll end up violent criminals.

This is all probability and statistics. Ask your local bookie, see what he thinks about it.

You're trying to explain to people who probably thought tightening air pollution emissions on vehicles didn't work, because the first few years after they were instituted...the air was still polluted.

Never mind that 98% of the vehicles on the road were pre-emission control and that...it takes time for things to change.

Just like in my link, that was conveniently ignored, where it said...

Complaints of excessive force have come down 95% since 2014, according to the department’s own metrics, and unlike violent protests across the Delaware River in Philadelphia last week, Camden enjoyed shared, peaceful protests between police and demonstrators.

[GoodLife]

Complaints of excessive force have come down 95% since 2014, according to the department’s own metrics, and unlike violent protests across the Delaware River in Philadelphia last week, Camden enjoyed shared, peaceful protests between police and demonstrators

Honey, lets move to Camden! Police complaints are down!

[npwalters]

I'm a literal kind of guy. When a politician says they are going to "defund" the police I take the statement at face value. Maybe their goal is to shock the public so that when they come in with a plan that lowers the police budget and reallocates the funds to "social improvement programs" the sheep will just say "oh, that's MUCH better".

[graciegirl]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

The goal is to reduce the risk that a person will BECOME a violent criminal in the first place. It isn't to stop people who are already violent criminals.

Most violent criminals have "issues" in their backgrounds that lead them to become violent criminals. It's not a goal. You don't hear Jimbob Villager's grandson say "I wanna be a violent criminal when I grow up, Pappy." You also don't hear Bobby Sue Trailermom's 14-year-old daughter say "Mama can I be a violent criminal when I get my drivers license?"

No - that doesn't happen. Something "happens" to cause people to become violent criminals. By improving education systems, social health and welfare, you increase the odds that kids will grow up to become productive members of society, and decrease the odds that they'll end up violent criminals.

This is all probability and statistics. Ask your local bookie, see what he thinks about it.

That is what "they" say anyhow. I had everything going for me to go down the drain. I practically raised myself. I have had two speeding tickets in my whole life. I have had a lot of heart breaking things and scary health situations and not much money early on. We couldn't afford dance lessons or piano lessons or summer camp and we would not accept charity. I don't know. In a choice between propaganda and common sense, I will choose the latter. And I do think a lot of us are born with personalities that lead more to success than others. Now I am asking for it. P.S. I hated Hitler awfully.

[ColdNoMore]

Knowledge starts with a complete understanding...of the actual definition of a word.

Definition of "defunding." (Click Here)

defund [ dee-fuhnd ]
verb (used with object)

-to withdraw financial support from, especially as an instrument of legislative control: Many university programs were defunded by the recent government cutbacks.

-to deplete the financial resources of: The cost of the lawsuit defunded the company's operating budget.

Note that none of the examples states..."completely removing ALL financial support."




Versus the definition of..."unfunded."

UNFUNDED (Poke Here)

unfunded
[ uhn-fuhn-did ]
adjective

-not provided with a fund or money; not financed.

Hopefully, that makes things clearer...for some folks.

[mtdjed]

So what is the example here? A lot of words. Did they defund the police? If so, did anything get better? It is currently one of the most dangerous cities in the US. Your whole topic is suggesting something good happened. Sounds like a fiasco.

[npwalters]

De

prefix
1.
(forming verbs and their derivatives) down; away.
"descend"
2.
(added to verbs and their derivatives) denoting removal or reversal.
"deaerate"

[TexaninVA]

Originally Posted by ColdNoMore

From a city that recognized a problem with their police department and knew, after trying to change the "culture" many times, failed because of the power of the union...and had to do something drastic.


Making a change (click here)





Rutrow though...

Great example. As we all know, Camden is a garden spot.