The Possibility of Defunding the Police
August 2020 | Oskar Perez, Staff Writer/Editor
On May 25, 2020, the world witnessed the murder of George Floyd by a police officer. The world wanted justice, but the police did nothing. Soon, people took to the streets all across the country demanding justice for Floyd. However, when the government finally decided to act, their actions felt underwhelming. The people deserved more. Floyd deserved more. Now the narrative has changed, and people want a change in how policing is structured altogether. This change ushers the possibility of defunding the police, which aims to move funds away from the police and into the community.[1] There are many arguments about whether defunding the police can prove to be beneficial; however, the main concern is who would take on the responsibility – the state or the Federal government – toward reforming the police. To defund the police, citizens cannot rely on the Federal government to set a national standard. Instead, they should advocate for the needs of their communities to local and state government officials, since the source of funding mostly comes from communities. Likewise, it would be unconstitutional for the Federal government to set a national standard on policing.
The majority of police funding is sourced from state and local governments with the Federal government contributing a very small amount for policing. However, there is variation between state to state and county to county due to the services each government provides and the needs of the community. For instance, in 2017 Clark County, Nevada spent 15 percent of its budget on police while Las Vegas spent less than 2 percent. But in Cook County, Illinois only 2 percent of its budget was spent on police while Chicago city spent 20 percent of its budget.[2] Since the majority of police funding is apportioned by states and local governments, this is significant enough to make them responsible for police defunding -- not the Federal government. Only the state and local government will know what to budget. As Richard C. Auxier from Urban Institute explains, “what a government spends on police (or any other service) depends in large part on a complex set of demographic, economic, and fiscal conditions in those jurisdictions.”[3] Auxier explains how one state might spend more on policing since the cost of living varies from state to state. For instance, the state of New York might pay their officers more compared in Kentucky, since the cost of living is higher in New York.
To defund the police, activists and policymakers need to understand where the money goes and if the budget should be allocated elsewhere to benefit the community. This is essentially the first step to defund the police, “reducing police spending can free up millions of dollars for other services,”[4] ones that help communities to grow and thrive. These community investments would reduce police officers acting out of their job description and training since these services would include job training, counseling, and violence-prevention programs. Investment in such services would bring in skilled professionals who are trained to support people who have a mental health episode.[5] At the end of the day, it would be up to the state and local governments to allocate the correct amount of funds to police departments and to services that nourish communities. Activists and policymakers need to understand where funds can be used beneficially if they wish to defund the police.
Ultimately, it would be unconstitutional for the Federal government to set a national standard on policing. The 10th amendment states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people,” further holding state and local governments accountable for police defunding. For example, the 2001 No Child Left Behind Act attempted to establish new Federal oversight and set standards for education; however, right away the act proved to be flawed.[6] Not only was the Federal oversight unconstitutional, but the flaws within the act were apparent when the standards did not consider the differences between student populations. This same reasoning can be applied to police standards if there were Federal oversight on policing; the act would fail to consider the differences between police populations. Again, only state and local governments would be able to understand what communities need and where funding will prove to be beneficial.
There are critics against the notion that state and local governments are responsible for defunding or abolishing the police. For instance, Congress can distribute funds as grants to state and local governments for their implementation of policy, which is how the Federal government can regulate and standardize law enforcement.[7] This counters the responsibility of state and local government on police defunding since the Federal government can also have a responsibility for defunding the police through existing funding programs. The Federal government can appropriate funds to police departments who participate in data collection. For example, grants require specific data from law enforcement agencies to qualify. The data collection will give the Federal government analysis of police use of force, which could incentivize police departments to adopt national standards since law enforcement agencies would want to comply with the data to receive funding. This could ensure law enforcement agencies adopt practices and standards that prevent the abuse of power and ensure compliance with civil rights requirements.[8] Federal funding could shift the burden away from state and local governments when budgeting and it could indirectly control police standards by incentivizing police departments to adopt practices and national standards, which is still constitutional. Even though this strategy to set a national standard is constitutional, it still proves to be flawed. Again, there is a complex difference of demographic, economic, and fiscal conditions from state to state and county to county; therefore, a national standard will benefit certain communities, but it might hinder others.
This paper is not an argument of why the police should be defunded, but on who should defund the police. Since it would be unconstitutional for the Federal government to set a national standard on policing and the source of funding mostly comes from communities, defunding the police should be done through the state and local governments. The state and local governments hold the power to defund the police with the Constitution, funding, and community differences. But citizens also have a responsibility. Instead of criticizing the Federal government for a lack of action, citizens could lobby their state and local government for change, and help local officials understand what would benefit their community. Most importantly, citizens should realize how the future is in their hands to change the current landscape of police brutality in the United States, and that it is possible to defund the police.
Sources
Annie Lowrey. Defund the Police (Boston: The Atlantic, 2020).
Richard C. Auxier. What Police Spending Data Can (and Cannot) Explain amid Calls to Defund the Police (Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute, 2020).
Ibid.
Ibid.
Paige Fernandez. Defunding the Police Will Actually Make Us Safer (New York: American Civil Liberties Union, 2020).
Brendan Pelsue. When it Comes to Education, the Federal Government is in Charge of ... Um, What? (Cambridge: Harvard Ed News, 2017).
Ibid.
Charles Ramsey and Laurie Robinson. Final Report of the President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing (Washington, D.C: Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, 2015).