Police don’t impact crime and public safety as much as we believe

Okay, let’s talk facts. Do you want to be told a narrative or do you want to be told the truth? Do you want to know what really happened or do you want to know somebody’s false version of it? Would you like your tax dollars to go to what actually solves a problem, not going to what creates one? Let’s talk about the difference between policing and public safety.
I interviewed a police officer just a few days ago and I posed that question to him. I said, “Do you see a distinction between policing and public safety in the United States of America?” This man told me that policing and public safety are one in the same. How? How can policing and public safety be the exact same thing? Well police officers will say they’re not trained to handle certain issues that may adversely impact public safety. For example, responding to a person that may have a mental health disorder. You see, that person should not be treated like a criminal; they are in fact, a patient. And they should be treated as such.
But police officers will say they don’t have the proper training. Well, that’s a public safety dynamic, right? Let’s understand what these two are. You see, public safety is the overall goal. Your goal is to get to a place where the public can be safe. That’s your public safety model. That’s your goal. Policing is one avenue in that model. That’s one way to get there. But there are many ways you can get to better public safety.
For example, investing into programs that prevent crime. Let’s go over the numbers with policing in America. Police solve roughly 2%, a little less, of actual crimes. Police really don’t stop crime; they are reactionary agents by design. But there are some stats that show for every new cop a city hires, they effectively decreased their crime rate by 0.01%. Yeah, less than 1%. Those are numbers, those are facts, I encourage you to look them up for what it means for your local community.
Let’s talk about things that actually do work. CVI’s, CVI’s, Community Based Violence Intervention programs. These programs work. Let me give you some examples. Homicides or non-fatal shootings have been reduced by as much as 60% in areas where group violence intervention models have been implemented. That’s a big number. Let me give you more. Cities like Baltimore, New York, Philadelphia, Chicago, have each implemented a Cure Violence Program, and they have seen more than 30% reductions in shootings and killings from these programs. Oakland, California, CVI programs have helped reduce the city’s gun violence by half over a seven-year period. There’s more.
Chicago’s Cred program, which combines street outreach, coaching, which is mentoring, counseling, which is therapy, and workforce, which is a job. Okay. These are advocacy programs basically that advocate for the individual and provides wraparound services. They saw a 50%, 50% reduction in gunshot injuries among its participants in only 18 months of implementation. These stats are much better than a police officer’s ability to stop or decrease crime.
So the question is, why are we having the debate? Let’s be very clear. Public safety is your goal once again. Police well, they are part of that method to reach your goal. CVI programs are wholly underfunded, under resourced; they’re not sexy. Politicians don’t really talk about them. The numbers can get complex. Programming can be let’s say, it could take some time. But it’s worth it. Because the end result is a safer community. Which by the way, is what public safety is about.