- The strategic deployment of large numbers of police officers in high-crime communities is an effective, efficient, and humane way to deter crime and promote public safety
- Unfortunately, the communities that are most in need of this kind of intensive policing are often the least able to afford it
- To solve North Carolina’s crime problem, therefore, we must find a way to provide supplemental police funding for high-crime, low-income communities
In Part One of this series, I confirmed that North Carolina does indeed have a crime problem. I noted that crime rates rose dramatically between 2018 and 2021 and that clearance rates declined equally dramatically over the same period. Using Cary and Fayetteville as examples, I pointed out in Part Two that the burden of crime tends to fall disproportionately on the residents of low-income communities.
All of that was bad news, but in Part Three was able to report some good news as well:
Research has consistently found that police presence deters criminal conduct. … [Moreover,] intensive community policing, i.e., the strategic deployment of large numbers of well-paid, well-trained, and well-managed police officers … in high-crime neighborhoods … has been found to be extremely cost-effective.
Given these facts, the solution to North Carolina’s crime problem might appear to be straightforward. Cities like Fayetteville should simply hire more police officers and deploy them in high-crime neighborhoods.
Unfortunately, that solution isn’t feasible. With a median household income of $125,000 and an average house value of $623,359, Cary could easily afford to hire more police officers, but Cary doesn’t need them. Fayetteville, on the other hand, is badly in need of more police officers, but with a median household income of only $57,000 and average house value of only $213,594, it can barely afford to maintain its current inadequate level of staffing.
Fayetteville, moreover, is not alone. Throughout the state, crime tends to be highest precisely where income levels and property values are lowest. Solving North Carolina’s crime problem, therefore, will require supplemental state funding for police protection in high-crime, low-income communities. Fortunately, we already know a lot about how to provide state funding for local public services because the state has been funding public schools in North Carolina for years.
Before the onset of the Great Depression, public school funding in North Carolina was primarily the province of local governments. Beginning in the 1930s, however, the state began to take on a significant share of school funding because low-income, low–tax base counties could not afford to provide an adequate level of educational services on their own. Today, 60 percent of public-school funding is provided by the state, and public-school funding is the largest item in the state budget. All these things show that state funding for local public services is feasible.
At the same time, the enormous growth in public-school spending levels and the fact that so much of that growth has gone — not to teacher pay, but to administrative bloat — should be a warning. When it comes to supplemental police funding, we must take steps to ensure that the money is used not to fund more administrators, but instead to put more police officers on the streets.
Approximately 17 percent of public-school funding in North Carolina comes from federal grants. Despite the appeal of shifting costs to out-of-state taxpayers, this is not a precedent to follow. Federal funding invariably comes with regulatory strings attached. These include administrative requirements that divert money and attention from where they are needed and often do more harm than good. Indeed, overreliance on federal funding probably accounts for much of the administrative bloat in public schools.
In a recent report, my colleagues Bob Luebke and Kaitlyn Shepherd point out some additional problems with the current school funding system, including that it has become far too complex and that it lacks transparency, accountability, and flexibility. Drawing on best practices from other states, they also suggest how those problems might be solved or ameliorated. Any system for supplemental police funding should take these findings and recommendations into consideration.
Finding the money to pay for it is no doubt the biggest problem standing in the way of supplemental police funding, but it shouldn’t be. If North Carolina can afford to commit $500 million to a wildly speculative attempt at state-funded venture capitalism like NCInnovation, it can surely afford to spend a fraction of that amount on a proven method for protecting public safety.
The tax windfall created by the recent authorization of online gambling could provide an easy way to do it. As my colleague Joe Harris reports in a recent research brief, the tax on online gambling is bringing in much more revenue than expected. According to his analysis, by the end of the year online gambling may generate about $188 million in tax revenue. A little over half of that has been earmarked for specific uses, but the remainder, approximately $90 million, could be used for supplemental police funding, which is enough to make a big difference.
Currently, the starting salary for new police officers in Fayetteville is $50,550. Taking training, benefits, equipment, and administrative overhead into consideration, the total cost of deploying an additional officer in Fayetteville is probably around $100,000. At that rate, just ten percent of discretionary online gambling revenue could pay for 90 new police officers in Fayetteville, increasing the size of the force by more than 20 percent. The findings of studies cited in previous installments suggest that that increase could substantially reduce the general level of crime and cut the murder rate in half. Those changes alone would greatly improve the quality of life and the economic prospects for everyone who lives in Fayetteville. Taking all the long-term effects into consideration, the total economic benefits would probably be worth something like $5 million.
Under the North Carolina State Constitution, the General Assembly has a duty to ensure that North Carolinians are provided with free public schools. Arguably, however, it has an even more fundamental duty to ensure that North Carolinians are provided with effective police protection. Supplemental police funding for high-crime, low-income communities would be a good way for the General Assembly to fulfill that duty. And it would also be a great investment.
For more information about this topic, see:
Solving North Carolina’s Crime Problem: Part One
Solving North Carolina’s Crime Problem: Part Two
Solving North Carolina’s Crime Problem: Part Three
Intensive Community Policing Can Save the Lives of Black Children
Black Lives Matter — Which Is Why We Need More Police Funding, Not Less
The Late 20th Century Crime Wave Was a Disaster for Blacks and the Poor
How America Ended Up Underpoliced and Overincarcerated
“Broken Windows Policing”: Good Policy, Bad Name
What Does Intensive Community Policing Entail?
Despite the Timing, Intensive Community Policing Should Have Wide Appeal
Prominent leftist suddenly sees that violence is bad, but for the wrong reason
