As someone who was in law enforcement for over 23 years, I’ve personally seen the ebbs and flows of reform movements. The past few years heightened the feelings people already had about government funding for police. People on both sides of the spectrum felt empowered to speak up and use their voices, creating a much louder divide amplified on social media. Suddenly, the topic of defunding the police became highly polarized in the midst of a global crisis where emotions were already strained. Negative historical context and a continuous news cycle showcasing an apparent lack of repercussions for officers acting inappropriately became a breaking point. In 2020, law enforcement agencies suddenly found themselves in an unimaginable position: having to justify their very existence. There is always room for improvement to build positive relationships between law enforcement and their communities. Now, let’s dive into the current defunding of the police reform movement, its repercussions and the case for refunding the police.
Inside the Defund the Police movement
When the news of George Floyd's death broke, I - along with so many other law enforcement officers - was struck by the tragedy. Even the most ardent supporters of the police recognized the mishandling of the incident. Communities with historically negative relationships with the police were galvanized in their movement to defund and reform. Coupled with the pandemic, and the lockdowns and restrictions that followed, the frustration level was at an all-time high against law enforcement and governmental action, in general.
The pushback against the police could be traced back to many things. The public attitudes and sentiment towards law enforcement were understandable based on experiences deeply affecting peoples’ lives and how they were viewed in society. In response, people saw that the only way to truly change law enforcement was to reduce or eliminate their budgets.
The pros and cons of reform
What “Defund the Police” meant depended on the area of the country you were in, and who you were asking at the time. Many political leaders joined the “Defund the Police” rallying cry and issued several reformative measures in response. The options ranged from re-allocating law enforcement funds to other programs (such as Behavioral Health Units) to the complete disbanding of police agencies altogether. Some of these initiatives included banning or curtailing less-lethal weapons and techniques that were designed to allow law enforcement from having to use deadly force in the first place. Officer positions and training budgets were cut and School Resource Officer (SRO) programs were eliminated. New laws severely limited how or when the police could contact individuals.
Additionally, many law enforcement agencies have had to re-examine their relationship with the communities they serve, and recognize it is important to constantly foster those positive relationships, or work to improve the ones that are not so positive, rather than take for granted that the goodwill will always be there. Pushes for a different response model, utilizing unarmed, civilian therapists and mental health professionals as first contact have been very successful in many places. These efforts appear to have reduced the use of force and injuries in homeless populations in conjunction with mental illness and those with addiction issues.
However, as some communities pushed for even more change, and city councils or state legislatures responded with further cuts to police budgets or restricting even more police action, the public sentiment and pushback started to grow stronger. A perceived rise in violent crime in many cities, coupled with an election year, allowed the issue of “supporting the police” and “pro crime reduction” to become hotbed political issues.
People grew tired of seeing what looked to be a general lack of respect for law and order, and associated these concerns with the “defunding the police” calls from the previous three years. Communities raised their concerns, loudly, and suddenly political leaders who were big supporters of the “Defund the Police” movement were now either “adjusting” their message or totally changing to “Refund the Police”.
In defense of refunding
As the “refunding” process starts, the focus should be on how to do just that. Training on topics such as procedural justice, de-escalation, and improved decision making should be supported by department leadership. These ideals are designed to build a dialogue between police and their citizens and should be implemented regularly. Additionally, during a time of increased retirements and a talent shortage, this can improve recruitment and retention with an eye toward cultural awareness and mutual respect.
Law enforcement officers are a necessary part of society, and now we are seeing people recognize and acknowledge the importance of their roles. Officers are trained to respond to dangerous, dynamic situations that civilians are otherwise unequipped or unwilling to handle. At the same time, we must always strive to improve when it comes to law enforcement agencies building positive relationships within their communities and fostering a high sense of police legitimacy and procedural justice.
Since the creation of law enforcement, officers have stood as a modern representation of civil responsibility. Sir Robert Peel, the father of modern policing, preached that people are the police, and the police are the people. Police are authority figures, but they are also members of the society in which they serve and protect. The answer to refunding the police movement is to build transparent and accountable relationships with the police, not to eliminate their roles completely.
About the Author
Doug Kazensky is a former police training sergeant and officer of 24-plus years and Solutions Engineer at Vector Solutions. After proudly serving in the United States Air Force as a member of the Security Police, he joined the Longview Police Department in Washington in Dec, 1997. He served in patrol, as a School Resource Officer (SRO), and as a detective specializing in fraud and computer crimes. I was as a: Field Training Officer, EVOC Instructor, Below100 Instructor, and a Firearms Instructor. He was promoted to Sergeant in 2011, and from Jan, 2015 to Jan, 2021, he had the pleasure of serving as the department's Training Sergeant and Community Services Unit Sergeant.
