This week, a grand jury decided not to press charges against Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson for shooting and killing Michael Brown, an unarmed African-American teen. The incident and ruling surrounding Ferguson have sparked racial tensions and a nationwide debate on the role that police practices have on the criminal justice system.
Dr. Nancy La Vigne is the Director of the Justice Policy Center (JPC) at the Urban Institute, where she oversees a research portfolio of more than four-dozen active projects that cover a wide array of crime, justice, and public safety topics. JPC conducts nonpartisan research and evaluation to improve justice and public safety policies and practices at the national, state, and local levels. Dr. La Vigne spoke to the Georgetown Public Policy Review about the debate on various criminal justice policies in the aftermath of the recent events in Ferguson, Missouri.
Georgetown Public Policy Review (GPPR): How do the events of Ferguson align with the research that you’ve done over the years?
Dr. Nancy La Vigne (NL):
In many respects it doesn’t align well because we know what research on best practices in policing look like, and I don’t think that Ferguson can be held up as a best practice.
We don’t yet know all that transpired with regard to the actual incident that prompted the unrest in Ferguson, so we can’t pass judgment on that. But we can certainly pass judgment on how the police responded to the public’s reaction to Michael Brown’s death. That response is not consistent with the research that we’ve done on community policing because one of the cornerstones of community policing is transparency, another is open communication, and neither one of those were evident in the aftermath of Ferguson.
GPPR: The events in Ferguson shed some light on the militarization of police forces, when local police wore militarized riot gear and went after mostly peaceful protestors there. How does the militarization of the police help or hinder routine police practices?
NL: As I understand it, many law enforcement agencies benefit from surplus military gear and equipment, which is acquired free of charge. I’ve done a lot of research on policing over the years, partnered with a lot of great agencies that are progressive, but by and large I’ve noticed that cops really love their tools and their toys, and the military gear and equipment is no different.
I’ve evaluated a number of criminal justice technologies and I’ve seen that police view technology in that same way—“Oh look at this new thing I can use”—and often times there is not the training and development of policies and procedures that really need to go along with that technology or that new tool. I think that is true also when it comes to military equipment and gear, especially because they haven’t had to invest heavily in it because much of it was given to them for free or at a reduced rate as surplus. Since money is not an issue, there’s less of an impetus to develop guidelines behind its use so then it gets used in perhaps the wrong occasions and contexts. And it can also get misused or overused as we saw in Ferguson.
GPPR: The events in Ferguson shed light on the importance of a responsive and representative police force that addresses the safety needs of a community. What effect have community oriented policing policies had on the crime rate?
NL: That is a question that I don’t think anyone has answered with any kind of confidence. It’s very hard to attribute changes in crime to any one thing, including something as nebulous as community policing.
Community policing means different things to different people. It was developed to be an agency-wide approach to interacting with the public, but in far too many agencies it has been relegated to the “Community Policing Unit” that is just one piece of a larger agency. The officers that are assigned to that unit often volunteer and sadly, many are viewed by their peers as “social worker cops” not “real cops”. So, to think that community policing is reducing the crime rate—it is hard to fathom how that would be, especially since, there are so many intervening factors. I would say that in general it doesn’t but, implemented comprehensively, it could.
GPPR: Another occurrence that was revealed by Ferguson was that St. Louis County courts charge high court’s fines and fees on non-violent offenses like traffic violations—and then arrest people when they don’t pay. For instance, last year, the municipal court in Ferguson—a city of 21,135 people—issued 32,975 arrest warrants for nonviolent offenses, mostly driving violations. Is this a common practice throughout the country, and how can this problem be addressed so that such minor nonviolent offenses do not increase the crime rate?
NL: This is a really good question. I’m very interested in the use of fees and fines as another form of what ultimately amounts to correctional control in this country—and we do not know a lot about this. We see this also in supervision fees—people who are supervised, on probation, diverted from prison on electronic monitoring—also have to pay for that “privilege”, so to speak. By and large, I think the vast majority don’t pay or don’t pay in full.
So then the question is, “what happens?” In the context of community supervision, we talk about graduated sanctions, so that if people fail to meet the requirements of supervision including failure to pay, they don’t just automatically go into jail or prison, but that there are other things that could happen leading up to that.
The case of fees and fines is a thornier topic that demands creative solutions. In one jurisdiction they are looking at people who have had their license revoked (for not paying moving violations fines) and have reached out to those who are delinquent, inviting them to attend a workshop on a Saturday afternoon for 2 hours. Upon completion they get their license back and are clear of all the debt associated with that [violation]. They developed this program after seeing how much it was driving the jail population and putting the wrong people behind bars.
GPPR: One of the suggestions following the recent events in Ferguson has been greater surveillance of cops, via body cameras or other surveillance cameras while they are on the beat. Does research support the stance that public surveillance cameras are helpful in monitoring and promoting responsible police behavior?
NL: The research on surveillance cameras does not shed light on whether that type of surveillance changes the actions of police themselves.
But when it comes to body cameras, I think there is a good argument to be made that [cameras] change both the officer’s behavior and the behavior of the person that they are interacting with in the community. Some early research on police use of body cameras has found that “yes, use of force goes down and yes, arrests go down when police are wearing body cameras, but so do citizens’ complaints against officers.” So the technology creates an incentive on the part of both parties to follow the law and behave well.
GPPR: Do you think it has been a factor in terms of the crime rate? I think you had been involved in some research that looked at Washington DC, Baltimore, and another city with regards to surveillance cameras.
NL: Surveillance cameras, in general, have been found to be effective in certain contexts. They work when they are deployed in sufficient numbers in high-crime areas, when they are well integrated into community policing and other law enforcement activities, and when they are monitored by staff who can dispatch officers to intervene during crimes in progress. When cameras are used in that way, they actually have a pretty considerable impact on crime, and one that is cost beneficial.
GPPR: Do you think that justice reinvestment—a data-driven approach to criminal justice policy—will get greater funding and support as police forces throughout the country try to do their jobs with less funding?
NL: Justice reinvestment is really designed to stem the tide of mass incarceration in this country. The goal is to use data to better understand who is currently going to prison, for how long, why, when they get out, who ends up returning, and [how come]. It uses that data to discern who really needs to be behind bars, who presents a true danger to society, and who could be safely served in the community. With those decisions comes the potential to do two things: first, free up overcrowded prisons and ensure that there is space for people who really do pose a threat to public safety; and second, reduce the size of the prison and jail population to the extent that you are saving money.
Where the term justice reinvestment comes in is, “What do you do with that money?” You reinvest it. You could reinvest it in any number of ways. Largely what we have seen across the country is a reinvestment in better and more evidence-based practices, services, programs, etc. We haven’t seen much of it reinvested in policing—we could, although that is dangerous territory because you run the risk of giving more resources to the police and if it is just more resources without any guidance, that could mean more officers to arrest more people, feeding the prison system all over again.
So you’d want to do it in a way that is really thoughtful, with the resources invested and the police working more with high crime communities, communicating more with communities of color, engaging in racial reconciliation and all the good things that come with it. That would be positive reinvestment.
GPPR: Ferguson exposed the tension and mistrust that locals have for the police. Are there areas of common ground or mutually beneficial policies that you think could bring these two communities together?
NL: Yes, intensive stop-and-frisk and hotspot policing are two strategies that have been used to reduce crime in high crime communities where there is a lot of violence and gun use. Both practices, I think, create challenges for community members who feel like they are under siege. But at the same time, there is common ground there because both the police and the residents want to see the violence reduced.
So I think that there are some sound strategies that come into play. A lot harken back to the original principles of community policing: an open and transparent dialogue between law enforcement and community members about the nature of the crime problem where they are residing, the tools that officers have at their disposal to address it, and ways that they can use those tools and those strategies to reduce crime in a way that is also respectful of citizens’ rights. It must be procedurally just, supported by the law, and have the buy-in of those community members based on an ongoing and open conversation.
About Dr. Nancy La Vigne
Dr. Nancy La Vigne is the Director of the Justice Policy Center at the Urban Institute and conducts research on the topics of prisoner reentry, crime prevention, and the evaluation of criminal justice technologies for over a decade. Prior to joining Urban she worked for six years at the National Institute of Justice, the research arm of the U.S. Department of Justice. Her research interests focus on criminal justice evaluation, prisoner reentry, crime prevention, and the spatial analysis of crime and criminal behavior.
This interview was conducted by Aida Misailidis in-person at the Urban Institute in Washington, D.C. on November 4, 2014.
Aida Misailidis is a 2nd year MPP student at the McCourt School of Public Policy, and an Associate Interview Editor on the Georgetown Public Policy Review staff. Aida received her Bachelor's degree in Government from the University of Virginia, and her policy interests include international development, education policy, and social policy.
This is a very interesting article. Question: As the detention economy becomes horizontal versus vertical, do you believe that a security state is not only inevitable but also necessary?