Media Center

Cracking Down on Crime

Let’s face it: many people who admire Detroit’s best residential areas – full of well-built, historic homes clustered on cozy, tree-lined streets – wouldn’t dream of living in the city, because of the real threat of crime.  Detroiters are defensive about this issue, because the perception, and our reputation as a crime-ridden city, is much worse than the reality. 

But in lots of neighborhoods, the reality can be pretty rough.   Few Detroit residents of low-income urban neighborhoods feel safe in their own neighborhoods and homes.  Most people in tough neighborhoods keep focused on their work and their families and have little contact with neighbors.  They use double and triple locks on their doors; they use The Club or a similar steering-wheel lock in their car; they own a dog that means business; and they watch their backs.

The horrific outbreak of homicides Detroit saw in 2004 – 384 with many multiple-death weekends – has shocked and disturbed Detroit residents and non-residents alike.   Despite traditional tendencies to sensationalize, the local news media have placed appropriate focus on this civic crisis, with Detroit Police Chief Ella Bully-Cummings finding herself in the spotlight most of the time. 

Chief Bully-Cummings is certainly a central figure in our fight against crime, but leadership on the issue of public safety must start at the top, with the mayor.  While it is true there is little anyone can do to stop an unstable person from pulling a gun on innocent people at home or in public – the mayor can set the tone on public safety for the entire city and the entire region.  Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick’s habit of going it alone, blatantly ignoring good advice and best practices, is hurting Detroit’s ability to become a safer, saner city. 

The record shows that a coordinated effort of national, state and local government, community groups, businesses and nonprofit agencies can have a tremendous impact on reducing big-city crime.  The record also shows that unless Detroit takes the offensive against crime and increases public confidence in the city’s safety, negative media coverage of the city will escalate nationally and internationally.  And with constant bad press, we cannot attract new residents, retain current residents, bring new development to Detroit, or make significant progress on other significant fronts.

I’d like us to take a closer look at how the application of partnership principles have worked to turn the crime situation around in Detroit’s past, and how they have made a difference in other urban areas around the nation.  From there, we can discuss how to build on those successes to produce a safer city, beginning now. 

Neighborhood Partnerships in Action

A close working relationship between the community and the police has always been the key to effective crime reduction. You’ll see differences in the crime rates in neighborhoods that have strong block club organizations in comparison with neighborhoods that don’t have such organizations.

During Halloween the entire city of Detroit is on alert, and many of us patrol our streets to guard against arsonists and other troublemakers.  One doesn’t have to have a long memory to recall the effectiveness of initiatives such as Mayor Coleman Young’s Eyes and Ears program in the 1980s and Mayor Dennis Archer’s Safe Streets program in the 1990s.  In both cases, Detroit’s mayor responded to an alarming spike in crime by energizing the entire community to fight back.  With the Safe Streets effort, parents walked their children to and from bus stops and school buildings; businesses put their private security forces on duty in the early morning and afternoon; adults throughout neighborhoods kept watch as street patrollers and sentries through the windows of their homes and storefronts.  As a result, violent attacks on Detroit students traveling to and from school dropped dramatically.  Key to the success of these initiatives is the simple fact that criminals are unlikely to act if they think someone is watching.  An atmosphere of “no tolerance” prevailed against all neighborhood crime.

But such efforts tend to fade over time, and eventually end unless they are institutionalized, as a Chicago Tribune editorial on Chicago homicides pointed out in July 2004.  What works, the Tribune noted, is civic cooperation carried out over a long period of time.  The Tribune reported that Chicago is seeing a significant drop in murder because local and federal law enforcement officials are working together and with community groups to bring down gang leaders.  At the same time, under a Chicago Police program called Project Safe Neighborhood, former prisoners on parole attend neighborhood sessions where they learn about job-training opportunities.  As the mayor of Detroit works on crime policy with the Michigan legislature, he or she should make sure that outdated laws that limit the work options of former inmates are changed so that it’s possible for them to secure a meaningful livelihood. 

Similarly, cooperative relationships in Boston have allowed authorities to steer young people who were flirting with trouble in more productive directions.  In the 2003 book on urban redevelopment, House-by-House, Block-by-Block, author Alex von Hoffman describes the revival of two of Boston’s toughest districts, Roxbury and Dorchester.  Von Hoffman details how law enforcement officials, with community support, were able to break the most violent youth gangs in Boston’s Dorchester district by the end of 1996 – sending their leaders to non-parole sentences in federal prisons.  Beginning in the 1980s, Bostonians formed hundreds of crime patrols to keep tabs on the streets as the drug problem escalated and homicide became a major cause of death for young people. Neighborhood groups and the police began to work together and drug-related deaths among youths began to decline.

After a campaign of more than a decade, young criminals got the message that the people and the police would not tolerate their violent behavior.  Boston’s drug-related crime wave came to an end.

Churches were also instrumental in the effort.  Von Hoffman and other authors point to the formation of the Ten Point Coalition by Eugene Rivers and other African-American ministers in 1992 as one of Boston’s turning points.  The fundamental work of the Ten Point Coalition was to patrol the streets in troubled neighborhoods at night.  The ministerial group began regular communication with the Boston police at a time when the force was under attack for its over-aggressive tactics in pursuit of young, black suspects.  Both sides recognized they needed each other.  In time, the ministers and their congregations were able to lead police and federal law enforcement agencies to arrests of the most dangerous young thugs.

While I personally believe that street patrolling is not the proper role for Detroit’s churches – they can have a much bigger impact in other areas, as I note in another chapter -- there is no reason Detroit should not enjoy the benefits of a close crime-fighting relationship between the community and police.  We need a long-term alliance that keeps our churches and community groups actively involved in the work of local precincts.  Detroit’s mayor should publicly commend our most effective individuals and groups on a monthly or quarterly basis.  Local businesses should be willing to support a citizens reward program by donating money or products, since they are among the largest beneficiaries of crime reduction. 

Zero Tolerance

Most observers agree that one of the keys to the crime reduction seen in major cities during the 1990s was a strategy introduced in Boston, New York and Los Angeles by current L.A. Police Chief William J. Bratton.  The principle behind “zero tolerance” is the wisdom of preventing crime rather than reacting to crime.  It is also predicated on the idea that by cracking down relentlessly on minor crimes you can prevent the major crimes. The zero tolerance doctrine gave inspiration and momentum to the effective community-police partnerships we saw in the last decade.

Zero tolerance law enforcement is based on what is sometimes called the “broken windows” theory.  This theory, articulated by authors George Kelling and Catherine M. Coles in their 1996 book, Fixing Broken Windows, holds that social breakdown (or its opposite) stems largely from what people see around them everyday.  If what they see are abandoned houses, broken windows, graffiti-covered walls and the like, the result is a public perception of danger and disorder that actually becomes the reality.  The thinking is that when people perceive that blight and litter are tolerated and that no one in authority is watching, then those on the margins of unacceptable behavior will feel emboldened to act out.  A visitor to the area sees no reason not to drop litter on the sidewalk.  The angry, anti-social resident crosses the line and throws a punch; the drug user tries mugging; rowdy teenagers torch an abandoned home; and the neighborhood continues its downward slide.

The converse is also true.  Small improvements in the look and feel of a neighborhood can have a major, positive impact on what actually goes on there.  Working from this idea, New York saw a dramatic reduction in crime during the 1990s as police cracked down – not on major crimes, but on so called quality-of-life crimes like subway turnstile-hopping, jaywalking and public drinking.  As Malcolm Gladwell documents in his best-selling book, The Tipping Point, giving people summonses to court for petty offenses often led to arrests for more serious crimes because – no big surprise – the person who will hop a turnstile is often the very same person who will sell drugs or commit a robbery.  The cumulative effect was that dangerous criminals were taken off the streets and citizens began to perceive that police were not putting up with a chaotic, “anything goes” atmosphere in the city.  New York City – dangerous New York City – suddenly started feeling like a secure place where the high standards set by police quickly caused citizens to have a growing pride in their neighborhoods and a lower tolerance for anti-social behavior. 

In a similar vein, through the 1990s, New York’s transit authority adopted a “clean fleet” policy for the city’s infamous graffiti-covered subway cars.  Graffiti painters were motivated in no small degree by the triumph of seeing their handiwork in public view as people rode the trains.  The powers that be in New York decided that no car would leave the train yard if it was not graffiti free.  For a while, vandals still snuck into the yards to paint the cars, but transit workers would be right behind them with chemicals and scrub-brushes.  Gladwell noted that some of the “artists” literally wept to see their creations destroyed before their eyes.  But the result was to completely remove the motivation for these people to continue vandalizing subway cars.  Today, a ride on the New York City subway is reminiscent of the London Underground: it may be crowded, but you’ll have a safe, civilized ride on a clean, air-conditioned train.

In New York the ongoing fight against quality-of-life crimes has been coupled with new initiatives like Operation Spotlight, which seeks to ensure that repeat misdemeanor offenders serve meaningful prison sentences.  As a result, New York has seen its crime rate drop even further.  Out of the nation’s 10 largest cities ranked by the FBI’s Total Crime Index, in 2004 New York City ranked 10^th, making it one of the safest large cities in America.  Detroit, by contrast, ranked second in total crime.

Getting Aggressive in Detroit

Detroit should take heart from these examples.  But as we contemplate how we might launch our own “zero tolerance” war on crime, we must acknowledge that past abuses by some Detroit police units – such as the STRESS units of the late 1960s – have kept city government and Detroit residents ambivalent about going all-out to fight neighborhood thugs and shut down criminal activity.  The ongoing U.S. Justice Department investigation and oversight of how the Detroit Police Department handles suspects is a reminder of the risk of being too aggressive.  The City initiated the Justice Department’s review of our Police Department in Sept. 2000 as a result of individual lawsuits against the City’s alleged police brutality.

Yet, Detroit has to take action to give neighborhood crime a real body blow.  We need our own no-tolerance strategy that will attack the most serious crimes we face and keep the pressure on.  The strategy also must put teeth in existing ordinances against graffiti, jaywalking, littering, loud music, public drinking, etc.  To do that effectively, we need to mobilize neighborhood groups and get our police officers out of their car seats and onto their feet on the streets.

We know that major crimes in Detroit are tied to guns and drugs.  Guns are at the root of seven crime categories: aggravated battery, homicide, home invasion, carjacking, assault, rape and robbery.  In many cases drugs are implicated in those seven categories.             

A Narcotics Unit and a Gang Squad were created by the Detroit Police Department several years ago so that officers could affectively attack guns and drugs and have a profound impact on crime in our city.   Those specialty units have been significantly scaled back under the current administration, and we’ve lost good quality people in those ranks in the last few years, either by being sent to the precincts or through retirement.            

Patrol cars driving up and down the street doesn’t get to the root of the big problems in our neighborhoods.  There has got to be a rapid response involved in shutting down the drug houses.  Drug raids need to take place on a nightly basis, or as often as it takes.  When a drug dealer is running, he or she is not dealing.  When you relax the drug team, these thugs lock into a community, start warring against other factions, and citizens get caught in the crossfire. When your narcotics team is bolstered up to the highest levels – 300 to 400 – and kicking down doors three to four nights a week, these drug criminals start scrambling.

Our declaration of war against crime might target specific crimes that are creating havoc and hardship in our neighborhoods.  Let’s say we declare war on the crime of breaking-and-entering, a crime that rarely causes bodily harm, but always causes serious damage to citizens’ morale and sense of security.  One part of our strategy should include regular, detailed updates from police to block clubs on security measures that will discourage break-ins.  Another aspect of our strategy might involve going back to etching identification onto valuable property, a practice that was big in the 1980s. A citizen could go to a police mini-station and have his license number, serial number or some other identification number etched into his valuables so that his property could be recovered in the event of theft.    Police mini-stations need to make a comeback.

One sure way to reduce crime is to give young people a reason not to be on the streets doing things that get them in trouble.  Detroit should get back to having a Summer Youth Employment Program for youth ages 14-17 nine months out of the year, from the week school is out in June through August. Such a program could employ 10,000 youth in the first year and every year thereafter.  It would teach them career skills while they are earning $6 to $10 an hour, working at least 20 hours a week.

A youth employment program would not have to cost the city a dime, while it could provide important life skills to thousands of Detroit’s young people.  What we need to make the program work is a strong mayor who understands the power of forming public/private partnerships that will benefit Detroiters, a leader who will leverage contributions from city contractors and vendors and other businesses across the region to create summer job opportunities jobs for Detroit’s youth.  

Detroit can learn a lot from a city like Chicago where 1,200 police patrol cars are being equipped with high-speed, wireless portable data terminals that enable officers to send and receive crime information rapidly and accurately without leaving their vehicles.    According to Chicago’s Mayor Daley, “When police arrest someone, they will immediately be able to check his identity, criminal history and outstanding arrest warrants.  They can look for unsolved crimes in the neighborhood that match his method of operation.”   The technology lets police officers enter case reports into the system from their vehicles, allowing them to spend less time on paperwork and more time serving and protecting the people of Chicago.  The project is funded by a $9 million grant from the federal Department of Homeland Security.

Another Chicago Police Department program, Operation Disruption, is driving away “gang-bangers” and making neighborhood residents and business owners feel a lot safer.  In December 2004 the first of 50 new surveillance cameras equipped with gunshot detection technology were installed.  Eighteen months earlier 30 surveillance cameras were installed and have now been equipped with the gunshot detection technology.  Cameras are placed in areas based on data and intelligence generated through the Police Department’s Deployment Operations Center.   The cameras can be moved quickly, based on narcotics activity, intelligence about gang rivalries, violent crime incidents and community input.  In the first seven months after the initial 30 cameras were installed, narcotics-related calls dropped 76 percent in the immediate area of the cameras.  Serious crime fell 17 percent in those areas, and “quality of life” criminal incidents fell 46 percent.  The total cost of the expansion and technological upgrades is approximately $2.8 million and is funded entirely through asset forfeiture money seized from drug dealers.    

Strategies for Greater Community Involvement

Previously mentioned examples from other cities demonstrate that stronger partnerships between police and neighborhoods are what will really make the difference in a zero-tolerance war on crime.  Detroit police, working with community groups, long-time residents and street contacts, can discourage the schemes of criminals by reviving successful “eyes and ears” campaigns of the past.  There should be clear and responsive communication links between neighborhoods and the police for reporting suspicious activity -- such as 24-hour telephone hotlines.  That was one of the reasons for establishing 311 as an alternative police number during the Archer Administration.  But much better publicity is needed to turn it into a popular and effective tip hotline.

Detroit’s CB patrols need to be pressed into action as part of an all-out war on crime.  These dedicated individuals patrol their neighborhoods in cars, using the citizens band radio equipment to report any suspicious activity to a central station in the community, usually in someone’s home.  A station monitor stays posted, ready to report trouble to local police.  CB patrollers extend the eyes and ears of the police department in a direct, localized way.

Empowered CB patrols can function like an Angels Night patrols 365 days a year.  Grants and corporate money should be sought to strengthen volunteer recruitment and to improve their equipment.  We must first strengthen existing CB patrols, re-establish them where they used to exist – such as my neighborhood of Rosedale Park – and launch new patrols.  We should also use modern technology to link all of Detroit’s CB patrols into a citywide network.  That would increase enthusiasm among all CB patrollers and make their work even more valuable to police.  Fewer crimes will go unsolved and fewer crimes will be committed once that system is in place.

Detroit’s anti-crime efforts should also include going into neighborhoods and encouraging block clubs and civic associations to register children for the National Missing Kids Network.  We should make sure every neighborhood has some version of the Amber Alert system in place.  Those are extra steps of protection our children deserve, and it would make everyone feel more secure.  Whatever we do, we need to move into action quickly.

 Fighting Crime Starts with Mayoral Leadership

The main idea behind partnerships is this: everybody does something, no matter how small.  Everyone contributes.  When the whole city is engaged, a synergy is created that has an effect on crime.  Much of what I have mentioned is not new.  We don’t have to reinvent the wheel.  It’s just a matter of showing people how to get actively involved in fighting crime and fighting apathetic attitudes about crime.  

As I said at the beginning of this chapter, somebody has to lead and that somebody is the mayor.  You can’t drop this crime problem on the shoulders of the police chief, officers, or the executive staff.  Only the mayor can mobilize the corporate community, the nonprofit community, and the citizens of Detroit.  It’s up to the mayor whether we build on the strong relations that were crafted during the late 1990s between our police force and local, state and federal law enforcement agencies or let them slip.   

It’s up to the mayor to find the funds to improve the pay and the benefits of Detroit police officers so that we can recruit new officers and keep the best officers on the force.  That means having credibility and influence in Lansing and Washington so that any dollars available for law enforcement find their way to the Detroit Police Department immediately. 

My understanding is that as of December 2004 we were approximately 1,000 officers short of what we need in Detroit.  It is imperative that we make entry-level pay for Detroit police officers competitive with that of suburban communities and other cities that might be attractive to Detroit residents who are interested in law enforcement careers.

We also need a long-term officer recruitment program that could reach out to potential candidates as early as the 7^th grade.  Why not let students become Junior Police Cadets or Junior Fire Cadets?  A well-designed, comprehensive program would create a pipeline of officers from the city of Detroit.  We know the positive benefits of having homegrown officers who know the neighborhoods they patrol on our city streets.             

The mayor must put a structure in place and set a tone that changes our civic culture to one of openness and transparency.  Those are the attributes that will enable partnerships between citizens and police to form and be successful. There must be a willingness to share information, resources, and the credit when a program begins to work.  No officer or block club leader should have to worry that his or her crime-fighting efforts will be undermined by the mayor’s personal or political agenda.   

Getting control of the crime problem has everything to do with getting the city-building process back on the fast track in Detroit.  More than $17 billion in new investment flowed into Detroit in the 1990s.  You can credit some of that to a growing economy, but most of it was due to the confidence that investors had in the city’s future under sound leadership.  Crime, and the perception that the mayor doesn’t know how to fight it, kills investor confidence.  It scares off the possibility of attracting significant new capital to the city.  And without new capital, the horrendous budget problems in Detroit will only get worse, leading to reduced city services and the flight of more Detroit residents.

Leadership, partnership and faith in what we can accomplish together is the answer to Detroit’s crime problem.