Police Reform Toolkit

POLICE REFORM TOOLKIT

GaManhleatta nA. Bo roBrugh ewePresidenrt    @galeabrewer www.manhattanbp.nyc.gov () -

In June 2020, during the peak of protests over the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis and the growing acknowledgement of systemic racism in policing nationwide, Governor Cuomo signed an Executive Order calling on each local government in New York State to adopt a policing reform plan by April of 2021, conditioning future state aid to localities upon adoption of such a plan. 146 jurisdictions in New York State have already begun this process.

As part of that effort, in August the Governor established a “New York State Police Reform and Reinvention Collaborative,” calling on the state’s 500 law enforcement agencies to convene stakeholders for a dialogue on the public safety needs in their communities to help ensure that police policies meet with local communities’ acceptance—and suggested a collaborative process for localities to follow: • Review the needs of the community served by its police agency, and evaluate the department’s current policies and practices; • Establish policies that allow police to effectively and safely perform their duties; • Involve the entire community in the review; • Develop policy recommendations resulting from this review; • Present the plan to the local legislative body to ratify or adopt it, and submit it to the State Budget Director on or before April 1, 2021.

As it happens, my office has been conducting police-community collaboration for years, both alone and in collaboration with Brooklyn Borough President Eric L. Adams. In 2015, Borough President Adams, civil rights attorney,” the result Norman of neighborhood Siegel, and I issued town halls a joint held report among on “Improving Police-Community Relations community members and police representatives in Manhattan and Brooklyn.

In late June, the City Council’s passage of a FY 2021 budget beginning July 1, 2020 included steps to reform and reduce the budget of the NYPD. The Citizens Budget Commission estimated the savings from these efforts: • Eliminating two of the four NYPD classes this year ($55 million); • Returning control of School Safety to the Department of Education ($300 million); • Reducing overtime spending ($352 million); • Removing crossing guards from NYPD ($42 million); and • Removing NYPD from homeless outreach.

This report recaps the 2015 joint Borough President effort and examines the current state of the police budget. As a contribution to New York City’s submission of a reform plan, we identify the emerging themes of new-found momentum for police reform proposals, including: • Redesign the role of police; • Increase accountability and transparency in policing; • Demilitarize and re-train police; and • Further democratize police departments.

As Governor Cuomo put it recently, “When the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. When all you have is a gun and a badge and the ability to arrest, that’s your only solution to that issue.”

I couldn’t agree more. Gale A. Brewer Manhattan Borough President

The Role of Police Many have called for reductions in the scope of policing and the nature of the police’s response to the situations they encounter. Given how many low-level offenses and nonviolent situations escalate into instances of police brutality, government officials and community activists are reexamining the role of the police. At the 2015 town halls that Borough President Adams and I conducted, participants spoke of police officers responding with excessive force to low-level, quality-of- life crimes, like public alcohol consumption, marijuana possession, disorderly conduct and trespassing. Young people in particular are fearful of armed officers’ disproportionate use of force, making young people hesitant to call the police even in emergency situations.[1] “Improving Police-Community Relations” therefore recommended police training include more robust de-escalation and mental health support training and recommended greater transparency of data regarding the use-of-force in low-level quality of life crimes by police precincts.[2] More recent recommendations remove police presence from what are currently lower-level offenses. The July 2020 NYS Office of the Attorney General (AG) “Preliminary Report on the NYPD Response to Demonstrations Following the Death of George Floyd” forcefully recommended decriminalizing quality-of-life violations that are seldom enforced in predominantly white neighborhoods but that are frequently criminalized in communities of color.[3] Police reform and abolition advocates thrust the NYPD’s FY21 budget into the spotlight during June 2020 budget negotiations. Contesting the role of police, groups such as Communities United for Police Reform called for a $1 billion cut to the NYPD expense budget to be redirected to core services programs and infrastructure for Black, Latinx and other communities of color.[4] Several advocacy groups and city stakeholders have called for decreasing police funding and reallocating those funds to provide social services, especially mental health and crisis intervention services. The AG’s report proposes the removal and replacement of armed police officers with trained professionals for mental health crises, school safety, traffic enforcement and situations with the homeless population.[5]

1 “Improving Police-Community Relations: A Report from a Series of Town Hall Meetings in Brooklyn and Manhattan.” P. 75. 2015. http://www.manhattanbp.nyc.gov/downloads/pdf/NYPD%20Town%20Hall%20Report.pdf 2 Ibid. P. 78. 3 New York State Office of the Attorney General. “Preliminary Report on the New York City Police Department’s Response to Demonstrations Following the Death of George Floyd.” P. 38. July 2020. https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/2020-nypd-report.pdf 4 Communities United For Police Reform. “#DEFUNDNYPD Campaign: Council Budget Vote Fails to Cut at Least $1B from NYPD to Invest in Black, Latinx & Other Communities of Color during the Pandemic.” July 2020. https://www.changethenypd.org/ releases/defundnypd-campaign-council-budget-vote-fails-cut-least-1b-nypd-invest-black-latinx-other 5 New York State Office of the Attorney General. “Preliminary Report on the New York City Police Department’s Response to Demonstrations Following the Death of George Floyd.” P. 39-40. July 2020. https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/2020-nypd-report.pdf

5 Accountability and Transparency Crucial to the conversation around police reform are increased accountability, access to data, and transparency as a response to unanswered, unresolved calls for justice surrounding recent police killings. The 2015 town halls revealed an opaqueness in the NYPD chain of communication that ultimately obstructs reform. Although community members who attended the police-community relations dialogues hoped to learn of several NYPD initiatives for reform, they expressed concern over the lack of community engagement and NYPD communication about such reforms. This lack of transparency with the community was compounded by the revelation that many of the rank-and-file officers attending the dialogues were similarly in the dark about these programs.[6] This dynamic indicates that the departmental leadership act as gatekeepers to reform processes, deciding the nature of reforms, who is involved in reform processes, and how reforms become known. The result is a communication breakdown between NYPD leadership and rank-and-file officers, and consequently between patrol officers and the members of the communities they patrol. To address this communication breakdown and lack of accountability, we identify four key areas for review: technology and data; the Civilian Complaint Review Board; legal consequences; and limiting police unions’ power to shape outcomes.

Accountability and Transparency: Technology and Data In 2015, President Barack Obama established the Task Force on 21st Century Policing. One Task Force recommendation was building police-community trust through data. President Obama established the Police Data Initiative to work with 21 jurisdictions across the country to leverage open data with the aim of identifying problems early in order to increase internal accountability and decrease inappropriate use of force.[7] “Improving Police-Community Relations” recommends data collection and accessibility of the data regarding police misconduct. It suggests establishing clear guidelines for the full deployment of body-cameras on officers. Potential guidelines include specifications for body-camera utilization, how footage would be downloaded and archived, and who would ultimately have access to said footage.[8] The AG’s report also recommends that footage from body-worn cameras should be made accessible to the public as well.[9]

6 “Improving Police-Community Relations.” P. 75. 2015. http://www.manhattanbp.nyc.gov/downloads/pdf/NYPD%20Town%20Hall%20Report.pdf 7 Somanda, Tanya.”Why President Obama is Taking Steps to Demilitarize Local Police Forces.” N.p. May 18, 2015. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2015/05/18/why-president-obama-taking-steps-demilitarize-local-police-forces 8 “Improving Police-Community Relations.” P. 92. 2015. http://www.manhattanbp.nyc.gov/downloads/pdf/NYPD%20Town%20Hall%20Report.pdf 9 New York State Office of the Attorney General. “Preliminary Report on the New York City Police Department’s Response to Demonstrations Following the Death of George Floyd.” P. 42. July 2020. https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/2020-nypd-report.pdf

6 The New York State Legislature passed three police accountability and transparency laws in 2020, including the repeal of Section 50-a, a provision that shielded police misconduct records from the public. Michael Sisitzky, lead policy counsel at the New York Civil Liberties Union, described Section 50-a as “the worst law in the country when it comes to the public’s ability to access these [police] records.”[10] While this repeal (S8496/A10611) is an overall improvement of police transparency and accountability, the AG’s report calls for increased accessibility of the records by adding them to the NYC Open Data Portal, instead of tying their access to a public data records request.[11] The Legislature also passed A1601C/S2574C, which will strengthen the ability of the office of the special prosecutor to investigate cases when police kill individuals in New York State. The third reform bill is the Police STAT Act (S1830C/A10609), which requires the recording and reporting of demographic and geographic data on law enforcement activity to improve transparency of policing activities across the state. In July 2020, the New York City Council approved the Public Oversight of Surveillance Technology (POST) Act.[12] The Brennan Center for Justice describes the POST Act as a law that simultaneously protects the civil liberties of New Yorkers and provides the tools and information necessary for policymakers to have oversight and increase police accountability.[13]

Accountability and Transparency: Civilian Complaint Review Board The Civilian Complaint Review Board (CCRB) is a government oversight agency whose appointed board is tasked with investigating, mediating, and prosecuting civilian complaints of misconduct in the NYPD. The Board may recommend disciplinary action to the Police Commissioner but cannot enforce their recommendations. From 2014-2018, civilians made 55,000 complaints to the CCRB, including 20,000 individual misconduct allegations for excessive force. Despite investigating and substantiating 4,000 of these individual allegations and recommending disciplinary action for 2,500 officers (including the termination or suspension of nearly 600 officers), only 7% of complaints resulted in disciplinary recommendations, no officers were terminated, and only eight cases resulted in a suspension longer than a month (the next most serious penalty), according to the AG’s report.[14]

10 Wykstra, Stephanie. “The Fight for Transparency in Police Misconduct, explained.” Vox. N.p. June 16, 2020. https://www.vox.com/2020/6/16/21291595/new-york-section-50-a-police-misconduct 11 New York State Office of the Attorney General. “Preliminary Report on the New York City Police Department’s Response to Demonstrations Following the Death of George Floyd.” P. 6. July 2020. https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/2020-nypd-report.pdf 12 New York City Council. “City Council Plans Vote on POST Act, Creating Civilian Oversight of Police Surveillance.” N.p. June 16, 2020. https://council.nyc.gov/press/2020/06/16/1984/ 13 The Brennan Center for Justice. “The Public Oversight of Surveillance Technology (POST) Act: A Resource Page.” N.p. February 7, 2020. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/public-oversight-surveillance-technology-post-act-resource-page 14 New York State Office of the Attorney General. “Preliminary Report on the New York City Police Department’s Response to Demonstrations Following the Death of George Floyd.” P. 41. July 2020. https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/2020-nypd-report.pdf

7 The CCRB recently analyzed more than 100 complaints involving young New Yorkers that the agency received between January 2018 and June 2019. It showed young males of color between the ages of 10 and 18 were a “complainant and/or victim” in almost 65% of CCRB complaints involving youth, although they are less than 5% of New York City’s population.[15] Considering that in 2017, of the 4,500 complaints made to the CCRB, 73% of them were disregarded,[16] it becomes clear why Black and brown youth are increasingly disillusioned about the efficacy of the CCRB as an agency that can protect them from police misconduct. Although 2015’s “Improving Police-Community Relations” predates this data, it echoes these numbers. Civilians do not believe that the CCRB has any authority or power, rendering the board ineffectual in the eyes of the public. Communities of color in particular distrust the CCRB’s ability to intervene and protect them against police misconduct.[17] “Improving Police-Community Relations” made recommendations to increase the CCRB’s respect and trust with the public whose complaints of police misconduct it investigates. The 2015 report proposed three reforms to the CCRB to increase accountability and transparency: enable the CCRB to (1) track systemic patterns of misconduct by individual officers and precincts; (2) hold precinct commanders accountable for clear and sustained patterns of misconduct by officers under their command; and (3) publish at least two annual reports on its investigations and on systemic issues of problematic police policy and practice.[18] The report also recommended providing the CCRB with a sufficient budget for staffing, providing resources to track systemic patterns of misconduct, and adding at least one victim of police misconduct to the Board. Since “Improving Police-Community Relations” was published in 2015, the CCRB has undergone several reforms. In 2019, voters approved a ballot measure to amend the NYC Charter and further a culture of accountability and transparency in the NYPD. Now, the Police Commissioner must provide an explanation to the CCRB whenever the Board’s disciplinary recommendations aren’t followed. In addition, the CCRB may investigate the truthfulness of statements made during its investigation of complaints, and the CCRB can delegate its authority to issue and enforce subpoenas to the Board chair.[19] The Board also increased from 13 to 15 members, including the Board chair, who is appointed jointly by the Mayor and the City Council, one member appointed by the Public Advocate, and the remaining members appointed directly by the City Council. The revision linked the CCRB budget to the NYPD’s, requiring that it be sufficient to fund staff at the rate of .65% of the funding for uniformed NYPD officers.

15 Johnson, Stephon. “Inez and Charles Barron: scrap the CCRB and form a new, elected oversight board.” New York Amsterdam News. N.p. June 11, 2020. http://amsterdamnews.com/news/2020/jun/11/inez-and-charles-barron-scrap-ccrb-and-form-new-el/ 16 Ibid. 17 “Improving Police-Community Relations.” P. 10. 2015. http://www.manhattanbp.nyc.gov/downloads/pdf/NYPD%20Town%20Hall%20Report.pdf 18 Ibid. P. 87-88. 18 Ibid. P. 87-88. 19 “Civilian Complaint Review Board.” Charter 2019 NYC. N.p. N.d. https://www.charter2019.nyc/ccrb

8 A more recent call for CCRB reform would create an Elected Civilian Review Board (ECRB), which could be more representative of community and civilian interests. The ECRB campaign demands a democratically elected board with representation for neighborhoods and communities most afflicted by police misconduct, and a board that is accessible to the public via local offices and regular meetings, and that is subject to voter recall. The ECRB would adopt CCRB authority to investigate, discipline, and order training for officers; subpoena power; and the ability to elect a Special Prosecutor who would operate independently to ensure unbiased prosecution of officers accused of crimes. The 2019 charter amendment entitles the CCRB to explanations and evidence when its recommendations are not followed, but the ECRB’s proposed reforms would vest final disciplinary authority with the ECRB’s power. These reforms aim to address the problem of special interests within the CCRB-- currently appointed by the Mayor, City Council and NYPD Commissioner-- and the ineffectiveness of the accountability process. At present, the CCRB can recommend disciplinary action, but the power to prosecute and enforce discipline is vested in the NYPD and the Police Commissioner. Following proposed City and State legislation to replace the current CCRB with an ECRB that has increased powers of accountability, I participated in a July 2020 discussion about the ECRB, hosted by Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health, with bill sponsor Council Member Inez D. Barron and ECRB Committee representative Susan E. Williams. We all spoke in favor of these increased accountability and disciplinary powers for the CCRB[20] but diverged on whether the board should be elected or appointed. While Ms. Williams and Council Member Barron are proponents of an elected board, I support a different course for ensuring the board is accountable to the public even if its members are appointed and not elected.[21] I am concerned about the potential for unions and interest groups to influence elections in a way that excludes community input. Critics of the current appointment process to the CCRB are skeptical that CCRB members have the public interest in mind, when appointments are tied to the special interests of police unions and city government officials. However, the new charter to the CCRB accounts for more balanced representation by prohibiting appointments to the CCRB who have current or previous involvement with law enforcement, with the exception of those appointed by the NYPD. Therefore, under this amendment, the CCRB would not be disproportionately represented by NYPD interests. In an open election, I foresee a potential problem with interest groups and police unions having undue influence in elections. I am also concerned about the potential for police unions to leverage their financial assets to unduly influence elections in their favor. We must avoid a process that is democratic in name only and an election that is vulnerable to special interest groups at the expense of public representation.[22] We must also avoid a Board populated by perennial candidates for public office.

20 “Fighting Inequities: Should NYC Have an Elected Civilian Review Board?” Columbia Mailman School of Public Health. July 23, 2020. https://www.publichealth.columbia.edu/academics/departments/health-policy-and-management/news-and-events 21 Ibid. 22 Ibid.

9 Council Member Barron and ECRB Committee representative Susan E. Williams support an elected board and said that the ECRB legislation has built-in mechanisms to prevent interference and interest group influence in elections, including mandated meetings with the community and the opportunity for community recall. Ms. Williams sees an ECRB as a tool for the community to organize around, engage in, and have input in community oversight of the police. She recognized that the elected board would not be a catch-all solution to the issue of rampant police misconduct, stating, “The elected review board alone will not solve all problems... but that follow through and further community engagement will be a critical part in continuing to improve increased transparency and accountability of the police to the communities they serve.”[23] While Attorney General Letitia James believes that the CCRB has the foundation to be a strong oversight entity, she recognizes that the CCRB’s effectiveness is compromised because disciplinary power resides in the unreviewable authority of the Police Commissioner and that current violations are outside of the CCRB’s jurisdiction due to existing law. The AG’s report recommends increased jurisdiction for the CCRB and expanded CCRB authority to ensure that it has final disciplinary authority.[24]

Accountability and Transparency: Legal Consequences Legal consequences for officers’ misconduct could make the NYPD more accountable. “Improving Police-Community Relations” proposed several reforms to criminal justice practices aimed at increasing accountability in cases of police misconduct and use of excessive force. The report proposed several reforms to the grand jury, which is a group of citizens convened to determine whether there exists sufficient evidence to accuse someone and bring them to trial: • Abolition: “Improving Police-Community Relations” states that the grand jury has assumed the role of “prosecutor” in police misconduct cases. According to the report, the process does not determine guilt or innocence, has ceased to be fair or impartial, and keeps its functions and decisions secret. The report cites the Eric Garner grand jury process as an example of how proceedings are secret and conceal information from the public about instances of police misconduct and subsequent accountability measures. • Reform A: As a response to the secretive, non-adversarial nature of grand jury proceedings, the report recommends an adversarial, open-court hearing presided over by a judge and with prosecutorial and defense lawyers present. • Reform B: Following the recommendation of Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman of the New York State Court of Appeals, the grand jury process should be presided over by a judge who can question witnesses, explain to the grand jurors their role, and instruct them on the standard for an indictment prior to their vote.[25]

23 Ibid. 24 New York State Office of the Attorney General. “Preliminary Report on the New York City Police Department’s Response to Demonstrations Following the Death of George Floyd.” P. 40-1. July 2020. https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/2020-nypd-report.pdf 25 “Improving Police-Community Relations.” P. 87. 2015. http://www.manhattanbp.nyc.gov/downloads/pdf/NYPD%20Town%20Hall%20Report.pdf

10 In addition to a re-evaluation of the grand jury system, “Improving Police-Community Relations” recommended a permanent Statewide Independent Special Prosecutor to handle cases of police misconduct alongside the CCRB without the interference of special interests. It also proposed establishing a program of Independent Evidence Gatherers, separate from the police, to ensure sufficient and neutrally gathered evidence to inform indictment and trial proceedings.[26] The ECRB, AG and Campaign Zero, a police reform nonprofit, have called for a disciplinary matrix in order to ensure fair consequences and accountability in cases of police misconduct. In July 2020, the City Council passed a new law requiring the NYPD to develop an internal disciplinary matrix, which the NYPD must post online by January 2021.

Accountability and Transparency: Limiting Police Unions’ Power Police unions, major stakeholders in the process of reform, often oppose legislation to increase police accountability. Police unions aggressively resist reforms that aim to introduce more robust systems of accountability and expand disciplinary authority beyond just the Police Commissioner. The relationship between the Police Benevolent Association (PBA), which represents most NYPD officers, and city officials can be characterized as contentious. Over the past few years, police union officials have openly criticized and often seemingly resisted reform movements. The town hall participants wanted to create a system where officers are accountable not only to the police unions and One Police Plaza, but also to the residents. “Improving Police-Community Relations” proposed creating an oversight panel consisting of a City Council Member, a Borough President or designate, a civil rights lawyer, a community member, a current NYPD Community Affairs officer, a journalist of a local print news organization, and a union representative of NYPD members.[27] The divide between protesters and city officials and the NYPD and PBA persists in the current police reform movement. While proponents of police reform celebrated the repeal of 50-a this summer, police unions made several attempts to block the bill from becoming law or being implemented, although they ultimately lost. Police unions say that the repeal could “expose sensitive information about officers and prevent officers from doing their jobs.”[28] PBA President Patrick Lynch slammed Governor Cuomo for signing the bill, saying, “Governor Cuomo and our legislative leaders have no business celebrating today. New York State had been failing our communities for decades: failing to provide economic opportunity, failing to educate our youth, failing to care for the vulnerable and the mentally ill. Police officers spend our days addressing issues caused by these failures. Now, we won’t even be able to do that.”[29]

26 Ibid. P. 10. 27 Ibid. P. 93. 28 Moynihan, Ellen, Dennis Slattery and Chris Sommerfeldt. “Cuomo signs historic 50-a repeal bill, making N.Y. police disciplinary records public after decades of secrecy.” New York Daily News. N.p. June 12, 2020. https://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/ ny-cuomo-police-reform-disciplinary-records-20200612-5zryohkuwjew7ksjowhtswmsk4-story.html 29 Ibid.

11 Nix the Six, a project of Campaign Zero, advocates the end to six common police union practices that shield police from accountability and block reform. Nix the Six seeks to eliminate police union contracts that block accountability; the rehiring of officers fired for misconduct; police “bill of rights” laws; police union influence over police budgets; police unions exerting too much political power; and negotiations without community representation.

Retrain and Demilitarize Police The deaths of Eric Garner, Amadou Diallo, Sean Bell, and numerous others have raised questions about police training, protocol, and use of deadly force. Nationwide, police departments have become increasingly militarized. The lethal and violent ramifications of this shift have disproportionate, negative consequences for low-income communities of color. Non-profit criminal justice reform organization The Marshall Project reported data on the federal government’s 1033 program which has distributed over $5 billion in military weapons and equipment to local police agencies since its inception in 1990.[30] New York has received over $26 million in military equipment since the beginning of the 1033 program.[31] In the “Improving Police-Community Relations” Timeline of Crisis, two events highlight the evolving militarization of police forces as well as efforts to curb this trend. First, regarding the 2014 Ferguson protests following the police shooting of Michael Brown, the timeline notes the moments when the protests turned violent and how the local police adopted military weapons and tactics. Second, the report notes President Obama’s executive order banning the transfer of some military- grade weapons to local police departments.[32] The President’s 2015 Task Force on 21st Century Policing pursued a recommendation to “not militarize the police” by prohibiting law enforcement from procuring bayonets, tracked armored vehicles, grenade launchers, and large-caliber weapons and ammunition from the federal government.[33] In the 2020 AG report, testimony from elected officials, community-based organizations, and advocates indicate the current military nature of the NYPD. Nearly 20 elected officials testified about their experiences at protests during summer 2020 and incidents of wrong-doing by the NYPD. State Senator Zellnor Myrie shared that despite intentionally wearing a neon shirt on which his name and title were clearly identifiable, he was pepper-sprayed without justification and temporarily detained without prompt medical attention to his injuries. State Senator John Liu recounted how at a peaceful protest, NYPD officers formed a barricade to stop protesters from proceeding and then ran into the crowd, knocking protesters to the ground and hitting them with batons, including State Senator Liu.

30 Dane, Gabriel, Tom Meagher and Shawn Musgrave. “The Pentagon Finally Details its Weapons-for-Cops Giveaway.” The Marshall Project. N.p. December 3, 2014. https://www.themarshallproject.org/2014/12/03/the-pentagon-finally-details-its-weapons-for-cops-giveaway 31 Ibid. 32 “Improving Police-Community Relations.” P. 45. 2015. http://www.manhattanbp.nyc.gov/downloads/pdf/NYPD%20Town%20Hall%20Report.pdf 33 Somanda, Tanya.”Why President Obama is Taking Steps to Demilitarize Local Police Forces.” N.p. May 18, 2015. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2015/05/18/why-president-obama-taking-steps-demilitarize-local-police-forces

12 Lastly, and in the most explicit language comparing the nature of NYPD policing to the military, Public Advocate Jumaane Williams noted a “militarized police presence” at protests where officers were clad in riot gear and used metal barricades to surround non-violent protesters.[34] In response to incidents of excessive police use of force, two themes emerge in the conversation about the transformation of police training: anti-racism and implicit bias training; and de-escalation as the norm in policing and the imperative of establishing a “use-of-force” standard with legal consequences. “Improving Police- Community Relations” made similar recommendations. The 2015 report recommended ongoing, interactive, relevant anti-racism training as a requirement for all NYPD staff.[35] The report also recommended that de-escalation be established as the norm in NYPD encounters, citing a Police Executive Research Forum survey that showed the systemic de-emphasis of such training. Young officers, on average, receive 58 hours of firearms training, 49 hours of defensive tactical training, and only eight hours of de-escalation training. The report recommended “retraining” officers in de-escalation tactics and de-emphasizing “injurious and fatal use of force.” It also recommended training in mental health, youth development, community engagement, anger management, behaving respectfully and in a friendly way, and showing “sensitivity and respect” toward the race and culture of those who are policed.[36] The 2020 AG report calls for a codification of allowable use of force. The report recommends a statewide use-of-non-lethal-force standard that would first and foremost require de-escalation. It proposes limiting the instances in which deadly force is permitted, particularly prohibiting lethal force when there is “no use or imminent use of severe physical force or deadly force” from the civilian. The AG recommends legal consequences when officers use force beyond the proposed standard but does not specify appropriate consequences.[37] City Council Members in 2020 introduced two pieces of police reform legislation calling for legal interventions to prevent the use of lethal physical force by law enforcement. Resolution 1343-2020, sponsored by Council Member Carlina Rivera, would urge Congress to pass into law the Eric Garner Excessive Use of Force Prevention Act of 2019 (H.R. 4408). This law would make chokeholds a civil rights violation. Similarly, Introduction No. 536-B, sponsored by Council Member Rory Lanceman, criminalized as a Class A misdemeanor the use of specific restraints (including chokeholds) during arrests. Notably, Introduction No.536-B only criminalizes such restraints in arrests, but not when the restraint are used in “self-defense.”[38]

34 New York State Office of the Attorney General. “Preliminary Report on the New York City Police Department’s Response to Demonstrations Following the Death of George Floyd.” P. 29-30. July 2020. https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/2020-nypd-report.pdf 35 “Improving Police-Community Relations.” P. 78. 2015. http://www.manhattanbp.nyc.gov/downloads/pdf/NYPD%20Town%20Hall%20Report.pdf 36 Ibid. P. 90. 37 New York State Office of the Attorney General. “Preliminary Report on the New York City Police Department’s Response to Demonstrations Following the Death of George Floyd.” P. 43-44. July 2020. https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/2020-nypd-report.pdf 38 “Council Votes on Six Bills to Reform NYPD.” New York City Council. N.p. June 18, 2020. https://council.nyc.gov/press/2020/06/18/1990/

13 Campaign Zero, a national nonprofit that encourages policymakers to focus on solutions with the strongest evidence of effectiveness at reducing police violence, lists demilitarization as one of its policy solution categories for ending police violence. Campaign Zero recommends supporting H.R.1232, the Stop Militarizing Law Enforcement Act, which would end the federal government’s 1033 program that currently provides military weapons to local police departments. Additionally, Campaign Zero recommends establishing local restrictions to prevent local police departments from further purchasing and using military weapons. It recommends restricting the use of federal grant money for military equipment, limiting the use of SWAT teams in non-life-threatening situations, prohibiting no- knock raids, and, when possible, returning military equipment from local police agencies to the federal government.[39] On May 22, 2020, State Senator Brian A. Benjamin sponsored S1137A, a bill that prohibits law enforcement from using racial and ethnic profiling.[40] The bill demands greater transparency and improved quality of reporting of NYPD demographic data to better measure the degree of racial and ethnic profiling within the NYPD. Among other mandates, the law would require enforcement agencies to record and retain data about the nature of violations that lead to stops, the number of individuals involved in stops and their national, ethnic or racial origins (as perceived by the officer), and whether or not the stop culminated in a pat down or frisk.[41] The focus on the types of crimes being prosecuted, the use of physical force in these incidents, and the racial disparities in these prosecutions are similar to other reforms mentioned earlier, most notably in the review of the AG’s report.

39 “Demilitarization.” Campaign Zero. N.p. N.d. https://www.joincampaignzero.org/demilitarization 40 Witt, Stephen. “Benjamin Leads Anti-Racial Profiling Legislation Charge from Manhattan.” New York County Politics. N.p. June 1, 2020. https://www.newyorkcountypolitics.com/2020/06/01/benjamin-leads-anti- racial-profiling-legislation-charge-from-manhattan/ 41 “NY State Senate Bill S1137A.” New York State Senate. https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2019/s1137/ amendment/a

14 The S1137A bill was introduced in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic: 90% of New Yorkers arrested for charges related to the coronavirus were Black or Latinx, and 81% of summonses for violating social distancing rules were also issued to Black or Latinx individuals. Bill proponent Assemblymember Carmen De La Rosa said, “Our communities have been historically disproportionately impacted by racial profiling and unjust criminal justice policies,” and another supporter, Assemblymember Linda Rosenthal, said, “Law enforcement must re-earn the respect of the communities most adversely impacted by racial profiling.”[42] Their reflections hearken back to findings and accounts in “Improving Police-Community Relations,” indicating that the prevalence of racial and ethnic profiling in the NYPD had been present long before the 2020 pandemic.

Democratize the Police Increasing public oversight of and civilian engagement with police would help to democratize the police. “Improving Police-Community Relations” recommended placing the power of accountability and oversight into the hands of the community. Town hall participants suggested that to the greatest “extent possible, a significant proportion of neighborhood policing officers share the racial or ethnic background and the primary language of the community they police.” The report also recommended implementing a new NYPD diversity plan, “Experience Equals Education.” Two years of college are necessary to qualify for the NYPD exam, a barrier that leads to racial and ethnic minorities being underrepresented in the NYPD. The “Experience Equals Education” plan allows two years of honorable service as a peace officer to constitute as sufficient qualification for the NYPD exam, thus potentially allowing for the NYPD to become as racially diverse as the peace officer contingent.[43] Peace officers (School Safety Agents, Traffic Enforcement Agents, and Health and Hospital Corporation Officers) are more diverse than the NYPD as a whole. In 2020, there are similar and arguably more expansive calls for greater community oversight and participation, including recommendations from the AG and policy reform nonprofit Campaign Zero. The AG’s report recommends holding the NYPD accountable to the City’s Administrative Procedure Act, which would democratize how the NYPD creates and implements policy. Most City agencies create rules following the Administrative Procedure Act, which requires a public process where they explain, defend, justify, and often revise proposals with public input before sending them to the Law Department and the Mayor for final approval before publication. The City’s Administrative Procedure Act ensures that government agencies conduct thorough analysis to consider and justify the impact of their service to the public they serve, and also incorporate feedback from the public itself. The process also ensures that subsequent regulation is minimally burdensome.

42 Witt. 43 “Improving Police-Community Relations.” P. 10-11. 2015. http://www.manhattanbp.nyc.gov/downloads/pdf/NYPD%20Town%20Hall%20Report.pdf

15 However, the NYPD programs and regulations are as a general rule created and implemented without public input or explanation, and often only become publicly accessible through investigative reporting, litigation, or reporting from the Office of the Inspector General for the New York City Police Department.[44] The AG’s report recommends that the NYPD be required to follow the Administrative Procedure Act, including instituting a full notice-and-comment period and a racial equity assessment for newly implemented rules. The AG claims this would democratize the police by incorporating the public served in crucial decision-making processes and treating the NYPD the same as all other municipal agencies. While Campaign Zero does include community representation as one of its key policy areas for decreasing police violence, it recommends increasing civilian first-responders who reflect the communities served, stating: While racial and gender diversity within law enforcement has increased nationwide and many police departments have implemented “community policing” models, recent research suggests these approaches are not effective at reducing police violence. As such, we caution cities against emphasizing these strategies as solutions. Rather, cities should prioritize shifting resources to instead hire more civilian first responders, conflict de-escalators, and violence interruptors from underrepresented communities.[45]

44 New York State Office of the Attorney General. “Preliminary Report on the New York City Police Department’s Response to Demonstrations Following the Death of George Floyd.” P. 37-38. July 2020. https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/2020-nypd-report.pdf 45 “Community Representation.” Campaign Zero. N.p. N.d. https://www.joincampaignzero.org/representation

16 NYPD Budget Function Analysis The following budget analysis spreadsheets and charts present the top five budget functions with the most cuts in the adopted FY21 budget, constituting 90% of total reductions to the NYPD budget. These categories are: Administration, Patrol, Reimbursable Overtime, Security/Counter-Terrorism, and Transportation. Using data from the 2019 and 2020 Budget Function Analysis reports by the NYC Mayor’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB), my office analyzed the differences between the FY20 and FY21 adopted budgets of the NYPD to gather quantitative understanding and develop qualitative takeaways about the impact of the budget cuts. Budget functions are used to categorize spending. My office transferred OMB’s NYPD adopted budget function data of the two most recent fiscal years into a spreadsheet where category differences and percent increases and decreases were calculated across multiple NYPD budget functions. This identified: 1) the most reduced categories; 2) the expenditures cut from the most reduced categories; and 3) how these findings corroborate stakeholder reflections on the budget cuts as well as other identifiable trends. Our analysis revealed several key findings: • Overtime reduction comprises a large portion of the reduced budget, leading to skepticism about the feasibility of the cuts. Historically, the NYPD has significantly overspent in overtime, and protests during the summer of 2020 have already led to unaccounted cost for overtime duties this fiscal year. • Significant budget reductions are from federal sources. Thus the budget does not provide the opportunity to reallocate City funds to social services and programs as anticipated. • Headcount reduction is not permanent. For example, in November 2020, the NYPD swore in a new class of 900 recruits for the first six-month cadet training since the pandemic. • Major reductions come from cuts to pensions and fringe benefits. • Many cuts are for pandemic-specific programs, indicating the temporary nature of cuts amid calls for meaningful, permanent change to the budget.

FURTHER RESOURCES: NYC Mayor’s Office of Management and Budget https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/omb/downloads/pdf/adopt20-bfa.pdf https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/omb/downloads/pdf/adopt19-bfa.pdf https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/omb/downloads/pdf/fp6-20.pdf

NYC Independent Budget Office https://ibo.nyc.ny.us/iboreports/print-2020-adopted-budget-slides.pdf

17 Overall Overall Budget Function 2020 2021 Difference (FY21-FY20) Percent Difference (FY21-FY20) Administration $854,609 $623,948 -$230,661 -26.99 Chief of Department $908,935 $902,244 -$6,691 -0.74 Citywide Operations $151,030 $150,159 -$871 -0.58 Communications $145,378 $137,023 -$8,355 -5.75 Community Affairs $14,612 $14,495 -$117 -0.80 Criminal Justice Bureau $61,545 $63,780 $2,235 3.63 Detective Bureau $571,221 $572,172 $951 0.17 Housing Bureau $208,485 $204,218 -$4,267 -2.05 Intelligence and Counterterrorism $194,707 $189,387 -$5,320 -2.73 Internal Affairs $76,543 $72,253 -$4,290 -5.60 Patrol $1,635,266 $1,246,517 -$388,749 -23.77 Reimursable Overtime $36,491 $7,703 -$28,788 -78.89 School Safety $318,969 $325,926 $6,957 2.18 Security/Counter-Terrorism Grants $150,839 0 -$150,839 -100.00 Support Services $147,807 $137,170 -$10,637 -7.20 Training $114,775 $108,894 -$5,881 -5.12 Transit $248,975 $246,707 -$2,268 -0.91 Transportation $242,789 $221,685 -$21,104 -8.69 Total $6,082,976 $5,224,281 $858,695

Funding Summary 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 % Difference (FY21-FY20) % Difference (FY21-FY20) 18 City Funds $5,016,088 $5,198,676 $5,320,351 $5,243,030 $4,897,914 -$345,116 -6.58 Other Categorical $29,603 $28,804 $30,548 $16,484 0 -$16,484 -100.00 State $54,118 $55,665 $60,723 $82,569 $732 -$81,837 -99.11 Federal-Other $219,722 $210,677 $260,833 $438,948 $17,929 -$421,019 -95.92 Intra City $264,463 $294,555 $304,364 $301,946 $307,708 $5,762 1.91 Total $5,583,994 $5,788,377 $5,976,819 $6,082,977 $5,224,283 -$858,694 -14.12

Full-Time Positions - Civilian 14,802 15,251 15,306 15,908 15,271 Full-Time Positions - Uniform 36,254 36,643 36,461 36,178 35,007 Full-Time Equivalent Positions 1,920 1,861 1,719 1,917 1,821 Total Positions 52,976 53,755 53,486 54,003 52,099

Budget Functions with the Biggest Spending Category Highest 2021 Allocations Budget Functions with the Biggest Savings Reduction

Patrol $1,246,517 Patrol $388,749 Patrol- Full Time Salaried -$34,506 Chief of Department $902,244 Administration $230,661 Administration- Full Time Salaried -$74,986 Administration $623,948 Security/Counter Terrorism $150,839 Security/Counter Terrorism- Other Services & Charges-$93,136 Detective Bureau $572,172 Reimbursable Overtime $28,788 Reimbursable Overtime- Additional Gross Pay -$28,788 School Safety $325,926 Transportation $21,104 Transportation- Full Time Salared -$7,728 Total $3,670,807 Total $820,141 Total -$239,144

Total Savings from Top 3 Reduced Departments $770,249 Overall % Savings from Top 3 Reduced Departments 89.70 Overall Budget Function 2020 2021 Difference (FY21-FY20) Percent Difference (FY21-FY20) Administration $854,609 $623,948 -$230,661 -26.99 Chief of Department $908,935 $902,244 -$6,691 -0.74 Citywide Operations $151,030 $150,159 -$871 -0.58 Communications $145,378 $137,023 -$8,355 -5.75 Community Affairs $14,612 $14,495 -$117 -0.80 Criminal Justice Bureau $61,545 $63,780 $2,235 3.63 Detective Bureau $571,221 $572,172 $951 0.17 Housing Bureau $208,485 $204,218 -$4,267 -2.05 Intelligence and Counterterrorism $194,707 $189,387 -$5,320 -2.73 Internal Affairs $76,543 $72,253 -$4,290 -5.60 Patrol $1,635,266 $1,246,517 -$388,749 -23.77 Reimursable Overtime $36,491 $7,703 -$28,788 -78.89 School Safety $318,969 $325,926 $6,957 2.18 Security/Counter-Terrorism Grants $150,839 0 -$150,839 -100.00 Support Services $147,807 $137,170 -$10,637 -7.20 Training $114,775 $108,894 -$5,881 -5.12 Transit $248,975 $246,707 -$2,268 -0.91 Transportation $242,789 $221,685 -$21,104 -8.69 Total $6,082,976 $5,224,281 $858,695

Funding Summary 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 % Difference (FY21-FY20) % Difference (FY21-FY20) City Funds $5,016,088 $5,198,676 $5,320,351 $5,243,030 $4,897,914 -$345,116 -6.58 Other Categorical $29,603 $28,804 $30,548 $16,484 0 -$16,484 -100.00 State $54,118 $55,665 $60,723 $82,569 $732 -$81,837 -99.11 Federal-Other $219,722 $210,677 $260,833 $438,948 $17,929 -$421,019 -95.92 Intra City $264,463 $294,555 $304,364 $301,946 $307,708 $5,762 1.91 Total $5,583,994 $5,788,377 $5,976,819 $6,082,977 $5,224,283 -$858,694 -14.12

Budget Functions with the Biggest Spending Category Highest 2021 Allocations Budget Functions with the Biggest Savings Reduction

Total Savings from Top 3 Reduced Departments $770,249 Overall % Savings from Top 3 Reduced Departments 89.70 Adopted Budget FY Budget Adopted 2021 Adopted Budget FY Budget Adopted 2021 Adopted Budget FY 2021 19 substantial cuts: that experienced the most NYPD the within units The substantial cuts: that experienced the most NYPD the within units The of these agencies, substantially reduced at each most categories funding The respectively: respectively: of these agencies, substantially reduced at each most categories funding The 3. 2. 1. 3. 2. 1. 3. 2. 1. 2. 1. 3. grants Security/Counter-Terrorism Patrol Administration grants Security/Counter-Terrorism Patrol Administration Other Services & Charges Full Time Salaried Additional Gross Pay Full Time Salaried Additional Gross Pay Other Services & Charges 15 15 Administration Administration 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Difference (FY21-FY20) Personal Services $375,436 $384,472 $401,815 $490,483 $386,012 -$104,471 Full-Time Salaried $247,084 $252,626 $266,570 $351,158 $276,172 -$74,986 Other Salaried $207 $230 $225 $185 $187 $2 Unsalaried Additional $1,013 $1,116 $1,397 $736 $738 $2 Gross Pay Fringe $60,039 $63,304 $65,823 $68,423 $41,792 -$26,631 Benefits $67,093 $67,196 $67,800 $69,981 $67,123 -$2,858 $0 Other than Personal Services $287,008 $322,020 $325,436 $364,128 $237,937 -$126,191 Supplies and Materials $25,792 $35,112 $24,156 $38,791 $16,900 -$21,891 Property and Equipment $18,160 $16,090 $12,376 $10,325 $6,897 -$3,428 Other Services and Charges $152,743 $169,921 $167,131 $181,864 $120,610 -$61,254 Contractual Services $89,647 $99,413 $121,144 $132,559 $92,987 -$39,572 Fixed & Miscellaneous Charges $666 $1,484 $629 $589 $543 -$46 % Difference (FY21-FY20) Total $662,444 $706,492 $727,251 $854,611 $623,949 -$230,662 -26.99 20

Difference (FY21-FY20) Personal Services $375,436 $384,472 $401,815 $490,483 $386,012 -$104,471 Full-Time Salaried $247,084 $252,626 $266,570 $351,158 $276,172 -$74,986 Other Salaried $207 $230 $225 $185 $187 $2 Unsalaried Additional $1,013 $1,116 $1,397 $736 $738 $2 Gross Pay Fringe $60,039 $63,304 $65,823 $68,423 $41,792 -$26,631 Benefits $67,093 $67,196 $67,800 $69,981 $67,123 -$2,858 $0 Other than Personal Services $287,008 $322,020 $325,436 $364,128 $237,937 -$126,191 Supplies and Materials $25,792 $35,112 $24,156 $38,791 $16,900 -$21,891 Property and Equipment $18,160 $16,090 $12,376 $10,325 $6,897 -$3,428 Other Services and Charges $152,743 $169,921 $167,131 $181,864 $120,610 -$61,254 Contractual Services $89,647 $99,413 $121,144 $132,559 $92,987 -$39,572 Fixed & Miscellaneous Charges $666 $1,484 $629 $589 $543 -$46 % Difference (FY21-FY20) Total $662,444 $706,492 $727,251 $854,611 $623,949 -$230,662 -26.99

Funding Summary City Funds $627,964 $623,784 -$4,180 Other Categorical $782 $0 -$782 Non-Governmental Grants $248 $0 Private Grants $534 $0 State $59,894 $0 -$59,894 Communications Improvement $2,015 $0 Forfeiture Law Enforcement $57,175 $0 Soft Body Armor Vests Program $704 $0 Federal - Other $165,296 $164 -$165,132 Coronavirus Relief Fund $79,370 $0 Cultural, Technical & Educational Center $0 $164 Equitable Sharing Program $39,036 $0 FEMA PA COVID-19 Emergency Protective Me $46,890 $0 Intra City $674 $0 -$674 Other Services/Fees $674 $0 % Difference (FY21-FY20) Total $854,610 $623,948 -$230,662 -26.99 and social services. sustainable, long-term solution to the question of meaningfully defunding the police to reallocate funds to other community miscellaneous public events (fairs, sporting events, etc.) would be cut. Critics say that this reduction does not indicate a decrease in funding. Skeptics cite that due to the pandemic, it was inevitable that NYPD contracts for security at benefits and entitlements account for a substantial portion of the cuts. Contractual services also account for a substantial The second-largest cut to the budget is to the administration spending category. Here, again, reductions in NYPD salary, Administration (spending) and social services. sustainable, long-term solution to the question of meaningfully defunding the police to reallocate funds to other community miscellaneous public events (fairs, sporting events, etc.) would be cut. Critics say that this reduction does not indicate a decrease in funding. Skeptics cite that due to the pandemic, it was inevitable that NYPD contracts for security at benefits and entitlements account for a substantial portion of the cuts. Contractual services also account for a substantial The second-largest cut to the budget is to the administration spending category. Here, again, reductions in NYPD salary, and social services. sustainable, long-term solution to the question of meaningfully defunding the police to reallocate funds to other community miscellaneous public events (fairs, sporting events, etc.) would be cut. Critics say that this reduction does not indicate a decrease in funding. Skeptics cite that due to the pandemic, it was inevitable that NYPD contracts for security at benefits and entitlements account for a substantial portion of the cuts. Contractual services also account for a substantial The second-largest cut to the budget is to the administration spending category. Here, again, reductions in NYPD salary, Administration (spending) Administration (funding) Administration (funding) Administration (spending) Administration (funding) Administration (spending) 21 budgets. reform to funding of police to initiate a long-term budget cuts were intended considering whether these programming here when pandemic-specific defunded. Note the have largely been state & federal categories expenditures. Instead, difference in City There is virtually no budgets. reform to funding of police to initiate a long-term budget cuts were intended considering whether these programming here when pandemic-specific defunded. Note the have largely been state & federal categories expenditures. Instead, difference in City There is virtually no 19 20 20 19 19 Patrol Patrol 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Spending Difference (FY21-FY20) Personal Services $1,466,762 $1,485,166 $1,491,619 $1,614,385 $1,230,022 -$384,363 Full-Time Salaried $1,368,820 $1,383,723 $1,388,254 $1,398,226 $1,432,732 $34,506 Unsalaried $47,114 $49,934 $52,670 $53,751 $50,971 -$2,780 Additional Gross Pay $50,634 $51,294 $50,479 $162,319 -$253,770 -$416,089 Fringe Benefits $194 $215 $216 $89 $89 $0

Other than Personal Services $7,779 $13,537 $16,628 $20,880 $16,494 -$4,386 Supplies and Materials $702 $829 $711 $842 $714 -$128 Property and Equipment $681 $1,415 $504 $1,685 $283 -$1,402 Other Services and Charges $595 $1,845 $2,252 $2,798 $269 -$2,529 Social Services $195 $156 $180 $275 $444 $169 Contractual Services $5,597 $9,285 $12,977 $15,272 $14,777 -$495 Fixed & Miscellaneous Charges $9 $7 $4 $8 $7 -$1 % Difference (FY21-FY20) Total $1,474,541 $1,498,703 $1,508,247 $1,635,265 $1,246,516 -$388,749 -23.77

2020 2021 Difference (FY21-FY20) Funding Summary City Funds $1,624,805 $1,240,538 -$384,267 22 State $4,354 $0 -$4,354 Auxiliary Vehicles $57 $0 -$57 Forfeiture Law Enforcement $585 $0 -$585 Highway Safety $17 $0 -$17 Narcotics Control $4 $0 -$4 NYS Dormitory Authority Grant $3,691 $0 -$3,691 Federal - Other $128 $0 -$128 Equitable Sharing Program $128 $0 -$128 Intra City $5,979 $5,979 $0 Other Services/Fees $5,979 $5,979 $0 % Difference (FY21-FY20) Total $1,635,266 $1,246,517 -$388,749 -23.77

Notes Complete withdrawal of State and Federal funds Additional gross pay was budgeted as a deficit (negative funds) This line item accounts for the largest portion of the cut for this Agency There was a $34,000 increase in Full-Time Salaried -23.77 PatrolPatrol (spending) (spending) PatrolPatrol (spending) (spending) % Difference (FY21-FY20) Difference % $0 -$1 $169 -$128 -$495 -$2,780 -$4,386 -$1,402 -$2,529 $34,506 -$384,363 -$416,089 -$388,749 Difference (FY21-FY20) Difference $7 $89 2021 $714 $283 $269 $444 $50,971 $16,494 $14,777 -$253,770 $1,230,022 $1,432,732 $1,246,516 $8 $89 2020 $842 $275 -23.77 $1,685 $2,798 $53,751 $20,880 $15,272 $162,319 $1,614,385 $1,398,226 $1,635,265

PatrolPatrol spending spending was was one one of of the the most most significantly significantly reducedreduced expenses. expenses. Relative Relative to 2020,to 2020, expenditures expenditures in most in mostcategories categories remain remain stablestable with with the the exceptions exceptions of of “additional “additional grossgross pay” (overtime(overtime spending, spending, which which is challenging is challenging to estimate to estimate and consistently and consistently exceedsPatrolexceeds spending budget) budget) and was and “other one“other ofservices services the most and and significantly charges,”charges,” whichwhich reduced represent represent expenses. mostly mostly fringe fringeRelative benefits, benefits, to officer 2020, officer pensions expenditures pensions and entitlements and in entitlements most categories remain (otherstable(other services with services the and exceptions and charges). charges). of “additional gross pay” (overtime spending, which is challenging to estimate and consistently exceeds budget) and “other services and charges,” which represent mostly fringe benefits, officer pensions and17 entitlements % Difference (FY21-FY20) Difference % 17 $0 $0 $4

-$4 (other services and charges). -$57 -$17 2019 $216 $711 $504 $180 -$585 -$128 -$128 $2,252 -$4,354 -$3,691 17 $52,670 $50,479 $16,628 $12,977 -$384,267 -$388,749 $1,491,619 $1,388,254 $1,508,247 PatrolPatrolPatrol (funding) (funding)(funding) Difference (FY21-FY20) Difference $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $7 2018 $215 $829 $156 2021 $5,979 $5,979 $1,415 $1,845 $9,285 $49,934 $51,294 $13,537 $1,485,166 $1,240,538 $1,383,723 $1,246,517 $1,498,703 WhereasWhereas most most of the of budget the budget cutscuts come come from from reductions reductions in in $4 $9 $57 $17 statestate and andfederal federal spending, spending, the the 2017 $585 $128 $128 $194 $702 $681 $595 $195 2020 $4,354 $3,691 $5,979 $5,979 $7,779 $5,597 $47,114 $50,634 patrolpatrol category category is an isexample an example $1,466,762 $1,624,805 $1,368,820 $1,635,266 $1,474,541 of aof category a category where where City City expendituresexpenditures were were reduced. reduced. However,However, these these are categories are categories that draw skepticism from that draw skepticism from critics and that ultimately critics and that ultimately impact patrol officers’ social impact patrol officers’ social benefits and entitlements. benefits and entitlements.

18 18 Personal Services Personal Patrol Spending Funding Summary City Funds State Vehicles Auxiliary Full-Time Salaried Full-Time Forfeiture Law Enforcement Law Forfeiture Safety Highway Unsalaried Narcotics Control Control Narcotics Grant Authority Dormitory NYS Federal - Other Program Sharing Equitable City Intra Additional Gross Pay Gross Additional Other Services/Fees Other Fringe Benefits Fringe Services Personal than Other Total Notes funds Federal and State of withdrawal Complete funds) (negative deficit a as budgeted was pay gross Additional Agency this for cut the of portion largest the for accounts item line This Salaried Full-Time in increase $34,000 a was There Supplies and Materials and Supplies Property and Equipment and Property Other Services and Charges and Services Other Social Services Social Contractual Services Contractual Fixed & Miscellaneous Charges Miscellaneous & Fixed Total

23 Reimbursable Overtime Reimbursable Overtime 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Spending Difference (FY21-FY20) Personal Services $42,167 $45,718 $48,538 $36,491 $7,703 -$28,788 Additional Gross Pay $42,167 $45,718 $48,538 $36,491 $7,703 -$28,788 Percent Difference (FY21-FY20) Total $42,167 $45,718 $48,538 $36,491 $7,703 -$28,788 -78.89

2020 2021 Difference (FY21-FY20) Funding Summary City Funds $0 $0 $0 Other Categorical $3,228 $0 -$3,228 Community & Law Enfor. Resources Together $11 $0 -$11 Community Oriented Policing SV $212 $0 -$212 Ford Warranty Program $294 $0 -$294 GMC-Chevrolet Impala $140 $0 -$140 Private Grants $1,263 $0 -$1,263 Traffic Street Safety $1,307 $0 -$1,307

State $617 $0 -$617 Buckle Up New York Program $182 $0 -$182 24 Combat Aggressive Driving Program $97 $0 -$97 Highway Emergency Local Patrol $104 $0 -$104 Highway Safety $100 $0 -$100 Motor Vehicle Theft Insu Fraud $21 $0 -$21 Stop Driving While Intoxicated $112 $0 -$112

State $617 $0 -$617 Buckle Up New York Program $182 $0 -$182 Combat Aggressive Driving Program $97 $0 -$97 Highway Emergency Local Patrol $104 $0 -$104 Highway Safety $100 $0 -$100 Motor Vehicle Theft Insu Fraud $21 $0 -$21 Stop Driving While Intoxicated $112 $0 -$112

Federal - Other $32,403 $7,703 -$24,700 Enforcement Overtime Drug $703 $703 $0 United Nations + Consulate $31,700 $7,000 Intra City $244 $0 -$244 Other Services/Fees $244 $0 -$244 % Difference (FY21-FY20) Total $36,492 $7,703 -$28,789 -78.89 Reimbursable Overtime (funding) Reimbursable Overtime (funding) Reimbursable Overtime (spending) Reimbursable Overtime (spending) Reimbursable Overtime (funding) Reimbursable Overtime (spending) 25 services. that does increase funding for City example of a budgetary decision budget function. This is an most significant “savings” to this consulate services, comprise the including those for the UN and Federal overtime reductions, annual budgets. predict and historically exceeds that skeptics say is difficult to reimbursable overtime, a category There are substantial reductions to • • • - - - services. that does increase funding for City example of a budgetary decision budget function. This is an most significant “savings” to this consulate services, comprise the including those for the UN and Federal overtime reductions, annual budgets. predict and historically exceeds that skeptics say is difficult to reimbursable overtime, a category There are substantial reductions to they appear here category are not as significant as category, so the cuts to this funding in the chief of department services received additional United Nations and consulate services most impacted United Nations and consulate Largely federally funded - - - they appear here category are not as significant as category, so the cuts to this funding in the chief of department services received additional United Nations and consulate services most impacted United Nations and consulate Largely federally funded 24 23 24 23 Security/Counter-Terrorism Grants

2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Spending Difference (FY21-FY20) Personal Services $45,561 $39,760 $40,496 $28,105 $0 -$28,105 Full-Time Salaried $4,609 $4,348 $4,625 $4,162 $0 -$4,162 Unsalaried $9 $1 $0 $0 $0 $0 Additional Gross Pay $40,943 $35,411 $35,871 $13,386 $0 -$13,386 Fringe Benefits $0 $0 $0 $10,557 $0 -$10,557

Other than Personal Services $80,622 $61,340 $118,862 $122,734 $0 -$122,734 Supplies and Materials $101 $484 $1,897 $2,742 $0 -$2,742 Property and Equipment $5,188 $7,442 $8,025 $20,983 $0 -$20,983 Other Services and Charges $69,134 $52,110 $105,662 $93,136 $0 -$93,136 Contractual Services $6,199 $1,304 $3,278 $5,873 $0 -$5,873 Percent Difference (FY21-FY20) Total $126,183 $101,100 $159,358 $150,839 $0 -$150,839 -100

2020 2021 Difference (FY21-FY20)

26 Funding Summary City Funds $0 $0 $0 Federal - Other $150,839 $0 -$150,839 Domestic Preparedness Equipment Support $58 $0 -$58 Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention PGM $2,121 $0 -$2,121 Port Security $14,929 $0 -$14,929 Presidential Residence Protection Security $10,419 $0 -$10,419 Rail and Transit Security $4,902 $0 -$4,902 Securing the Cities $4,755 $0 -$4,755 State Homeland Security Grant Program $1,214 $0 -$1,214 Urban Areas Security Initiative $112,442 $0 -$112,442 % Difference (FY21-FY20) Total $150,840 $0 -$150,840 -100

2020 2021 Difference (FY21-FY20) Funding Summary City Funds $0 $0 $0 Federal - Other $150,839 $0 -$150,839 Domestic Preparedness Equipment Support $58 $0 -$58 Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention PGM $2,121 $0 -$2,121 Port Security $14,929 $0 -$14,929 Presidential Residence Protection Security $10,419 $0 -$10,419 Rail and Transit Security $4,902 $0 -$4,902 Securing the Cities $4,755 $0 -$4,755 State Homeland Security Grant Program $1,214 $0 -$1,214 Urban Areas Security Initiative $112,442 $0 -$112,442 % Difference (FY21-FY20) Total $150,840 $0 -$150,840 -100

Notes Completely defunded/withdrawn from budget but with limited domestic and international travel in the pandemic, there was limited need for this category. City officers were contracted to provide service and security at events with United Nations officials and for traveling politicians, The security/counter-terrorism budget was completely defunded. This is a largely federal program impacted by the pandemic. Security/Counter-Terrorism (spending) Security/Counter-Terrorism (funding) but with limited domestic and international travel in the pandemic, there was limited need for this category. City officers were contracted to provide service and security at events with United Nations officials and for traveling politicians, The security/counter-terrorism budget was completely defunded. This is a largely federal program impacted by the pandemic. Security/Counter-Terrorism (funding) Security/Counter-Terrorism (spending) but with limited domestic and international travel in the pandemic, there was limited need for this category. City officers were contracted to provide service and security at events with United Nations officials and for traveling politicians, The security/counter-terrorism budget was completely defunded. This is a largely federal program impacted by the pandemic. Security/Counter-Terrorism (spending) Security/Counter-Terrorism (spending) Security/Counter-Terrorism (funding) 27 in police practices. of a fundamental structural shift the pandemic, not an indication operations are a consequence of federally funded, and its limited category was exclusively reallocation to City services. This expenditures for use in and cuts do not represent cuts to City This is further indication that the in police practices. of a fundamental structural shift the pandemic, not an indication operations are a consequence of federally funded, and its limited category was exclusively reallocation to City services. This expenditures for use in and cuts do not represent cuts to City This is further indication that the 22 21 21 22 21 28

Transportation

2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Spending Difference (FY21-FY20) Personal Services $197,200 $215,514 $224,984 $230,194 $211,032 -$19,162 Full-Time Salaried $182,902 $197,834 $209,095 $206,541 $198,813 -$7,728 Unsalaried $3 $8 $12 $1 $1 $0 Additional Gross Pay $14,228 $17,597 $15,798 $19,202 $11,613 -$7,589 Fringe Benefits $67 $75 $79 $4,450 $605 -$3,845 $0 Other than Personal Services $9,896 $8,950 $11,628 $12,594 $10,654 -$1,940 Supplies and Materials $1,350 $1,019 $1,266 $5,214 $1,159 -$4,055 Property and Equipment $1,944 $2,963 $5,878 $1,351 $2,543 $1,192 Other Services and Charges $601 $82 $70 $346 $66 -$280 Social Services $3 $2 $0 $0 $1 $1 Contractual Services $5,996 $4,862 $4,400 $5,658 $6,885 $1,227 Fixed & Miscellaneous Charges $2 $22 $14 $25 $0 -$25 % Difference (FY21-FY20) Total $207,096 $224,464 $236,612 $242,788 $221,686 -$21,102 -8.69

2020 2021 Difference (FY21-FY20) Funding Summary

28 City Funds $231,585 $221,685 -$9,900 Other Categorical $8,637 $0 -$8,637 Tea-City Wide Construction Project $8,637 $0 -$8,637 State $2,567 $0 -$2,567 Combat Aggressive Driving Program $2 $0 -$2 Highway Emergency Local Patrol $2,296 $0 -$2,296 Stop Driving While Intoxicated $269 $0 -$269 Percent Difference (FY21-FY20) Total $242,789 $221,685 -$21,104 -8.69

Notes Complete withdrawal of State & Other Categorical Funds Proportional reduction from Personal & Other than Personal Services 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Spending Difference (FY21-FY20) Personal Services $197,200 $215,514 $224,984 $230,194 $211,032 -$19,162 Full-Time Salaried $182,902 $197,834 $209,095 $206,541 $198,813 -$7,728 Unsalaried $3 $8 $12 $1 $1 $0 Additional Gross Pay $14,228 $17,597 $15,798 $19,202 $11,613 -$7,589 Fringe Benefits $67 $75 $79 $4,450 $605 -$3,845 $0 Other than Personal Services $9,896 $8,950 $11,628 $12,594 $10,654 -$1,940 Supplies and Materials $1,350 $1,019 $1,266 $5,214 $1,159 -$4,055 Property and Equipment $1,944 $2,963 $5,878 $1,351 $2,543 $1,192 Other Services and Charges $601 $82 $70 $346 $66 -$280 Social Services $3 $2 $0 $0 $1 $1 Contractual Services $5,996 $4,862 $4,400 $5,658 $6,885 $1,227 Fixed & Miscellaneous Charges $2 $22 $14 $25 $0 -$25 % Difference (FY21-FY20) Total $207,096 $224,464 $236,612 $242,788 $221,686 -$21,102 -8.69

2020 2021 Difference (FY21-FY20) Funding Summary City Funds $231,585 $221,685 -$9,900 Other Categorical $8,637 $0 -$8,637 Tea-City Wide Construction Project $8,637 $0 -$8,637 State $2,567 $0 -$2,567 Combat Aggressive Driving Program $2 $0 -$2 Highway Emergency Local Patrol $2,296 $0 -$2,296 Stop Driving While Intoxicated $269 $0 -$269 Percent Difference (FY21-FY20) Total $242,789 $221,685 -$21,104 -8.69

Notes Complete withdrawal of State & Other Categorical Funds Proportional reduction from Personal & Other than Personal Services Transportation (spending) Transportation (funding) Transportation (funding) Transportation (spending) Transportation (funding) Transportation (spending) intended to improve the quality of life for city residents. transform the nature of the NYPD, but one that potentially negatively impacts projects construction and infrastructure projects, indicating a budgetary move that does not The large reduction to supplies and materials suggest a reduction in funding for city-wide intendedintended toto improve improve thethe qualityquality ofof lifelife forfor citycity residents.residents. transformtransform thethe naturenature ofof thethe NYPD,NYPD, butbut one one thatthat potentiallypotentially negativelynegatively impactsimpacts projectsprojects constructionconstruction and and infrastructureinfrastructure projects,projects, indicatingindicating a a budgetarybudgetary move move thatthat does does notnot The large reduction to supplies and materials suggest a reduction in funding for city-wide 29 NYPD. NYPD. the fundamental nature of the more meaningfully transform residents over other areas that benefiting quality of life for cutting infrastructure projects the NYPD budget prioritized suggesting that the reduction to another budgetary example infrastructure projects. This is an agency responsible for city Agency Construction projects, Tea-City is Traffic Enforcement NYPD. NYPD. the fundamental nature of the more meaningfully transform residents over other areas that benefiting quality of life for cutting infrastructure projects the NYPD budget prioritized suggesting that the reduction to another budgetary example infrastructure projects. This is an agency responsible for city Agency Construction projects, Tea-City is Traffic Enforcement 26 25 26 25 29 Notes

30 Special thanks to the Manhattan Borough President’s Office: Andres Ortiz-Gomez, Leadership for Educational Equity Summer Fellow; Jessica Mates, Chief of Staff; Shulamit Warren, Director of Policy; Hally Chu, Deputy Director of Policy; and Mia Edelstein, Managing Editor. Gale A. Brewer MANHATTAN BOROUGH PRESIDENT

1 Centre Street, 19th Floor South New York, NY 10007 (212) 669-8300

431 West 125th Street New York, NY 10027 (212) 531-1609 www.manhattanbp.nyc.gov    galeabrewer

December, 2020