POLICE REFORM TOOLKIT

POLICEREFORMTOOLKIT

Gale A. BrewerGale A. Brewer Manhattan Borough President Manhattan Borough President @galeabrewer www.manhattanbp.nyc.gov (212) 669-8300

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 Norman Siegel, and I issued a joint report on

“Improving Police-Community Relations,” the result of neighborhood town halls held among

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. BrewerManhattan Borough President

5

The Role of PoliceMany 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

Accountability and TransparencyCrucial 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 DataIn 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


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 BoardThe 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]

7

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


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


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 ConsequencesLegal 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.pdf25 “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’ PowerPolice 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 PoliceThe 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]



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 PoliceIncreasing 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]


45 “Community Representation.” Campaign Zero. N.p. N.d. https://www.joincampaignzero.org/representation

16

NYPD Budget Function AnalysisThe 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 Budgethttps://www1.nyc.gov/assets/omb/downloads/pdf/adopt20-bfa.pdfhttps://www1.nyc.gov/assets/omb/downloads/pdf/adopt19-bfa.pdfhttps://www1.nyc.gov/assets/omb/downloads/pdf/fp6-20.pdf NYC Independent Budget Officehttps://ibo.nyc.ny.us/iboreports/print-2020-adopted-budget-slides.pdf

17

Ove

rall

Bud

get F

unct

ion

2020

2021

Diff

eren

ce (F

Y21-

FY20

)Pe

rcen

t Diff

eren

ce (F

Y21-

FY20

)A

dmin

istr

atio

n$8

54,6

09$6

23,9

48-$230,661

-26.

99C

hief

of D

epar

tmen

t$9

08,9

35$9

02,2

44-$6,691

-0.7

4C

ityw

ide

Ope

ratio

ns$1

51,0

30$1

50,1

59-$871

-0.5

8C

omm

unic

atio

ns$1

45,3

78$1

37,0

23-$8,355

-5.7

5C

omm

unity

Affa

irs$1

4,61

2$1

4,49

5-$117

-0.8

0C

rimin

al J

ustic

e B

urea

u$6

1,54

5$6

3,78

0$2,235

3.63

Det

ectiv

e B

urea

u$5

71,2

21$5

72,1

72$951

0.17

Hou

sing

Bur

eau

$208

,485

$204

,218

-$4,267

-2.0

5In

telli

genc

e an

d C

ount

erte

rror

ism

$194

,707

$189

,387

-$5,320

-2.7

3In

tern

al A

ffairs

$76,

543

$72,

253

-$4,290

-5.6

0P

atro

l$1

,635

,266

$1,2

46,5

17-$388,749

-23.

77R

eim

ursa

ble

Ove

rtim

e$3

6,49

1$7

,703

-$28,788

-78.

89S

choo

l Saf

ety

$318

,969

$325

,926

$6,957

2.18

Sec

urity

/Cou

nter

-Ter

roris

m G

rant

s$1

50,8

390

-$150,839

-100

.00

Sup

port

Ser

vice

s$1

47,8

07$1

37,1

70-$10,637

-7.2

0Tr

aini

ng$1

14,7

75$1

08,8

94-$5,881

-5.1

2Tr

ansi

t$2

48,9

75$2

46,7

07-$2,268

-0.9

1Tr

ansp

orta

tion

$242

,789

$221

,685

-$21,104

-8.6

9

Tota

l$6

,082

,976

$5,2

24,2

81$8

58,6

95

Fund

ing

Sum

mar

y20

1720

1820

1920

2020

21%

Diff

eren

ce (F

Y21-

FY20

)%

Diff

eren

ce (F

Y21-

FY20

)C

ity F

unds

$5,0

16,0

88$5

,198

,676

$5,3

20,3

51$5

,243

,030

$4,8

97,9

14-$

345,

116

-6.5

8O

ther

Cat

egor

ical

$2

9,60

3$2

8,80

4$3

0,54

8$1

6,48

40

-$16

,484

-100

.00

Sta

te$5

4,11

8$5

5,66

5$6

0,72

3$8

2,56

9$7

32-$

81,8

37-9

9.11

Fede

ral-O

ther

$219

,722

$210

,677

$260

,833

$438

,948

$17,

929

-$42

1,01

9-9

5.92

Intra

City

$2

64,4

63$2

94,5

55$3

04,3

64$3

01,9

46$3

07,7

08$5

,762

1.91

Tota

l$5

,583

,994

$5,7

88,3

77$5

,976

,819

$6,0

82,9

77$5

,224

,283

-$85

8,69

4-1

4.12

Full-

Tim

e P

ositi

ons

- Civ

ilian

14,8

0215

,251

15,3

0615

,908

15,2

71Fu

ll-Ti

me

Pos

ition

s - U

nifo

rm36

,254

36,6

4336

,461

36,1

7835

,007

Full-

Tim

e E

quiv

alen

t Pos

ition

s1,

920

1,86

11,

719

1,91

71,

821

Tota

l Pos

ition

s52

,976

53,7

5553

,486

54,0

0352

,099

Bud

get F

unct

ions

with

the

Hig

hest

202

1 A

lloca

tions

Bud

get F

unct

ions

with

the

Big

gest

Sav

ings

Big

gest

Spe

ndin

g C

ateg

ory

Red

uctio

n

Pat

rol

$1,246,517

Pat

rol

$388,749

Pat

rol-

Full

Tim

e S

alar

ied

-$34

,506

Chi

ef o

f Dep

artm

ent

$902,244

Adm

inis

tratio

n$230,661

Adm

inis

tratio

n- F

ull T

ime

Sal

arie

d-$

74,9

86A

dmin

istra

tion

$623,948

Sec

urity

/Cou

nter

Ter

roris

m$150,839

Sec

urity

/Cou

nter

Ter

roris

m- O

ther

Ser

vice

s &

Cha

rges

-$93

,136

Det

ectiv

e B

urea

u$572,172

Rei

mbu

rsab

le O

verti

me

$28,788

Rei

mbu

rsab

le O

verti

me-

Add

ition

al G

ross

Pay

-$28

,788

Sch

ool S

afet

y$325,926

Tran

spor

tatio

n$21,104

Tran

spor

tatio

n- F

ull T

ime

Sal

ared

-$7,

728

Tota

l$3

,670

,807

Tota

l$8

20,1

41To

tal

-$23

9,14

4

Tota

l Sav

ings

from

Top

3 R

educ

ed D

epar

tmen

ts$7

70,2

49O

vera

ll %

Sav

ings

from

Top

3 R

educ

ed D

epar

tmen

ts89

.70

Ove

rall

18

Ove

rall

Bud

get F

unct

ion

2020

2021

Diff

eren

ce (F

Y21-

FY20

)Pe

rcen

t Diff

eren

ce (F

Y21-

FY20

)A

dmin

istr

atio

n$8

54,6

09$6

23,9

48-$230,661

-26.

99C

hief

of D

epar

tmen

t$9

08,9

35$9

02,2

44-$6,691

-0.7

4C

ityw

ide

Ope

ratio

ns$1

51,0

30$1

50,1

59-$871

-0.5

8C

omm

unic

atio

ns$1

45,3

78$1

37,0

23-$8,355

-5.7

5C

omm

unity

Affa

irs$1

4,61

2$1

4,49

5-$117

-0.8

0C

rimin

al J

ustic

e B

urea

u$6

1,54

5$6

3,78

0$2,235

3.63

Det

ectiv

e B

urea

u$5

71,2

21$5

72,1

72$951

0.17

Hou

sing

Bur

eau

$208

,485

$204

,218

-$4,267

-2.0

5In

telli

genc

e an

d C

ount

erte

rror

ism

$194

,707

$189

,387

-$5,320

-2.7

3In

tern

al A

ffairs

$76,

543

$72,

253

-$4,290

-5.6

0P

atro

l$1

,635

,266

$1,2

46,5

17-$388,749

-23.

77R

eim

ursa

ble

Ove

rtim

e$3

6,49

1$7

,703

-$28,788

-78.

89S

choo

l Saf

ety

$318

,969

$325

,926

$6,957

2.18

Sec

urity

/Cou

nter

-Ter

roris

m G

rant

s$1

50,8

390

-$150,839

-100

.00

Sup

port

Ser

vice

s$1

47,8

07$1

37,1

70-$10,637

-7.2

0Tr

aini

ng$1

14,7

75$1

08,8

94-$5,881

-5.1

2Tr

ansi

t$2

48,9

75$2

46,7

07-$2,268

-0.9

1Tr

ansp

orta

tion

$242

,789

$221

,685

-$21,104

-8.6

9

Tota

l$6

,082

,976

$5,2

24,2

81$8

58,6

95

Fund

ing

Sum

mar

y20

1720

1820

1920

2020

21%

Diff

eren

ce (F

Y21-

FY20

)%

Diff

eren

ce (F

Y21-

FY20

)C

ity F

unds

$5,0

16,0

88$5

,198

,676

$5,3

20,3

51$5

,243

,030

$4,8

97,9

14-$

345,

116

-6.5

8O

ther

Cat

egor

ical

$2

9,60

3$2

8,80

4$3

0,54

8$1

6,48

40

-$16

,484

-100

.00

Sta

te$5

4,11

8$5

5,66

5$6

0,72

3$8

2,56

9$7

32-$

81,8

37-9

9.11

Fede

ral-O

ther

$219

,722

$210

,677

$260

,833

$438

,948

$17,

929

-$42

1,01

9-9

5.92

Intra

City

$2

64,4

63$2

94,5

55$3

04,3

64$3

01,9

46$3

07,7

08$5

,762

1.91

Tota

l$5

,583

,994

$5,7

88,3

77$5

,976

,819

$6,0

82,9

77$5

,224

,283

-$85

8,69

4-1

4.12

Full-

Tim

e P

ositi

ons

- Civ

ilian

14,8

0215

,251

15,3

0615

,908

15,2

71Fu

ll-Ti

me

Pos

ition

s - U

nifo

rm36

,254

36,6

4336

,461

36,1

7835

,007

Full-

Tim

e E

quiv

alen

t Pos

ition

s1,

920

1,86

11,

719

1,91

71,

821

Tota

l Pos

ition

s52

,976

53,7

5553

,486

54,0

0352

,099

Bud

get F

unct

ions

with

the

Hig

hest

202

1 A

lloca

tions

Bud

get F

unct

ions

with

the

Big

gest

Sav

ings

Big

gest

Spe

ndin

g C

ateg

ory

Red

uctio

n

Pat

rol

$1,246,517

Pat

rol

$388,749

Pat

rol-

Full

Tim

e S

alar

ied

-$34

,506

Chi

ef o

f Dep

artm

ent

$902,244

Adm

inis

tratio

n$230,661

Adm

inis

tratio

n- F

ull T

ime

Sal

arie

d-$

74,9

86A

dmin

istra

tion

$623,948

Sec

urity

/Cou

nter

Ter

roris

m$150,839

Sec

urity

/Cou

nter

Ter

roris

m- O

ther

Ser

vice

s &

Cha

rges

-$93

,136

Det

ectiv

e B

urea

u$572,172

Rei

mbu

rsab

le O

verti

me

$28,788

Rei

mbu

rsab

le O

verti

me-

Add

ition

al G

ross

Pay

-$28

,788

Sch

ool S

afet

y$325,926

Tran

spor

tatio

n$21,104

Tran

spor

tatio

n- F

ull T

ime

Sal

ared

-$7,

728

Tota

l$3

,670

,807

Tota

l$8

20,1

41To

tal

-$23

9,14

4

Tota

l Sav

ings

from

Top

3 R

educ

ed D

epar

tmen

ts$7

70,2

49O

vera

ll %

Sav

ings

from

Top

3 R

educ

ed D

epar

tmen

ts89

.70

Adopted Budget FY 2021The units within the NYPD that experienced the most substantial cuts:

1. Administration2. Patrol3. Security/Counter-Terrorism

grants

The funding categories most substantially reduced at each of these agencies, respectively:

1. Additional Gross Pay2. Full Time Salaried3. Other Services & Charges

15

Adopted Budget FY 2021Adopted Budget FY 2021The units within the NYPD that experienced the most substantial cuts:

1. Administration2. Patrol3. Security/Counter-Terrorism

grants

The funding categories most substantially reduced at each of these agencies, respectively:

1. Additional Gross Pay2. Full Time Salaried3. Other Services & Charges

15

19

Adm

inis

trat

ion

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

Diff

eren

ce (F

Y21-

FY20

)$3

75,4

36$3

84,4

72$4

01,8

15$4

90,4

83$3

86,0

12-$

104,

471

$247

,084

$252

,626

$266

,570

$351

,158

$276

,172

-$74

,986

$207

$230

$225

$185

$187

$2$1

,013

$1,1

16$1

,397

$736

$738

$2$6

0,03

9$6

3,30

4$6

5,82

3$6

8,42

3$4

1,79

2-$

26,6

31

Pers

onal

Ser

vice

sFu

ll-Ti

me

Sal

arie

dO

ther

Sal

arie

dU

nsal

arie

dA

dditi

onal

G

ross

Pay

Frin

ge

Ben

efits

$67,

093

$67,

196

$67,

800

$69,

981

$67,

123

-$2,

858 $0

Oth

er th

an P

erso

nal S

ervi

ces

$287

,008

$322

,020

$325

,436

$364

,128

$237

,937

-$12

6,19

1S

uppl

ies

and

Mat

eria

ls$2

5,79

2$3

5,11

2$2

4,15

6$3

8,79

1$1

6,90

0-$

21,8

91P

rope

rty a

nd E

quip

men

t$1

8,16

0$1

6,09

0$1

2,37

6$1

0,32

5$6

,897

-$3,

428

Oth

er S

ervi

ces

and

Cha

rges

$152

,743

$169

,921

$167

,131

$181

,864

$120

,610

-$61

,254

Con

tract

ual S

ervi

ces

$89,

647

$99,

413

$121

,144

$132

,559

$92,

987

-$39

,572

Fixe

d &

Mis

cella

neou

s C

harg

es$6

66$1

,484

$629

$589

$543

-$46

% D

iffer

ence

(FY2

1-FY

20)

Tota

l$6

62,4

44$7

06,4

92$7

27,2

51$8

54,6

11$6

23,9

49-$

230,

662

-26.

99

Fund

ing

Sum

mar

yC

ity F

unds

$627

,964

$623

,784

-$4,

180

Oth

er C

ateg

oric

al$7

82$0

-$78

2N

on-G

over

nmen

tal G

rant

s$2

48$0

Priv

ate

Gra

nts

$534

$0St

ate

$59,

894

$0-$

59,8

94C

omm

unic

atio

ns Im

prov

emen

t$2

,015

$0Fo

rfeitu

re L

aw E

nfor

cem

ent

$57,

175

$0S

oft B

ody

Arm

or V

ests

Pro

gram

$704

$0Fe

dera

l - O

ther

$165

,296

$164

-$16

5,13

2C

oron

aviru

s R

elie

f Fun

d$7

9,37

0$0

Cul

tura

l, Te

chni

cal &

Edu

catio

nal C

ente

r$0

$164

Equ

itabl

e S

harin

g P

rogr

am$3

9,03

6$0

FEM

A P

A C

OV

ID-1

9 E

mer

genc

y P

rote

ctiv

e M

e$4

6,89

0$0

Intr

a C

ity$6

74$0

-$67

4O

ther

Ser

vice

s/Fe

es$6

74$0

% D

iffer

ence

(FY2

1-FY

20)

Tota

l$8

54,6

10$6

23,9

48-$

230,

662

-26.

99

Adm

inis

trat

ion

20

Adm

inis

trat

ion

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

Diff

eren

ce (F

Y21-

FY20

)$3

75,4

36$3

84,4

72$4

01,8

15$4

90,4

83$3

86,0

12-$

104,

471

$247

,084

$252

,626

$266

,570

$351

,158

$276

,172

-$74

,986

$207

$230

$225

$185

$187

$2$1

,013

$1,1

16$1

,397

$736

$738

$2$6

0,03

9$6

3,30

4$6

5,82

3$6

8,42

3$4

1,79

2-$

26,6

31

Pers

onal

Ser

vice

sFu

ll-Ti

me

Sal

arie

dO

ther

Sal

arie

dU

nsal

arie

dA

dditi

onal

G

ross

Pay

Frin

ge

Ben

efits

$67,

093

$67,

196

$67,

800

$69,

981

$67,

123

-$2,

858 $0

Oth

er th

an P

erso

nal S

ervi

ces

$287

,008

$322

,020

$325

,436

$364

,128

$237

,937

-$12

6,19

1S

uppl

ies

and

Mat

eria

ls$2

5,79

2$3

5,11

2$2

4,15

6$3

8,79

1$1

6,90

0-$

21,8

91P

rope

rty a

nd E

quip

men

t$1

8,16

0$1

6,09

0$1

2,37

6$1

0,32

5$6

,897

-$3,

428

Oth

er S

ervi

ces

and

Cha

rges

$152

,743

$169

,921

$167

,131

$181

,864

$120

,610

-$61

,254

Con

tract

ual S

ervi

ces

$89,

647

$99,

413

$121

,144

$132

,559

$92,

987

-$39

,572

Fixe

d &

Mis

cella

neou

s C

harg

es$6

66$1

,484

$629

$589

$543

-$46

% D

iffer

ence

(FY2

1-FY

20)

Tota

l$6

62,4

44$7

06,4

92$7

27,2

51$8

54,6

11$6

23,9

49-$

230,

662

-26.

99

Fund

ing

Sum

mar

yC

ity F

unds

$627

,964

$623

,784

-$4,

180

Oth

er C

ateg

oric

al$7

82$0

-$78

2N

on-G

over

nmen

tal G

rant

s$2

48$0

Priv

ate

Gra

nts

$534

$0St

ate

$59,

894

$0-$

59,8

94C

omm

unic

atio

ns Im

prov

emen

t$2

,015

$0Fo

rfeitu

re L

aw E

nfor

cem

ent

$57,

175

$0S

oft B

ody

Arm

or V

ests

Pro

gram

$704

$0Fe

dera

l - O

ther

$165

,296

$164

-$16

5,13

2C

oron

aviru

s R

elie

f Fun

d$7

9,37

0$0

Cul

tura

l, Te

chni

cal &

Edu

catio

nal C

ente

r$0

$164

Equ

itabl

e S

harin

g P

rogr

am$3

9,03

6$0

FEM

A P

A C

OV

ID-1

9 E

mer

genc

y P

rote

ctiv

e M

e$4

6,89

0$0

Intr

a C

ity$6

74$0

-$67

4O

ther

Ser

vice

s/Fe

es$6

74$0

% D

iffer

ence

(FY2

1-FY

20)

Tota

l$8

54,6

10$6

23,9

48-$

230,

662

-26.

99

Administration (funding)There is virtually no difference in City expenditures. Instead, state & federal categories have largely been defunded. Note the pandemic-specific programming here when considering whether these budget cuts were intended to initiate a long-term reform to funding of police budgets.

20

Administration (funding)

Administration (spending)

The second-largest cut to the budget is to the administration spending category. Here, again, reductions in NYPD salary, benefits and entitlements account for a substantial portion of the cuts. Contractual services also account for a substantial decrease in funding. Skeptics cite that due to the pandemic, it was inevitable that NYPD contracts for security at miscellaneous public events (fairs, sporting events, etc.) would be cut. Critics say that this reduction does not indicate a sustainable, long-term solution to the question of meaningfully defunding the police to reallocate funds to other community and social services. 19

Administration (spending)Administration (spending)


Administration (spending)


Administration (funding)There is virtually no difference in City expenditures. Instead, state & federal categories have largely been defunded. Note the pandemic-specific programming here when considering whether these budget cuts were intended to initiate a long-term reform to funding of police budgets.

20

21

Patr

ol20

1720

1820

1920

2020

21

Spen

ding

Diff

eren

ce (F

Y21-

FY20

)Pe

rson

al S

ervi

ces

$1,4

66,7

62$1

,485

,166

$1,4

91,6

19$1

,614

,385

$1,2

30,0

22-$

384,

363

Full-

Tim

e S

alar

ied

$1,3

68,8

20$1

,383

,723

$1,3

88,2

54$1

,398

,226

$1,4

32,7

32$3

4,50

6U

nsal

arie

d$4

7,11

4$4

9,93

4$5

2,67

0$5

3,75

1$5

0,97

1-$

2,78

0A

dditi

onal

Gro

ss P

ay$5

0,63

4$5

1,29

4$5

0,47

9$1

62,3

19-$

253,

770

-$41

6,08

9Fr

inge

Ben

efits

$194

$215

$216

$89

$89

$0

Oth

er th

an P

erso

nal S

ervi

ces

$7,7

79$1

3,53

7$1

6,62

8$2

0,88

0$1

6,49

4-$

4,38

6S

uppl

ies

and

Mat

eria

ls$7

02$8

29$7

11$8

42$7

14-$

128

Pro

perty

and

Equ

ipm

ent

$681

$1,4

15$5

04$1

,685

$283

-$1,

402

Oth

er S

ervi

ces

and

Cha

rges

$595

$1,8

45$2

,252

$2,7

98$2

69-$

2,52

9S

ocia

l Ser

vice

s$1

95$1

56$1

80$2

75$4

44$1

69C

ontra

ctua

l Ser

vice

s$5

,597

$9,2

85$1

2,97

7$1

5,27

2$1

4,77

7-$

495

Fixe

d &

Mis

cella

neou

s C

harg

es$9

$7$4

$8$7

-$1

% D

iffer

ence

(FY2

1-FY

20)

Tota

l$1

,474

,541

$1,4

98,7

03$1

,508

,247

$1,6

35,2

65$1

,246

,516

-$38

8,74

9-2

3.77

2020

2021

Diff

eren

ce (F

Y21-

FY20

)

Fund

ing

Sum

mar

yC

ity F

unds

$1,6

24,8

05$1

,240

,538

-$38

4,26

7St

ate

$4,3

54$0

-$4,

354

Aux

iliar

y V

ehic

les

$57

$0-$

57Fo

rfeitu

re L

aw E

nfor

cem

ent

$585

$0-$

585

Hig

hway

Saf

ety

$17

$0-$

17N

arco

tics

Con

trol

$4$0

-$4

NY

S D

orm

itory

Aut

horit

y G

rant

$3,6

91$0

-$3,

691

Fede

ral -

Oth

er$1

28$0

-$12

8E

quita

ble

Sha

ring

Pro

gram

$128

$0-$

128

Intr

a C

ity$5

,979

$5,9

79$0

Oth

er S

ervi

ces/

Fees

$5,9

79$5

,979

$0%

Diff

eren

ce (F

Y21-

FY20

)To

tal

$1,6

35,2

66$1

,246

,517

-$38

8,74

9-2

3.77

Not

esC

ompl

ete

with

draw

al o

f Sta

te a

nd F

eder

al fu

nds

Add

ition

al g

ross

pay

was

bud

gete

d as

a d

efic

it (n

egat

ive

fund

s)Th

is li

ne it

em a

ccou

nts

for t

he la

rges

t por

tion

of th

e cu

t for

this

Age

ncy

Ther

e w

as a

$34

,000

incr

ease

in F

ull-T

ime

Sal

arie

d

Patr

ol

22

Patrol (spending)

Patrol spending was one of the most significantly reduced expenses. Relative to 2020, expenditures in most categories remain stable with the exceptions 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 and entitlements (other services and charges).

17

Patr

ol20

1720

1820

1920

2020

21

Spen

ding

Diff

eren

ce (F

Y21-

FY20

)Pe

rson

al S

ervi

ces

$1,4

66,7

62$1

,485

,166

$1,4

91,6

19$1

,614

,385

$1,2

30,0

22-$

384,

363

Full-

Tim

e S

alar

ied

$1,3

68,8

20$1

,383

,723

$1,3

88,2

54$1

,398

,226

$1,4

32,7

32$3

4,50

6U

nsal

arie

d$4

7,11

4$4

9,93

4$5

2,67

0$5

3,75

1$5

0,97

1-$

2,78

0A

dditi

onal

Gro

ss P

ay$5

0,63

4$5

1,29

4$5

0,47

9$1

62,3

19-$

253,

770

-$41

6,08

9Fr

inge

Ben

efits

$194

$215

$216

$89

$89

$0

Oth

er th

an P

erso

nal S

ervi

ces

$7,7

79$1

3,53

7$1

6,62

8$2

0,88

0$1

6,49

4-$

4,38

6S

uppl

ies

and

Mat

eria

ls$7

02$8

29$7

11$8

42$7

14-$

128

Pro

perty

and

Equ

ipm

ent

$681

$1,4

15$5

04$1

,685

$283

-$1,

402

Oth

er S

ervi

ces

and

Cha

rges

$595

$1,8

45$2

,252

$2,7

98$2

69-$

2,52

9S

ocia

l Ser

vice

s$1

95$1

56$1

80$2

75$4

44$1

69C

ontra

ctua

l Ser

vice

s$5

,597

$9,2

85$1

2,97

7$1

5,27

2$1

4,77

7-$

495

Fixe

d &

Mis

cella

neou

s C

harg

es$9

$7$4

$8$7

-$1

% D

iffer

ence

(FY2

1-FY

20)

Tota

l$1

,474

,541

$1,4

98,7

03$1

,508

,247

$1,6

35,2

65$1

,246

,516

-$38

8,74

9-2

3.77

2020

2021

Diff

eren

ce (F

Y21-

FY20

)

Fund

ing

Sum

mar

yC

ity F

unds

$1,6

24,8

05$1

,240

,538

-$38

4,26

7St

ate

$4,3

54$0

-$4,

354

Aux

iliar

y V

ehic

les

$57

$0-$

57Fo

rfeitu

re L

aw E

nfor

cem

ent

$585

$0-$

585

Hig

hway

Saf

ety

$17

$0-$

17N

arco

tics

Con

trol

$4$0

-$4

NY

S D

orm

itory

Aut

horit

y G

rant

$3,6

91$0

-$3,

691

Fede

ral -

Oth

er$1

28$0

-$12

8E

quita

ble

Sha

ring

Pro

gram

$128

$0-$

128

Intr

a C

ity$5

,979

$5,9

79$0

Oth

er S

ervi

ces/

Fees

$5,9

79$5

,979

$0%

Diff

eren

ce (F

Y21-

FY20

)To

tal

$1,6

35,2

66$1

,246

,517

-$38

8,74

9-2

3.77

Not

esC

ompl

ete

with

draw

al o

f Sta

te a

nd F

eder

al fu

nds

Add

ition

al g

ross

pay

was

bud

gete

d as

a d

efic

it (n

egat

ive

fund

s)Th

is li

ne it

em a

ccou

nts

for t

he la

rges

t por

tion

of th

e cu

t for

this

Age

ncy

Ther

e w

as a

$34

,000

incr

ease

in F

ull-T

ime

Sal

arie

d

Patrol (funding)

Whereas most of the budget cuts come from reductions in state and federal spending, the patrol category is an example of a category where City expenditures were reduced. However, these are categories that draw skepticism from critics and that ultimately impact patrol officers’ social benefits and entitlements.

18

Patrol (funding)

Patrol (spending)


17

Patrol (spending)Patrol (spending)


17

Patrol (funding)

Whereas most of the budget cuts come from reductions in state and federal spending, the patrol category is an example of a category where City expenditures were reduced. However, these are categories that draw skepticism from critics and that ultimately impact patrol officers’ social benefits and entitlements.

18

23

Rei

mbu

rsab

le O

vert

ime

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

Spen

ding

Diff

eren

ce (F

Y21-

FY20

)Pe

rson

al S

ervi

ces

$42,

167

$45,

718

$48,

538

$36,

491

$7,7

03-$

28,7

88A

dditi

onal

Gro

ss P

ay$4

2,16

7$4

5,71

8$4

8,53

8$3

6,49

1$7

,703

-$28

,788

Perc

ent D

iffer

ence

(FY2

1-FY

20)

Tota

l$4

2,16

7$4

5,71

8$4

8,53

8$3

6,49

1$7

,703

-$28

,788

-78.

89

2020

2021

Diff

eren

ce (F

Y21-

FY20

)

Fund

ing

Sum

mar

yC

ity F

unds

$0$0

$0O

ther

Cat

egor

ical

$3,2

28$0

-$3,

228

Com

mun

ity &

Law

Enf

or. R

esou

rces

Tog

ethe

r$1

1$0

-$11

Com

mun

ity O

rient

ed P

olic

ing

SV

$212

$0-$

212

Ford

War

rant

y P

rogr

am$2

94$0

-$29

4G

MC

-Che

vrol

et Im

pala

$140

$0-$

140

Priv

ate

Gra

nts

$1,2

63$0

-$1,

263

Traf

fic S

treet

Saf

ety

$1,3

07$0

-$1,

307

Stat

e$6

17$0

-$61

7B

uckl

e U

p N

ew Y

ork

Pro

gram

$182

$0-$

182

Com

bat A

ggre

ssiv

e D

rivin

g P

rogr

am$9

7$0

-$97

Hig

hway

Em

erge

ncy

Loca

l Pat

rol

$104

$0-$

104

Hig

hway

Saf

ety

$100

$0-$

100

Mot

or V

ehic

le T

heft

Insu

Fra

ud$2

1$0

-$21

Sto

p D

rivin

g W

hile

Into

xica

ted

$112

$0-$

112

Fede

ral -

Oth

er$3

2,40

3$7

,703

-$24

,700

Enf

orce

men

t Ove

rtim

e D

rug

$703

$703

$0U

nite

d N

atio

ns +

Con

sula

te$3

1,70

0$7

,000

Intr

a C

ity$2

44$0

-$24

4O

ther

Ser

vice

s/Fe

es$2

44$0

-$24

4%

Diff

eren

ce (F

Y21-

FY20

)To

tal

$36,

492

$7,7

03-$

28,7

89-7

8.89

Rei

mbu

rsab

le O

vert

ime

24

Rei

mbu

rsab

le O

vert

ime

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

Spen

ding

Diff

eren

ce (F

Y21-

FY20

)Pe

rson

al S

ervi

ces

$42,

167

$45,

718

$48,

538

$36,

491

$7,7

03-$

28,7

88A

dditi

onal

Gro

ss P

ay$4

2,16

7$4

5,71

8$4

8,53

8$3

6,49

1$7

,703

-$28

,788

Perc

ent D

iffer

ence

(FY2

1-FY

20)

Tota

l$4

2,16

7$4

5,71

8$4

8,53

8$3

6,49

1$7

,703

-$28

,788

-78.

89

2020

2021

Diff

eren

ce (F

Y21-

FY20

)

Fund

ing

Sum

mar

yC

ity F

unds

$0$0

$0O

ther

Cat

egor

ical

$3,2

28$0

-$3,

228

Com

mun

ity &

Law

Enf

or. R

esou

rces

Tog

ethe

r$1

1$0

-$11

Com

mun

ity O

rient

ed P

olic

ing

SV

$212

$0-$

212

Ford

War

rant

y P

rogr

am$2

94$0

-$29

4G

MC

-Che

vrol

et Im

pala

$140

$0-$

140

Priv

ate

Gra

nts

$1,2

63$0

-$1,

263

Traf

fic S

treet

Saf

ety

$1,3

07$0

-$1,

307

Stat

e$6

17$0

-$61

7B

uckl

e U

p N

ew Y

ork

Pro

gram

$182

$0-$

182

Com

bat A

ggre

ssiv

e D

rivin

g P

rogr

am$9

7$0

-$97

Hig

hway

Em

erge

ncy

Loca

l Pat

rol

$104

$0-$

104

Hig

hway

Saf

ety

$100

$0-$

100

Mot

or V

ehic

le T

heft

Insu

Fra

ud$2

1$0

-$21

Sto

p D

rivin

g W

hile

Into

xica

ted

$112

$0-$

112

Fede

ral -

Oth

er$3

2,40

3$7

,703

-$24

,700

Enf

orce

men

t Ove

rtim

e D

rug

$703

$703

$0U

nite

d N

atio

ns +

Con

sula

te$3

1,70

0$7

,000

Intr

a C

ity$2

44$0

-$24

4O

ther

Ser

vice

s/Fe

es$2

44$0

-$24

4%

Diff

eren

ce (F

Y21-

FY20

)To

tal

$36,

492

$7,7

03-$

28,7

89-7

8.89

Reimbursable Overtime (funding)

There are substantial reductions to reimbursable overtime, a category that skeptics say is difficult to predict and historically exceeds annual budgets.

Federal overtime reductions, including those for the UN and consulate services, comprise the most significant “savings” to this budget function. This is an example of a budgetary decision that does increase funding for City services.

24


Reimbursable Overtime (spending)

- Largely federally funded- United Nations and consulate

services most impacted- United Nations and consulate

services received additional funding in the chief of department category, so the cuts to this category are not as significant as they appear here

23

Reimbursable Overtime (spending)Reimbursable Overtime (spending)

- Largely federally funded- United Nations and consulate

services most impacted- United Nations and consulate

services received additional funding in the chief of department category, so the cuts to this category are not as significant as they appear here

23


There are substantial reductions to reimbursable overtime, a category that skeptics say is difficult to predict and historically exceeds annual budgets.

Federal overtime reductions, including those for the UN and consulate services, comprise the most significant “savings” to this budget function. This is an example of a budgetary decision that does increase funding for City services.

24

25

••

•

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

Spen

ding

Diff

eren

ce (F

Y21-

FY20

)Pe

rson

al S

ervi

ces

$45,

561

$39,

760

$40,

496

$28,

105

$0-$

28,1

05Fu

ll-Ti

me

Sal

arie

d$4

,609

$4,3

48$4

,625

$4,1

62$0

-$4,

162

Uns

alar

ied

$9$1

$0$0

$0$0

Add

ition

al G

ross

Pay

$4

0,94

3$3

5,41

1$3

5,87

1$1

3,38

6$0

-$13

,386

Frin

ge B

enef

its$0

$0$0

$10,

557

$0-$

10,5

57

Oth

er th

an P

erso

nal S

ervi

ces

$80,

622

$61,

340

$118

,862

$122

,734

$0-$

122,

734

Sup

plie

s an

d M

ater

ials

$101

$484

$1,8

97$2

,742

$0-$

2,74

2P

rope

rty a

nd E

quip

men

t$5

,188

$7,4

42$8

,025

$20,

983

$0-$

20,9

83O

ther

Ser

vice

s an

d C

harg

es$6

9,13

4$5

2,11

0$1

05,6

62$9

3,13

6$0

-$93

,136

Con

tract

ual S

ervi

ces

$6,1

99$1

,304

$3,2

78$5

,873

$0-$

5,87

3Pe

rcen

t Diff

eren

ce (F

Y21-

FY20

)To

tal

$126

,183

$101

,100

$159

,358

$150

,839

$0-$

150,

839

-100

2020

2021

Diff

eren

ce (F

Y21-

FY20

)

Fund

ing

Sum

mar

yC

ity F

unds

$0$0

$0Fe

dera

l - O

ther

$150

,839

$0-$

150,

839

Dom

estic

Pre

pare

dnes

s E

quip

men

t Sup

port

$58

$0-$

58La

w E

nfor

cem

ent T

erro

rism

Pre

vent

ion

PG

M$2

,121

$0-$

2,12

1P

ort S

ecur

ity$1

4,92

9$0

-$14

,929

Pre

side

ntia

l Res

iden

ce P

rote

ctio

n S

ecur

ity$1

0,41

9$0

-$10

,419

Rai

l and

Tra

nsit

Sec

urity

$4,9

02$0

-$4,

902

Sec

urin

g th

e C

ities

$4,7

55$0

-$4,

755

Sta

te H

omel

and

Sec

urity

Gra

nt P

rogr

am$1

,214

$0-$

1,21

4U

rban

Are

as S

ecur

ity In

itiat

ive

$112

,442

$0-$

112,

442

% D

iffer

ence

(FY2

1-FY

20)

Tota

l$1

50,8

40$0

-$15

0,84

0-1

00

Not

esC

ompl

etel

y de

fund

ed/w

ithdr

awn

from

bud

get

Security/Counter-Terrorism (spending)

The security/counter-terrorism budget was completely defunded. This is a largely federal program impacted by the pandemic. City officers were contracted to provide service and security at events with United Nations officials and for traveling politicians, but with limited domestic and international travel in the pandemic, there was limited need for this category.

21

Secu

rity

/Cou

nter

-Ter

rori

sm G

rant

s

26

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

Spen

ding

Diff

eren

ce (F

Y21-

FY20

)Pe

rson

al S

ervi

ces

$45,

561

$39,

760

$40,

496

$28,

105

$0-$

28,1

05Fu

ll-Ti

me

Sal

arie

d$4

,609

$4,3

48$4

,625

$4,1

62$0

-$4,

162

Uns

alar

ied

$9$1

$0$0

$0$0

Add

ition

al G

ross

Pay

$4

0,94

3$3

5,41

1$3

5,87

1$1

3,38

6$0

-$13

,386

Frin

ge B

enef

its$0

$0$0

$10,

557

$0-$

10,5

57

Oth

er th

an P

erso

nal S

ervi

ces

$80,

622

$61,

340

$118

,862

$122

,734

$0-$

122,

734

Sup

plie

s an

d M

ater

ials

$101

$484

$1,8

97$2

,742

$0-$

2,74

2P

rope

rty a

nd E

quip

men

t$5

,188

$7,4

42$8

,025

$20,

983

$0-$

20,9

83O

ther

Ser

vice

s an

d C

harg

es$6

9,13

4$5

2,11

0$1

05,6

62$9

3,13

6$0

-$93

,136

Con

tract

ual S

ervi

ces

$6,1

99$1

,304

$3,2

78$5

,873

$0-$

5,87

3Pe

rcen

t Diff

eren

ce (F

Y21-

FY20

)To

tal

$126

,183

$101

,100

$159

,358

$150

,839

$0-$

150,

839

-100

2020

2021

Diff

eren

ce (F

Y21-

FY20

)

Fund

ing

Sum

mar

yC

ity F

unds

$0$0

$0Fe

dera

l - O

ther

$150

,839

$0-$

150,

839

Dom

estic

Pre

pare

dnes

s E

quip

men

t Sup

port

$58

$0-$

58La

w E

nfor

cem

ent T

erro

rism

Pre

vent

ion

PG

M$2

,121

$0-$

2,12

1P

ort S

ecur

ity$1

4,92

9$0

-$14

,929

Pre

side

ntia

l Res

iden

ce P

rote

ctio

n S

ecur

ity$1

0,41

9$0

-$10

,419

Rai

l and

Tra

nsit

Sec

urity

$4,9

02$0

-$4,

902

Sec

urin

g th

e C

ities

$4,7

55$0

-$4,

755

Sta

te H

omel

and

Sec

urity

Gra

nt P

rogr

am$1

,214

$0-$

1,21

4U

rban

Are

as S

ecur

ity In

itiat

ive

$112

,442

$0-$

112,

442

% D

iffer

ence

(FY2

1-FY

20)

Tota

l$1

50,8

40$0

-$15

0,84

0-1

00

Not

esC

ompl

etel

y de

fund

ed/w

ithdr

awn

from

bud

get



21


Security/Counter-Terrorism (funding)

This is further indication that the cuts do not represent cuts to City expenditures for use in and reallocation to City services. This category was exclusively federally funded, and its limited operations are a consequence of the pandemic, not an indication of a fundamental structural shift in police practices.

22




21



21


This is further indication that the cuts do not represent cuts to City expenditures for use in and reallocation to City services. This category was exclusively federally funded, and its limited operations are a consequence of the pandemic, not an indication of a fundamental structural shift in police practices.

22

27

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

Spen

ding

Diff

eren

ce (F

Y21-

FY20

)Pe

rson

al S

ervi

ces

$197

,200

$215

,514

$224

,984

$230

,194

$211

,032

-$19

,162

Full-

Tim

e S

alar

ied

$182

,902

$197

,834

$209

,095

$206

,541

$198

,813

-$7,

728

Uns

alar

ied

$3$8

$12

$1$1

$0A

dditi

onal

Gro

ss P

ay$1

4,22

8$1

7,59

7$1

5,79

8$1

9,20

2$1

1,61

3-$

7,58

9Fr

inge

Ben

efits

$67

$75

$79

$4,4

50$6

05-$

3,84

5 $0O

ther

than

Per

sona

l Ser

vice

s$9

,896

$8,9

50$1

1,62

8$1

2,59

4$1

0,65

4-$

1,94

0S

uppl

ies

and

Mat

eria

ls$1

,350

$1,0

19$1

,266

$5,2

14$1

,159

-$4,

055

Pro

perty

and

Equ

ipm

ent

$1,9

44$2

,963

$5,8

78$1

,351

$2,5

43$1

,192

Oth

er S

ervi

ces

and

Cha

rges

$601

$82

$70

$346

$66

-$28

0S

ocia

l Ser

vice

s$3

$2$0

$0$1

$1C

ontra

ctua

l Ser

vice

s$5

,996

$4,8

62$4

,400

$5,6

58$6

,885

$1,2

27Fi

xed

& M

isce

llane

ous

Cha

rges

$2$2

2$1

4$2

5$0

-$25

% D

iffer

ence

(FY2

1-FY

20)

Tota

l$2

07,0

96$2

24,4

64$2

36,6

12$2

42,7

88$2

21,6

86-$

21,1

02-8

.69

2020

2021

Diff

eren

ce (F

Y21-

FY20

)

Fund

ing

Sum

mar

yC

ity F

unds

$231

,585

$221

,685

-$9,

900

Oth

er C

ateg

oric

al$8

,637

$0-$

8,63

7Te

a-C

ity W

ide

Con

stru

ctio

n P

roje

ct$8

,637

$0-$

8,63

7St

ate

$2,5

67$0

-$2,

567

Com

bat A

ggre

ssiv

e D

rivin

g P

rogr

am$2

$0-$

2H

ighw

ay E

mer

genc

y Lo

cal P

atro

l$2

,296

$0-$

2,29

6S

top

Driv

ing

Whi

le In

toxi

cate

d$2

69$0

-$26

9Pe

rcen

t Diff

eren

ce (F

Y21-

FY20

)To

tal

$242

,789

$221

,685

-$21

,104

-8.6

9

Not

esC

ompl

ete

with

draw

al o

f Sta

te &

Oth

er C

ateg

oric

al F

unds

Pro

porti

onal

redu

ctio

n fro

m P

erso

nal &

Oth

er th

an P

erso

nal S

ervi

ces

Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

2828

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

Spen

ding

Diff

eren

ce (F

Y21-

FY20

)Pe

rson

al S

ervi

ces

$197

,200

$215

,514

$224

,984

$230

,194

$211

,032

-$19

,162

Full-

Tim

e S

alar

ied

$182

,902

$197

,834

$209

,095

$206

,541

$198

,813

-$7,

728

Uns

alar

ied

$3$8

$12

$1$1

$0A

dditi

onal

Gro

ss P

ay$1

4,22

8$1

7,59

7$1

5,79

8$1

9,20

2$1

1,61

3-$

7,58

9Fr

inge

Ben

efits

$67

$75

$79

$4,4

50$6

05-$

3,84

5 $0O

ther

than

Per

sona

l Ser

vice

s$9

,896

$8,9

50$1

1,62

8$1

2,59

4$1

0,65

4-$

1,94

0S

uppl

ies

and

Mat

eria

ls$1

,350

$1,0

19$1

,266

$5,2

14$1

,159

-$4,

055

Pro

perty

and

Equ

ipm

ent

$1,9

44$2

,963

$5,8

78$1

,351

$2,5

43$1

,192

Oth

er S

ervi

ces

and

Cha

rges

$601

$82

$70

$346

$66

-$28

0S

ocia

l Ser

vice

s$3

$2$0

$0$1

$1C

ontra

ctua

l Ser

vice

s$5

,996

$4,8

62$4

,400

$5,6

58$6

,885

$1,2

27Fi

xed

& M

isce

llane

ous

Cha

rges

$2$2

2$1

4$2

5$0

-$25

% D

iffer

ence

(FY2

1-FY

20)

Tota

l$2

07,0

96$2

24,4

64$2

36,6

12$2

42,7

88$2

21,6

86-$

21,1

02-8

.69

2020

2021

Diff

eren

ce (F

Y21-

FY20

)

Fund

ing

Sum

mar

yC

ity F

unds

$231

,585

$221

,685

-$9,

900

Oth

er C

ateg

oric

al$8

,637

$0-$

8,63

7Te

a-C

ity W

ide

Con

stru

ctio

n P

roje

ct$8

,637

$0-$

8,63

7St

ate

$2,5

67$0

-$2,

567

Com

bat A

ggre

ssiv

e D

rivin

g P

rogr

am$2

$0-$

2H

ighw

ay E

mer

genc

y Lo

cal P

atro

l$2

,296

$0-$

2,29

6S

top

Driv

ing

Whi

le In

toxi

cate

d$2

69$0

-$26

9Pe

rcen

t Diff

eren

ce (F

Y21-

FY20

)To

tal

$242

,789

$221

,685

-$21

,104

-8.6

9

Not

esC

ompl

ete

with

draw

al o

f Sta

te &

Oth

er C

ateg

oric

al F

unds

Pro

porti

onal

redu

ctio

n fro

m P

erso

nal &

Oth

er th

an P

erso

nal S

ervi

ces

Transportation (spending)

The large reduction to supplies and materials suggest a reduction in funding for city-wide construction and infrastructure projects, indicating a budgetary move that does not transform the nature of the NYPD, but one that potentially negatively impacts projects intended to improve the quality of life for city residents. 25


Transportation (funding)

Tea-City is Traffic Enforcement Agency Construction projects, an agency responsible for city infrastructure projects. This is another budgetary example suggesting that the reduction to the NYPD budget prioritized cutting infrastructure projects benefiting quality of life for residents over other areas that more meaningfully transform the fundamental nature of the NYPD.

26


29






Tea-City is Traffic Enforcement Agency Construction projects, an agency responsible for city infrastructure projects. This is another budgetary example suggesting that the reduction to the NYPD budget prioritized cutting infrastructure projects benefiting quality of life for residents over other areas that more meaningfully transform the fundamental nature of the NYPD.

26

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

POLICE REFORM TOOLKIT

Documents

Transcript of POLICE REFORM TOOLKIT