HOBOKEN – After Hoboken mayor Dawn Zimmer announced two weeks ago that 18 police officers would be laid off and several others demoted, the police unions fought back. This week, Police Captain Dan Simone – on his own accord and not on behalf of the department — submits a letter saying the state audit in February that Zimmer used to determine the numbers was “biased” and not prepared by someone with the necessary background.
He calls for a new audit, one conducted by a reputable university.
He also says that the layoffs could result in a crime increase, and “The additional crimes will cost the Hoboken community approximately $ 1.8 million dollars. The costs of the additional crimes caused by the police force reduction ($2.5 million saved by the city) indicate that this policy fails a cost/benefit analysis. Are the citizens prepared for the additional general crime costs to the community?”
In the letter, he also notes, for transparency purposes, that his son could be among those facing layoffs.
What do you think? Read the letter and comment below. For related stories, see links below.
Dear Editor:
A recent study performed by a nonprofit research organization examined the costs associated with crime control in cities. Papers submitted to the Rand Corporation “undergo rigorous peer review to ensure that they meet high standards for research quality.”
This is not the case with the audit of the police department completed by a member of the Division of Local Government Services. The author of the police audit did not submit the document to a peer review process and the audit should be considered only his biased opinion. The author does not possess the necessary educational qualifications to perform this audit and his experience as chief was with a small police agency.
Further, it should not be taken as gospel. It served the task of giving the former [state-appointed] Fiscal Monitor ammunition to reduce the budget through negotiations with the police unions. That was his mission.
Accordingly, he missed the target and did not take into consideration several factors to determine the adequate manpower strength for the Hoboken Police Department and the associated results of a manpower reduction with a proper workload analysis. I submit that while the reduction of the ranks in the police department will improve the city’s fiscal condition, I ask the Mayor to rethink her proposed demotion and layoffs of police officers.
In order to be completely transparent, my son could potentially be one of the officers affected by the layoff and I am also employed by the police department.
The Hoboken Police Department has announced crime reductions during the past several years, e.g. a 5.4% reduction in violent crime was reported for the year ending 2009, a 2% reduction in violent crime was reported for the year ending 2008, and our department has reported a 9.1% reduction in violent crime and a 10.8% reduction in non-violent crime for the first 6 months of this year. I submit these reductions are through the hard work of each member of the police department. Having less police officers on the street may incur more crime.
Let’s face it; there is a cost for every crime committed in our society. The author of the police audit did not account for any cost factors of crime in his report. In fact he only reported generally available UCR statistics for crimes committed in our city. Some crime costs are easy to determine. These costs are called tangible costs. The tangible costs include the actual property loss to the victim, or the health care costs to the injured, or the cost of the police that investigate the crime. Other crime costs are not easy to determine. These costs are called intangible costs. The intangible costs include the lost of quality of life, or psychological effects of being the victim of a violent crime. For several years researchers have attempted to determine the dollar-cost value to a typical crime. In the Rand study, the author uses three well known methods to estimate the cost of crime. Reducing the number of officers may impact law enforcement and patrol levels and it is anticipated that there will be a consequence of this action. The police audit conducted by the Division of Local Government does not account for any change in crime patters with a reduction in officers.
I submit that crime may increase in our community as a direct result of the police layoffs. This statement is not to alarm our community. It is only to open the conversation for further intelligent discussion.
So what would be the crime cost to the community? Using the formulas in the Rand study and plugging in the number of average crimes committed in Hoboken over the last three years, I estimate the following costs to the community.
The additional crimes will cost the Hoboken community approximately $ 1.8 million. The costs of the additional crimes caused by the police force reduction ($2.5 million saved by the city) indicate that this policy fails a cost/benefit analysis. Are the citizens prepared for the additional general crime costs to the community?
How does our governing body allocate scarce resources? This is a difficult question to answer. The police audit conducted by the Division of Local Government did not consider the additional crimes that may occur in our community by the reduction in the amount of police officers and the author does not have the requisite education to render an opinion and his audit was performed without a peer reviewed process.
It is ironic that the Division of Local Government is the same government unit which has allowed communities for years to adopt underfunded budgets and play fiscal games. Therefore, their police audit must be looked at with a cautious eye.
The City of Hoboken has a substantial investment in the personnel of the police department and each member must be recognized for their service to the Hoboken community. Any reduction in the staffing should be done through attrition so as to minimize the effects to the citizens of Hoboken as the police audit also suggests.
I call upon the city leaders to disregard the biased uninformed police audit prepared by the Division of Local Government. It is a very biased opinion that served a specific purpose for the former Fiscal Monitor.
I suggest to the city leaders that an unbiased audit of the police department can be performed by educators from a local university. I ask the Mayor to contact the Deans of the School of Criminal Justice at either Rutgers University or John Jay College School of Criminal Justice for their assistance to determine the appropriate manpower levels and workload of the police department.
The college will ensure that a peer reviewed process is used and there will not be any biased opinions rendered in the document.
Respectfully,
Dr. Daniel Simone