Hiring more police officers won't "save" city money

Debbie Russell at the Austin Post issued a thoughtful reaction to this Austin Statesman story by Patrick George which puts forth a pie-in-the-sky argument that "Hiring [police] officers could save Austin money." The argument, promoted by the Rand Corporation, is that hiring more police officers will directly result in lower crime and thus lower costs from crime to the citizenry. Writes George, "Hiring 47 new Austin officers — two of the 49 are airport police paid for by that entity — could mean 21 fewer robberies, 103 fewer burglaries and one fewer murder if the department is working at maximum efficiency," supposedly reducing overall costs to the community by $14.7 million.

Humorously, though, even Statesman commenters (a normally credulous lot when it comes to police department PR) nearly universally saw through this argument. Quipped one wag, "Why not just keep going. Let's reduce the unemployment in this town and hire 25,000 cops and save hundreds of millions of dollars and REBATE that money back to the taxpayers. Then the economy here will really take off!" From another: "According to this Alice in Wonderland logic, if we hired 400 more officers, crime would disappear."

Debbie makes a point emphasized on Grits in the past that the Austin Police Department's real staffing needs lie in civilian positions, and that hiring more rookie beat cops fails to address the city's most immediate crime fighting needs: investigators, 911 call takers, crime scene technicians, etc.. And she debunks a meme promoted by the police union and the department that there is a city policy requiring Austin PD to employ 2 officers per 1,000 residents; in fact no such policy exists, and there's no reason to believe that arbitrary number has any validity.

As for hiring more patrol officers, Grits believes the City should use the ones they have more effectively before hiring any more. A 2006 study found that 12% of APD police calls are spent responding to false burglar alarms. But despite calls for efficiency in government, nobody on the city council has suggested switching to verified response, instead preferring to continue inefficient practices and soak the taxpayer.

Debbie also pointed to another Austin Post article from the city's 2009 budget debate making the argument that Austin overspends on law enforcement compared to other jurisdictions. Here are a couple of notable charts compiled from that story, first on spending per full-time employee:

And also the proportion of General Fund revenue devoted to police and fire services:

For all that extra spending, though, Austin gets clearance rates and 911 response times that are average or worse, reported the Post.

The overemphasis on police spending stems from the local police union's political clout more than crimefighting needs. That's also why you see such an emphasis on hiring uniformed officers instead of crime scene technicians and 911 call takers: The latter aren't members of the union and pay no dues.

Another Statesman commenter dubbed "Your Superior" reacted to the story's bland assertion that, "The average Austinite would pay $265 more in taxes and utility fees in the coming year under the 2011-12 budget proposed." YS retorted: "It is very unlikely that I will make $265 more next year than I did this year. Most likely, I will make the same, or if the economy falters, a little less. I am going to pay for that $265 by taking food out of my shopping cart before I hit the check out line. It is the same sorry tale for the past five years of tax hikes."

Bottom line: The suggested possible benefits from reduced crime are speculative but the cost to taxpayers from hiring more officers is both certain and immediate. If the Austin city council hires more police officers based on this absurd analysis, no pun intended, they're buying a pig in a poke.