Bill Bratton offers his unique perspective on taking risks and learning from failure in the criminal justice system.
William Bratton has served as the Police Commissioner in both Boston and New York City and most recently as the Chief of Police of the Los Angeles Police Department. He led the development of CompStat, the internationally acclaimed computerized crime mapping system now used by police departments nationwide. Mr. Bratton is currently the Chairman of Altegrity Risk International.
What do you think about the idea of giving more attention to failure in criminal justice?
Recognizing failure is very important. We tend to only look at failure in times of crisis, such as when a parolee commits a heinous crime. But paying attention in times of calm is when it’s most valuable because it allows for more careful review. Doing so does involve risks, though. You can’t hold on to failure just because fixing it is risk-intensive. You have to be willing to uncover what went wrong. I can think of a recent example. In Los Angeles, the department struggled in its response to a May Day immigration rally. There was failure everywhere – in planning and in leadership. When it was over, we took a close look at what happened. I’m a better police chief now because of it, and the LAPD is a much better department because of the transparency that was displayed while addressing the failure.
What are some obstacles in criminal justice to appropriately addressing failure?
The biggest obstacle is a lack of research, which is tied to a lack of funding. I’m a huge advocate of research, but there’s not enough of it in criminal justice. It’s incredible that our society funds abundant research on things like tooth decay but can’t adequately fund research on public safety.
How have you ensured that research and evaluation are valued in the departments you’ve run?
I’ve always described my departments as laboratories. I want everyone to know that they are encouraged to test new ideas. An essential component of that is creating an atmosphere for taking risks. When we developed CompStat, for example, the program itself was designed to reward risk-takers. Those principles extended department-wide in New York and Los Angeles. I remember the day I was sworn in as the police commissioner in New York, quoting the Revolutionary hero John Paul Jones that I hoped for a fast ship because I intended to go in harm’s way. I was ready to take risks to get things done.
When the research does exist, what are the obstacles to translating it into practice?
I think research could be more user-friendly. Often it seems that research is just written for other researchers. If a report includes anything with a formula, the average police chief or middle manager isn’t going to read it. I also think researchers remain too disconnected from the subject of their research. I understand the value of objectivity but there’s information in the subjective, too. They’re not riding in the patrol car, so they don’t get the valuable information from that perspective. The researchers that have been the most valuable to me have been those who “walk the walk”.
In addition to seeing more research done in general, how do you think the criminal justice system can better utilize research?
I think the system would benefit from a better filtering mechanism to ensure that scarce resources are being spent on the best studies. I also think we need to demand that research take a wider lens. When you look too narrowly, you don’t see or appreciate how the various agencies interact. The system is very intertwined, and change in one agency can have big consequences for another agency. For example, Senator Webb recently proposed new corrections legislation, but corrections is too narrow a focus. I’ve been advocating for the creation of a National Crime Commission that would have the perspective to see how reform affects all of the related agencies.
What do you anticipate will be the major challenges in criminal justice in coming years?
I think the social and financial pressures will continue to produce short-sighted reforms.
Consider early release in California. They are about to let guys out without services, jobs, or treatment. We expect them to walk the straight line, but without guard rails, they’re likely to fall. While it may look like cost-savings now, many of those individuals will be right back in the system. That’s how California got into this mess in the first place. Right now, California has more people in prison for parole violations than for original convictions, spending more on corrections than on education. That’s proven to be unsustainable, but early release without supporting those individuals is just a setup for more failure. Policymakers are choosing the quick fix, leaving the next guy to deal with the fallout.
What do you think are the major failures in criminal justice in recent history?
One major failure was the deinstitutionalization of mental institutions. I think it was well-intended and saved money up front but it simply didn’t work. Its failure created the huge homeless population in the 1970s, which in turn led to big policing problems. Similarly, in the 1970s when we decriminalized alcohol and recognized it as a disease, there wasn’t any coordination with police to give them new resources to deal with it. An officer would try to get someone into detox, but there weren’t enough beds available. Those reforms failed due to confusion and lack of coordination. The other big failure is incarceration. The Rockefeller Drug Laws created a litany of horror stories. Those laws, as well as three strikes laws, keep guys in prison for too long. It’s too costly.
Can you think of any examples of failure that can be attributed to failed implementation?
The legalization of medical marijuana in California was implemented recklessly. It didn’t consider the current research or the impact on law enforcement and public safety. They should have done the research up front to understand what the fallout costs were going to be. It’s hard to believe, as crazy as Californians are, that there are enough sick people to justify the level of marijuana use. Legalized use was supposed to be reserved for very ill people for whom other medications weren’t working. That intention is long gone now.
Are there risks to being over-attentive to failure?
It’s possible to give too much attention to failure after a major crisis. For example, in the 1980s, the then-Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis supported a prison furlough program that allowed prisoners to have short-term work and family releases. When a furlough participant, Willie Horton, committed awful crimes of rape and murder during his release, Republicans used the example to play on society’s fears. The image of Horton with an unkempt afro became the icon for fear. Crises like those, though, are just the tip of the iceberg. There is plenty of other evidence of failure that deserves attention.
How do you think leadership style play a role in dealing with failure?
Police leadership has changed dramatically in recent history. Police leaders are better educated today than they were 50 or 60 years ago, due in large part to federal funds dedicated to law enforcement education. I got a college degree through that funding, as did my successors. With educated leadership, it’s easier to open up the agency and really understand how to evaluate our work. That said, I’m a progressive innovative chief. Not all chiefs are willing to stick their necks out and make changes. Fortunately, you can train leaders to be risk-takers. You can encourage it, mandate it, and even enforce it if you do it carefully.
What types of outlets do police chiefs have to discuss failure and brainstorm reforms?
Most chiefs have a limited voice due to city politics and their ties to the mayor. Organizations like the Major City Chiefs Association and the Police Executive Research Forum are helpful non-political outlets. Unions, also, are surprisingly helpful. I’ve always worked to find a common ground between labor and management because there’s great potential there, particularly in issues of officer safety.
You have the unique perspective of having led in Boston, NY and LA. Did you notice any cultural or systemic differences among those cities as it pertains to failure?
Politics is everything. It determines budgets, priorities, and entity coordination. The risk-taking attitude has to run up the political structure. Back in the height of New York City’s crime epidemic, Governor Cuomo said maybe this is as good as it gets. But you can’t settle for that. Fortunately, the city took the risk and believed that an intervention could improve things. They spent a lot of money hiring 7,000 new officers, which helped turn the crime problem around.
The critical difference in each of these cities was political leadership during times of crisis – the ability to lead and bring about consensus, when you don’t have it the problem will only get worse. All three cities during the past 40 years have experienced the results of both good and bad political leadership. Boston, New York and Los Angeles are very different cities with some commonalities but many more differences, culturally, systematically and politically. Their police departments are also very different, reflective of the cities they police.