*Note: This is a reprint of a post that I recently wrote for Giuliani Blog. I am printing it here due to a couple of commentors who had inquired about Mayor Giuliani’s accomplishments. This is part one of a continuing series.-KWN
_______________________________________________________________________
Many New Yorkers (and most of the city’s ruling liberal elite) had given up on reducing crime by the time of Rudy Giuliani was inaugurated Mayor of New York City.
At that time, New York City was averaging five murders a day (1800-2200 murders a year between 1989 and 1993) and 10,000 felonies a week. Property crimes had essentially been decriminalized, with car owners displaying flags of surrender such as #quot;radio already stolen#quot; to prevent further break-ins. Roving #quot;wolf packs#quot; of street toughs instilled fear in law abiding citizens on the city’s streets.
Those who could leave the city did so (further weakening the city’s already crumbling taxpayer base). Of the residents fleeing New York City, 49% stated that they or someone they resided with had been a victim of violent crime within three years of their departure. By 1990, over one million New Yorkers had fled the city.
Mayor David Dinkins, not surprisingly, placed the blame for New York’s crime problem at society’s feet, echoing the liberal axiom that crime is best fought by increased government spending on social programs, or #quot;fighting crime at its roots#quot;. The answer certainly was not more police officers, as many liberal activists noted in reaction to budget cuts. Prominent among the first areas in which they suggested cuts, (in reaction to the $2.3 billion budget deficit in 1994) was the city’s incoming police academy class.
One poll respondent best summarized the feelings of New Yorkers regarding fighting crime in the city, lamenting, #quot;It’s a bigger job than anyone can handle.#quot;
Mayor Giuliani made #quot;revolutionizing#quot; New York City’s fight against crime his mission. His underlying philosophy: #quot;Broken Windows#quot; policing. His main weapon: a truly revolutionary tactic called Compstat.
The #quot;Broken Windows#quot; theory of policing first appeared in the March 1982 edition of the Atlantic Monthly in an article by James Q. Wilson and George L. Kelling. In essence, Broken Windows theory states that major crime will be reduced by enforcing laws on minor offenses because, A.) The rigorous enforcement of standard of living crimes such as vandalism creates an environment that is hostile to the individuals that are likely to commit more serious crimes, and B.) Individuals who commit smaller offenses are more likely to also commit more serious crimes. According to NYPD Commissioner Bill Bratton, roughly 2 in 13 subway fare-beaters had felony warrants. Enforcement of small offenses like turnstile jumping, leads to the capture of serious felons, keeping them off the city streets.
#quot;Broken Windows#quot; policing worked. Felonies in the city’s subway system dropped 75%. One out of every seven turnstile jumpers were found to either possess a weapon or be wanted under a felony warrant.
The other critical benefit of the rigorous enforcement of #quot;Broken Windows#quot; policing is that ridding the city of criminals who perpetrate quality of living crimes usually leads to fewer law abiding citizens fleeing a community.
Compstat’s effectiveness in fighting crime was due to its main areas of focus: the accurate compilation of crime statistics, and the accountability of those entrusted to fight crime.
No major city police department had ever successfully implemented a program to collect and analyze crime statistics on a daily basis. This was the foundation of Compstat’s strategy. Many doubted that this was even possible, with the normal sample of information for analysis being monthly, quarterly, or even annually. As Mayor Giuliani put it, #quot;Examining the numbers annually or even quarterly wasn’t accomplishing anything in real time. By the time a pattern of crime was noticed, it would have changed.#quot; The infrastructure needed to conduct daily data collection was thought to perhaps be 2 years from implementation. The Giuliani Administration had it up and running in three weeks.
Compstat works in this manner. Police officers were responsible for entering crime reports into his/her precinct’s On-Line Compliant System (OLCS), which transmits the street report into the Compstat mainframe. The data is reflected on a map which allows analysis of geographic concentrations of crime (sorted by hour of day, type of crime, etc??), as well as a weekly summary of crime complaints that display trends such as week-to-date, month-to-date, etc?? To keep the data honest, statistically unrealistic performance was flagged to allow investigation into #quot;cooking the books#quot; at the precinct level.
Accountability was stressed to everyone involved. The Compstat reports were available to all levels of authority in the chain of command. Every person, from the Mayor to the police officer on the street, knew how each precinct was performing.
The most critical aspect of creating accountability was the twice weekly Compstat meeting, where each individual borough command was to account before the Mayor and all of their peers, their department’s performance.
Mayor Giuliani remembers that, #quot;from the very start of these meetings, the NYPD realized that something special was taking shape. [Deputy Police Commissioner] Jack Maple would pepper the precinct commander with: ??Why are car thefts down twenty percent citywide, but up ten percent in your area?’ Or: ??Explain how assaults have been falling for six straight months until last month then started rising.’#quot;
Mayor Giuliani made sure that each precinct commander’s entire staff be present for these meetings, which would make it difficult to #quot;pass the buck#quot; onto an underling who was not present, (again demonstrating how accountability was heavily factored into the structural processes of Compstat itself.) Decisions were able to be made on how to reallocate police resources to areas that needed them before the problem became out of hand. Fighting crime had moved into the 21st Century under Mayor Giuliani. Police were now able to respond to rising crime in real time.
The results of holding each precinct accountable for crime in their respective areas on a weekly basis speak for themselves. Major felonies fell 12.3% in the first year alone. Murder and robbery fell by the greatest one-year margins in New York City history-17.9% and 15.5%. In addition, shootings fell by 75%; rapes decreased by 1,200 per year from 1993 to 2000; robberies fell from 85,883 per year to 32,213; burglaries plummeted from 100,933 to 38,155, and auto theft fell from 111,611 to 35,673. Overall crime fell by 57% and the drop was citywide (as an example, Mayor Giuliani noted that there were 92 murders in Crown Heights and 35 in Harlem in 1993. By 2000, those numbers were 35 and 5.)
Even the New York Times was forced to admit (after criticizing Compstat at its initial implementation while trumpeting competing programs in cities like San Diego) that #quot;the regular Compstat meetings are probably the most powerful control device ever devised for police.#quot; Compstat’s success led to Harvard bestowing its prestigious #quot;Innovations in Government Award#quot; on the program in 1996.
Compstat’s success has been long-term, which has diffused the main criticism of the program, namely, that crime was already falling nationwide by the time of its implementation. While true on its face, this criticism fails to note that New York City’s crime reduction was three to six times the national average. New York City today remains the United State’s safest big city, while cities like Boston and St. Louis saw homicides increase 67% and 22% in 2001. Chicago had 20 more murders than New York in 2001 despite having 5.1 million fewer inhabitants. And what about that vaunted San Diego crime reduction program? San Diego experienced 16% more crime than New York City in 2001, with its crime rate rising by 3.9 percent while NYC’s fell by 7.6%
How will Compstat’s success factor into the 2008 campaign? Mayor Giuliani has recently hinted that a Compstat approach will likely factor heavily into his border security program. It is exciting to imagine how Compstat’s success in New York could be applied to managing the forces securing our southern border.
Rudy’s record in crime reduction is just one of many examples of his amazing record as Mayor of America’s largest city. It’s a record that Mayor Giuliani’s 2008 primary opponents, as well as his Democratic challenger in the general election, may find difficult to match
_______________________________________________________________________
**Our publishing software does not allow me to site my sources. Therefore, I would like to note here that my primary references for this article were Fred Siegel’s “Prince of the City: Giuliani, New York, and the Beauty of American Life” and “The Future Once Happened Here“; as well as Mayor Giuliani’s own book “Leadership“. I contend that all three works are essential to understanding Rudy Giuliani.
November 28th, 2006 at 9:08 pm
Kavon,
A great post. I think the objection that needs the most fleshing out is that (1) the drop in crime had actually begun prior to Rudy’s election and (2) was accompanied by similar drops in other cities.
That said, it’s a bit like arguing that Clinton deserves no credit for the budget surplusses of the late 90s, since his own budgets from the first years of his term forcast large deficits (and they were eradicated largely because of the unanticipated tech boom). Regardless, he was Pres at the time, he didn’t do anything to eff it up, and therefore, he surely deserves at least some credit (as does Rudy).
BTW, I asked this on an earlier thread, but is there any way to turn off the “screen wrap” that I get when I write in the comments field? When I click, the comment window wraps over the right side of the screen, and I can’t see what I’m actually typing.
November 28th, 2006 at 9:51 pm
An exercise in myth-making. As Sean notes above, the drop in crime began before Rudy took office, and was taking place everywhere at the same time. The Broken Windows approach was instituted by Dinkins’s police commish, Ray Kelly, as was the safe streets program. Dinkens was in the position of having found effective solutions to difficult problems, but not being able to deliver results quick enough to ensure his reelection.
Fine, Rudy didnt screw it up. Heck, he even got rid of his own commish, who did the CompStat program, because he had ego clashes with him, and recruited Kerick instead. Great judge of character!
Rudy was a great prosecutor. That takes a certain personality. Not the same as an effective political leader. As a Dem, I would have no objection to Rudy being put in charge of the criminal division of the DOJ. I did not like him as a mayor (of MY city). I wouldnt like him as prez.
November 28th, 2006 at 10:00 pm
OT: Kavon, thanks for making Tommy 5th of the Power Ranking! Much appreciated.
November 28th, 2006 at 10:15 pm
Though in fairness Tano, from what I’ve seen on my site I can’t conceive of a single Republican you would like as Pres.
Most politician’s achievements (and failures) can be written off as myth-making. The Clinton economy began under Bush, Reagan’s win in the Cold War can arguably be viewed as a culmination of a long trend begun by earlier presidents, and he inherited a deficit that was as large a percentage of GDP as the one we currently had. That said, as a general matter, if you preside over something, you get the credit for it. Leaders choose from a number of policy options and pressures throughout their term, and not screwing something up is often easier said than done.
November 28th, 2006 at 10:17 pm
Kavon, Tano,
Thanks to both of you for raising the bar on the “Giuliani is tough on crime” conversation above a few slogans. I’m not as well informed on the details of Rudy’s record as I could be, so I’m very interested in discussions like this one. Kavon, looking forward to your ongoing series on Rudy. Tano, looking forward to your perspective too.
Facts and numbers are much appreciated. Nothing makes me more uncomfortable than people saying “obviously so-and-so has an unimpeachable record on such-and-such” without citing something.
November 28th, 2006 at 10:22 pm
Sean,
For what it’s worth, I get around the “screen wrap” problem by re-sizing the internet explorer window when I want to preview the post. Probably not the ideal solution, but it works…
November 28th, 2006 at 10:24 pm
“An exercise in myth-making.” – I don’t really don’t have the time to address this, books have been written. Much of my undergrad career was spent in criminology and I can tell you that Rudy was one of the big reasons for the drop in crime. Obviously other factors play in, but the idea that Dinkins would have been willing to go through with a broken windows policy is laughable looking at his political career. Of course Giuliani did not individually devise the broken-windows policy, but he was the only politician with the guts to impliment it. At a time when New York was ruled by crime he had the bravery to be a hard-ass. The drop in crime did occur before Rudy came (though it was not a big drop), but much of that has been attributed to the fact that crime had reached such a high rate that violence dropped due to the gangsters running the neighborhoods and implementing some kind of order being implemented where none had been before, and a lack of victims and goods to steal. Everyone with anything worth stealing left the city. In addition, as police and the citizenry became more tepid, people stopped reporting crimes. I could go on and on, but Rudy has to be given a lot of credit. I find it amusing that when a police officer beats a minority liberals believe that Rudy is behind it, but when the crime falls incredibly it is factors beyond his control. Perhaps an exercise in denial.
November 28th, 2006 at 10:29 pm
Not true Sean. If Barack switched parties, I would have no problem supporting a Republican for president!
Actually, I must admit. I would secretly be thrilled to see Rudy as the GOP nominee, even if that meant another 4 years of all the drek that president brings with him, in terms of the appointments he makes. I am, probably more than anything else, a social liberal. If Rudy’s attitudes became the official position of the Republican party, well, that in itself would probably be one of the biggest steps forward in our social evolution as a antion in a long time. I tend to see conservatives as, always, bringing up the rear in terms of our social evolution. Rudy at the head of the GOP would push the train way forward.
I guess thats why I dont think he has a chance.
November 28th, 2006 at 10:36 pm
“Obviously other factors play in, but the idea that Dinkins would have been willing to go through with a broken windows policy is laughable looking at his political career”
Excuse me? We are talking historical facts here, not speculation. Broken Windows was instituted by Ray Kelly, during the Dinkins administration. No amount of laughing changes da facts.
“Everyone with anything worth stealing left the city”
What a silly comment.
“I find it amusing that when a police officer beats a minority liberals believe that Rudy is behind it, but when the crime falls incredibly it is factors beyond his control. Perhaps an exercise in denial. ”
Or perhaps, a sensible recognition that, as mayor, he is responsible for the conduct of his troops, but is not necessarily responsible for widespread social trends.
Given the fact that there is only one Rudy Guiliani, please explain why it is that crime fell by similar amounts, at the same time, in every urban center in the country.
November 28th, 2006 at 10:40 pm
Oops, I know the answer to my own question.
Its because Bill Clinton was president!
November 28th, 2006 at 10:43 pm
Here are a few stats to back up my earlier point: I would point to the murder stats as key indicators of rudy’s success. In 1989 when Giuliani first ran and lost against Dinkins there were 1904 murders. When Giuliani won his election in 1993 there were 1,946. Some drop under Dinkins. The statistics are twisted to say that crime was dropping before Rudy came in by pointing to the fact that in 1991 there had been 2,154 murders and in 1992 there had been 1,995. How comforting, crime had dropped from over 2,000 to a mere 1,900. The reason crime fell is because Giuliani had the balls to deal with it.
“We, gentlemen… are about to unleash the dogs of war. War. War against drug dealers, war against the Mafia – and yes, Mr. Hoover, there is a Mafia – against corrupt politicians and stockbrokers… Against crooked judges… and bent cops. How, you may wonder, do we end corruption… BY SCARING THE LIVING SH** out of the criminal! And their families, if we have to” – Rudy
November 28th, 2006 at 10:45 pm
But Tano, if this was a national trend that preceded Giuliani’s election by a few years (and hence Clinton’s), doesn’t that mean that Bush I actually deserves the credit?
November 28th, 2006 at 11:26 pm
Hmmm, somehow the prospect of liberals drooling at a Giuliani candidacy doesn’t fill me with the same pro-Rudy glee that other folks around here have.
Whether Rudy would appoint good justices is not the entire game plan. I have no doubt that should he follow through on his constructionist judicial talk, he would still be the leader of a GOP pro-baby-killing movement for years to come. No thank you.
November 28th, 2006 at 11:52 pm
Now, I know Rudy has said that he would appoint constructionists like Alito and Roberts and whatnot. One thing I never really got, was, well…why? Why would someone who is very much pro-choice want to appoint jurists to the bench that will surely overturn Roe? Those very judges will be also likely to strike down gun control laws and it would be extremely doubtful that they would grant civil unions to homosexuals. Those, of course, are things Rudy believes in very strongly and in particular has sought to strengthen gun laws in NYC while he was mayor. Yet in order to get a nod, he would be going against his beliefs. Perhaps I’m just missing something here.
November 29th, 2006 at 12:03 am
It’s quite possible to adopt socially liberal positions, while believing that the constitution should have, well, the constitution in it. It’s not terribly likely these days as liberals consistent success in circumventing the Democratic process to promote their agenda has led the vast majority of them to adopt “living constitutionalism”. But once upon a time there were judges like Hugo Black and Byron White, radical liberals who nonetheless believed the constitution says certain things and doesn’t say others.
November 29th, 2006 at 12:26 am
Matt,
I certainly understand that distinction. But by being pro-choice that means you support Roe vs. Wade and believe it is constitutional. But the reason there is such a fixation on constructionist judges among Republicans (you certainly don’t hear Hillary Clinton promising to appoint them) is because they’ll be much more likely to vote to overturn Roe. I dunno, I just think it’ll be very interesting if Rudy becomes President and Roe is overturned on his watch.
It seems that according to Paul Bedard’s Washington Whispers section is US News, Rudy’s advisers say he can finesse the social issues and will probably announce by the summer. This is gonna be fun.
November 29th, 2006 at 12:41 am
“It’s quite possible to adopt socially liberal positions, while believing that the constitution should have, well, the constitution in it.”
Absolutely. As a social liberal, I am a passionate lover of the Constitution.
As written.
In my view, the Constitution does not grant rights (they come from the “creator”, right?). The Constitution grants powers – to the government. Certain limited powers. All else is left to either the states or the people. Its called freedom.
Roe, and all the other decisions that expand individual rights, are fully consistent with the Constitution, as written, interpreted strictly. They enjoin the government from intruding into the private lives of teh citizens, given that there is no express warrant for the government to do so, in the Constitution.
I’ve never understood this constant whining about “liberal judges” making up new rights. The whole point of the American revolution (or at least a major point of it) was to establish the principle that free people had inherint rights, that would be put under the thumb of government only in restricted areas, defined by the Constitution, with the approval of the people, through their legislatures. I think that conservatives have it completely backwards when they argue that our rights do not exist unless they are laid out specifically in the Constitution.
November 29th, 2006 at 12:58 am
Should Thompson really be ahead of Huckabee? I know that he’s a four term governor of a swing state, but Huckabee could be the candidate that the evangelicals flock to. I agree for the most part with the top 3, but I would say 4. Huckabee 5. Thompson 6. Gingrich.
November 29th, 2006 at 1:14 am
Also, I know that the main argument for ranking Rudy #1 is that he leads in practically every poll, which shows that Republicans are disregarding some of his more socially liberal positions. But does anybody remember who was leading in the polls for the Democrats at this point in the 04 election? It was Joe Lieberman. He led consistently until Dean really started to heat up in the Summer of 03. Its a nearly analagous situation. Lieberman was too conservative for Democrats, and the only reason he was polling that high was because of his performance on the bottom half of the ticket in 2000. Just something to consider.
November 29th, 2006 at 1:56 am
Hi Nathan,
I am working like a busy little bee right now writing the post which will explain the new rankings. But to as to your point- “But does anybody remember who was leading in the polls for the Democrats at this point in the 04 election? It was Joe Lieberman. He led consistently until Dean really started to heat up in the Summer of 03. Its a nearly analagous situation. Lieberman was too conservative for Democrats, and the only reason he was polling that high was because of his performance on the bottom half of the ticket in 2000.”
I’ve heard this argument before, and I respectfully submit that it has one critical flaw-Republicans are not Democrats. Republican nomination history is quite different.
November 29th, 2006 at 2:16 am
Another quickie before I get back to work:
From Charlie Cook himself: