Police overtime budget cuts (compensation, versus, safety)

[msRB311]

Originally Posted by skeddy

it takes about a year of training before you are on your own. Over 30% have bachelor degrees, 5% have graduate degrees.

In Boston? It seems like more than 30% must have bachelors...

'There's no reason why large police departments shouldn't have several trained social workers on the force. Police officers don't want to kill mentally ill people either, so why are we ill equipping them and sending them into situations where they are doomed to fail?'

I think it would be great to have social workers assigned to each precinct. Seems like there's so many arguments of oh but this person is mentally ill, police don't know how to work with mentally ill people. If someone is acting violent and hurting people how would a social worker handle the situation differently? If a mentally ill person is stabbing someone are you saying a social worker will show up and talk gently to them to try and get them to stop? If i was getting stabbed by someone I'd want it stopped and if shooting them is what it took so be it.

This happened in Milton about 11 years ago: https://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/03/31...ngs/index.html

Horrifying story. Would you really want to see that guy alive today and getting help?

I'm all for helping mentally ill people but if someone is violent to the point that they are stabbing someone then they are likely beyond help.

Why is there so much pity towards violent mentally ill people?

https://apnews.com/article/046f6a775...f34e637215a9cc

this situation is also unfortunate but he was stabbing EMTs with a knife. I guess there are certain situations where I feel police need to shoot people whether the person is mentally ill or not. If innocent people are at risk of getting killed by said person then why shouldn't those lives be put first?

[massnative71]

Originally Posted by msRB311

In Boston? It seems like more than 30% must have bachelors...

'There's no reason why large police departments shouldn't have several trained social workers on the force. Police officers don't want to kill mentally ill people either, so why are we ill equipping them and sending them into situations where they are doomed to fail?'

I think it would be great to have social workers assigned to each precinct. Seems like there's so many arguments of oh but this person is mentally ill, police don't know how to work with mentally ill people. If someone is acting violent and hurting people how would a social worker handle the situation differently? If a mentally ill person is stabbing someone are you saying a social worker will show up and talk gently to them to try and get them to stop? If i was getting stabbed by someone I'd want it stopped and if shooting them is what it took so be it.

This happened in Milton about 11 years ago: https://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/03/31...ngs/index.html

Horrifying story. Would you really want to see that guy alive today and getting help?

I'm all for helping mentally ill people but if someone is violent to the point that they are stabbing someone then they are likely beyond help.

Why is there so much pity towards violent mentally ill people?

https://apnews.com/article/046f6a775...f34e637215a9cc

this situation is also unfortunate but he was stabbing EMTs with a knife.

Right, so many have the tendency to call the shots from behind their computer screens "well they COULD have done more to deescalate the situation blah blah blah...", while forgetting that a mentally ill person with a weapon is just as dangerous as anybody else (dare I say more). I dare say that a good portion of violent criminals could be "classified". It's quite sad, but regardless the police have the duty to protect the public and themselves before the person who happens to be the threat. Sure have social workers on standby to step in once the danger has been alleviated, but they aren't going to be much help before that. I imagine the Boston Police gives adequate training in de-escalation/mental health awareness to deal with that initial stage, I'm not sure where people are getting the impression that they don't?

[msRB311]

Agree there is not much a social worker can do in these situations. I've heard stories of where drs in psych wards actually had to shoot patients.

The job of a social worker is to work with these people so situations like this don't occur. Clearly many of these people aren't getting the help they need and that is the bigger problem. Not the fault of the police.

[bostongymjunkie]

Originally Posted by msRB311

Why is there so much pity towards violent mentally ill people?

I don't think there really is, generally speaking. It's mostly empty rhetoric from those looking to bash the police at every turn. This country has serious mental health issues that go unaddressed, which is why someone ends up in crisis on the street in confrontation with a police officer. There are many people committed to this issue around the country, but no establishment willingness to get to the root causes of social disorder. It appears that politics is more important. People fall through the cracks, and the police are the ones who have to deal with it all. Then they get crucified if something goes wrong, whether they made a mistake or not.

Originally Posted by msRB311

I guess there are certain situations where I feel police need to shoot people whether the person is mentally ill or not. If innocent people are at risk of getting killed by said person then why shouldn't those lives be put first?

Pretty much, and the Courts have recognized this. Although I would add that there are many instances where what an officer brings to a situation can make it worse or make it better. This is where training and experience come into play. Other times, nothing will change the dynamics. "Suicide-by-cop" is also a very real thing.

[msRB311]

I actually know someone who basically died by suicide by cop. Happened in Maine, but he was from MA. Veteran with cancer who felt like he wasn't getting his meds from a VA hospital, https://www.maine.gov/ag/news/article.shtml?id=173931

I don't recall this ever being a huge news story.

[Koby]

Interesting thread. Honestly, I don’t even know where to begin. And let’s be real, even if I refute the false claims and bad information, this is the internet and facts are irrelevant against your erroneous beliefs.

But, here goes. In 2020, cities have police departments, maybe that will change someday, but for now, they exist.. Most agencies have what’s generally known as level staffing, let’s say it’s 1,000 for round numbers. Level staffing would fill all positions in a department.

Patrol officers are the backbone of a police department and usually the largest division of personnel resources. Say out of 1,000 officers, patrol officers may make up 60-70% of an agency. Then there’s specialty units like detectives, traffic, swat, community policing division, etc say about 15%. Then there are rank/administration that makes up the remaining percentages.

Patrol generally has minimum staffing levels determined by administrators. This is what the administrators have determined to be the minimum staffing which will provide adequate public safety services to the community. Let’s say they want 50 uniformed officers on the road between 0600 and 2300, 35 officers between 2300 hours and 0600 hours, or whatever they determine.

Ideally, those officers will come from regularly scheduled shift coverage but that’s when an agency is level staffed. Now let’s say instead of 1,000 officers, retirements, injuries and lack of recruits has brought staffing down to 700, or 600...500? In addition, factor in guys out injured, out sick or on vacation and there’s even less available to work. That means either there’s less officers on the road to answer calls for service, (lower the minimum staffing on the road) or officers work overtime to fill the gap.

Detectives and specialty units also have retirements, injuries and major incidents that demand staffing or extensive investigation. That stuff costs money. These are not salaried management positions where they’re expected to “stay until the job gets done.” These are agreements made through collective bargaining agreements with municipalities and as such, all parties are expected to honor the existing labor contract.

There are agencies without unions (down south or in the mid-west mostly) where a Chief could do that, say to an officer, Officer X called in sick so you’re staying until midnight, and sorry, we have no overtime to pay you. And the following day that officer applies to a department with a contract that prevents that. Hate it if you will, but that’s reality.

I know some will argue with me, but it’s cheaper to pay OT to officers than it is to hire new bodies. It’s extremely expensive to go out and recruit a person off the street and get them to the point where they’re out in the community doing the job. Then in addition to base pay, there’s health insurance and pension contributions, contractual benefits like sick time and vacation time, uniforms and yearly in-service training. So, make cuts to the OT budget if you must, but do it with the understanding that it will effect the community.

Some officers work all the OT they can get. Some work none. But most will work extra to a greater or lesser degree out of sheer necessity. And the overwhelming majority do not lie, cheat and steal. For those who do however, I strongly believe that those officers who fraudulently receive pay for OT not worked should be terminated. They’ve committed a crime and should be referred to the DA for appropriate charges to be filed. And the department needs to implement greater controls to ensure that doesn’t happen again.

Flame away...

[msRB311]

Yes, the argument has been for years that it's cheaper to have police do more OT than it is to hire and train new people where each new person would get benefits like health insurance, pension, vacation time, sick time, etc. and a good point was raised about uniforms and other equipment as well-they're not cheap. It feels like a win win situation to me...if they hired more cops that would be more money taken out of people's tax dollars and that seems to be what the argument is about in the first place. That and people just cant stand to see a Boston cop make more than 130k a year.

[Bettafish]

Originally Posted by msRB311

Yes, the argument has been for years that it's cheaper to have police do more OT than it is to hire and train new people where each new person would get benefits like health insurance, pension, vacation time, sick time, etc. and a good point was raised about uniforms and other equipment as well-they're not cheap. It feels like a win win situation to me...if they hired more cops that would be more money taken out of people's tax dollars and that seems to be what the argument is about in the first place. That and people just cant stand to see a Boston cop make more than 130k a year.

The total cost is one thing, but there is also a benefit to make more people employed.

Maybe hiring two cops costs a little more than hiring just one and making him work 80 hours per week, but hiring two cops also means two families are supported.
Not to mention two qualified persons are always more capable and more flexible than just one.

The unions/organizations always want to set some bar to prevent too many people joining. It is true for doctors, lawyers, teachers, ... as well. Sometimes we need to examine how the bar is set and used.

[msRB311]

Originally Posted by Bettafish

The total cost is one thing, but there is also a benefit to make more people employed.

Maybe hiring two cops costs a little more than hiring just one and making him work 80 hours per week, but hiring two cops also means two families are supported.
Not to mention two qualified persons are always more capable and more flexible than just one.

The unions/organizations always want to set some bar to prevent too many people joining. It is true for doctors, lawyers, teachers, ... as well. Sometimes we need to examine how the bar is set and used.

There are more benefits to employing people in the long run, but what would you prefer if it meant more tax dollars taken out of your check? I also think part of the problem is not many people want to be cops right now and cutting OT along with all the other negatives right now isn't going to help that.

[massnative71]

Originally Posted by msRB311

Yes, the argument has been for years that it's cheaper to have police do more OT than it is to hire and train new people where each new person would get benefits like health insurance, pension, vacation time, sick time, etc. and a good point was raised about uniforms and other equipment as well-they're not cheap. It feels like a win win situation to me...if they hired more cops that would be more money taken out of people's tax dollars and that seems to be what the argument is about in the first place. That and people just cant stand to see a Boston cop make more than 130k a year.

But another concern presented here (and it's a valid one), is how productive are these officers having worked 80 hours in a week (not to even mention safety concerns and increased injury/burnout). Studies show that humans function at their max until around the 6 hour mark, from then on there is a gradual drop off. There is such a thing as penny wise/pound foolish.