Defund the police? COVID-19 fallout could force significant cuts to KCPD budget

The challenges facing the Kansas City Police Department — and the people of Kansas City — are growing daily.

At a Tuesday meeting that was scheduled to discuss chokeholds, shootings and protests, the Board of Police Commissioners turned to another topic: the likelihood of major budget cuts in the coming year.

The COVID-19 crisis has sliced the city’s balance sheet, just as we predicted in March. City departments, including the police department, have been asked to estimate the impact of a 4.5% spending cut this fiscal year.

For police, that would be a $10.6 million reduction.

City Hall won’t know the actual target for spending cuts for a few more days. But the police department is the city’s largest expense, and the reductions would be across the board, at least for now. That means the department would face the largest spending reduction of any city function.

If deep cuts are needed, they must be precise — responding to unnecessary calls must be reduced or eliminated, unneeded purchases postponed or canceled, overtime reduced.

At the same time, cutting the department’s budget could provide a real-time demonstration of the effect reduced police spending has on crime. In the past, the department has fiercely rejected any suggestion that it could survive with even a penny less, but too much public money for police is at the heart of concerns about law enforcement here and across the nation.

To be clear: This is not defunding the police. It’s asking the department, like all city functions, to make adjustments to address the gaping hole in the city budget caused by the coronavirus pandemic. Kansas City, like other local governments, can only spend what it takes in.

Cuts won’t be easy. The police department faces higher costs related to responding to 10 days of demonstrations. It’s also battling a murder rate 36% higher than last year’s, even with a full budget.

The cuts also come as the department confronts difficult questions about its policies and its relationship with the public it is supposed to serve.

Police officials are still fashioning their response. They recommended — and the Board of Police Commissioners endorsed — a reduction of more than 200 positions department-wide. If needed, the cuts would be made through retirements and leaving jobs vacant, instead of layoffs.

Unpaid furloughs and salary reductions were rejected.

Police Chief Rick Smith and his staff promised more details about how the cuts would affect deployment strategies and call response times. That information should be available before next week, when the City Council will consider any across-the-board budget adjustments.

Some members of the police board said they were worried about the impact of the cuts. “We are either going to police this city, or not,” Nathan Garrett said.

While true, Garrett’s statement ignores other essential city services that could incur similar reductions. Health, street repairs, parks, building and housing inspections and firefighting are important, too.

Across-the-board spending reductions are rarely a good idea. If the City Council must cut spending, as now appears certain, officials will have to ensure that critical city functions are spared deeper cuts than non-essential activities.

But the police department is not exempt from saving money. It, too, must find efficiencies where it can. Then we can all examine the results, to assess whether less spending, combined with new approaches to policing, could actually result in a safer community.