How did Camden, NJ manage to reduce its homicide rate by 75% in 12 years? 

This week in North Philly Notes, John Shjarback, author of Chasing Change in Camden, recounts the city’s efforts at police reform that contributed to significant crime reduction.

In 2012, Camden, New Jersey was under siege. There weren’t enough cops to patrol the streets of one of the most violent cities in the country. The year ended with 67 homicides, only 16% of which resulted in an arrest. To put that first number into context, if New York City experienced the same homicide rate as Camden did in 2012, there would have been more than 7,300 homicides. Instead there were 419 homicides that year. Camden’s homicide rate was more than 17 times higher than that of New York City.

Fast forward to 2024. Camden ended with 17 homicides, a 75% decrease from 2012. The city’s homicide clearance rate has also improved and ranged from 60% to 95% over the last five years. Chasing Change in Camden: Police Reform in One of America’s Most Violent Cities provides an in-depth examination of how these drastic changes were made possible, specifically through the dismantling of a sitting police department and creation of an entirely new agency from the ground up in 2013. It has been viewed as one of the greatest experiments of police reform in American history. And in the summer and fall of 2020, when the Minneapolis City Council debated whether to dissolve its current police department and start anew following the murder of George Floyd, this successful transition placed Camden and its new police department in the national and international spotlight.

The story of Camden is like that of many places throughout America. Once bustling with industry and well-paying manufacturing jobs, beginning in the 1960s and continuing into the 1970s Camden fell victim to deindustrialization, outsourcing, and white flight to the safer suburbs. The city is now 95% Black and Hispanic and suffers from extreme economic disadvantage.

Similarly, the Camden City Police Department was mismanaged, ineffective at addressing crime and violence, and experienced pockets of corruption among officers. Reform was nearly impossible despite a takeover from the New Jersey Attorney General’s Office and while the city was under complete state control.

Progress on these fronts was finally made possible starting in 2013. During 2011 and 2012, the city, county, and state negotiated the end of the Camden City Police Department’s 141-year run and the creation of the Camden County Police Department (CCPD). May 1, 2013 marked the official start of the new department. Chasing Change in Camden presents the contentious, rigorous debate that ensued during this period and the changes that resulted.

By most accounts, the CCPD functioned more effectively and made inroads into addressing crime and violence. Just two years in, Camden received a visit from U.S. President Barack Obama, who sang its praises. But the new department was not without controversy. The city supplemented its new department with tremendous investments in technology, which were not always viewed favorably. Aggressive tactics and enforcement, use of force, and citizen complaints of excessive force drew the ire of community and activist groups as well as the media. CCPD, in a sign of a healthier organizational culture, course corrected and managed to address some of these concerns. Chasing Change in Camden details these organizational changes, including the use of innovative training and the revamping of administrative policies to better manage discretionary officer behavior.

Although the book is a case study of a single city and its transition from one department to another, it is couched in the broader discussion of police reform and accountability and public safety. Chasing Change in Camden discusses threats to the overall progress of reform and accountability efforts not only in the CCPD but in American policing more generally. It highlights the limitations of a police-centric approach to crime and violence, while recommending more collaboration and co-production of public safety with community groups and non-law-enforcement approaches.

Whether you are a police officer/leader, researcher, policymaker, reformer, activist, or simply a concerned community member, you will find valuable lessons in Chasing Change in Camden.

December 17, 2014

This week in North Philly Notes, Yolanda Prieto, author of The Cubans of Union City discusses President Obama’s landmark Cuban policy change, while reflecting on her own experiences as a Cuban American.

As a Cuban American who favors the normalization of relations between the United States and Cuba, I choked up with emotion when watching President Obama’s historic television address on December 17, 2014 announcing that he was changing the policy of isolation towards Cuba. After all, Obama explained, more than 50 years of acrimony between the two countries had not accomplished anything. Instead, engagement could lead to a more fruitful relationship, and it could possibly bring economic improvements and more freedoms to the Cuban people. Americans could also travel to Cuba under a broader range of categories, which could generate more contact and understanding between the two countries. These changes would happen even though the economic embargo, imposed by the United States on Cuba in 1962, would remain in place. To lift the embargo, Congress would have to repeal the Helms-Burton Act of 1996, which strengthened and extended the existing embargo on the island. Regarding the embargo, Obama urged lawmakers in his speech to lift it because the law was anachronistic and it no longer served any real purpose.

At exactly the same time, President Raul Castro made the same announcement on Cuban television. In both countries, the news was received with great surprise. The road ahead would be difficult, but these steps marked a historic beginning.

Cubans of Union CityIn Cuba, people were elated. Praise for President Barack Obama abounded, and American flags were displayed on balconies and bike taxis. In Miami, where most Cubans outside of Cuba reside, the reaction was mixed. Many Cubans approved of President Obama’s plans, but many others disapproved. Relations with Cuba, they think, would only serve to enrich the coffers of the Cuban government in Havana.  But the majority of Miami Cubans favor normalization of relations. A survey conducted by Bendixen and Armandi International in March, 2015 revealed that 51 percent of Cuban Americans support the efforts to normalize relations with Cuba, while 49 percent do not. Approval for the politics of normalization is growing among Cubans who do not live in Miami; 69 percent of Cuban Americans who live outside of Miami support normalization.

Although approval is high among younger generations of Cuban Americans, it is declining among the older population. Disapproval is also vociferous among Cuban American Congress members. In Cuba, some dissidents oppose normalization while others welcome it. It is also possible that some in the Cuban government do not agree, especially those hard-liners that see any contact with the United States as detrimental to Cuba.

What led to this change in the American position toward Cuba? According to William Leogrande and Peter Kornbluh’s book Back Channel to Cuba, there has been ongoing, secret, often surprising, dialogue between Washington and Havana. Along with the invasions, covert operations, and assassination plots, there have been efforts at rapprochement and reconciliation. However, most of these efforts had fallen through the cracks. Discussions between the two governments have been largely limited to specific problems, mainly in times of crisis, such as migration talks and more recently, talks about drug trafficking.

Recently, there were rumors that President Obama might tackle the U.S.-Cuba relations issue during his second term. Many believed that the incarceration of Alan Gross, the American contractor employed by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), was the main obstacle to a change in policy. He was arrested in Cuba in 2009 and then prosecuted in 2011 for bringing sophisticated telecommunications equipment into the island against Cuban law.  At the same time, there were three Cubans jailed in the United States. They were part of the Cuban Five, a group of Cuban nationals convicted in Miami in 2001 for conspiring to commit espionage and for conspiring to commit murder. Two had already been released.

The December 17. 2014 announcements were preceded by 18 months of secret talks between U.S. and Cuban officials.  They met in Canada and in the Vatican. Canadians helped, as did Pope Francis, who wrote letters to Obama and Castro urging them to work for an end to the impasse. Finally, on December 17, Cuba and the United States announced that they had agreed to exchange prisoners: Cuba would free Alan Gross and a high-level Cuban working for the Americans serving time in Cuba for espionage. The United States would in turn free the three jailed Cubans. Additionally, Cuba would free 53 Cuban political prisoners.

Since December 17, 2014 there have been talks between U.S. and Cuban officials to work out the details of normalization of diplomatic relations. There have been two meetings in Havana and two in Washington, with an additional one scheduled for May 21 in Washington. One topic of concern has been the reopening of the embassies. Simultaneously, a flurry of activity has taken place. Trips and delegations of politicians, businessmen, artists, have arrived in Cuba looking for their space in this new climate. Representative Nancy Pelosi went down with a delegation early this year. Andrew Cuomo, governor of New York, visited the island in April accompanied by business leaders, including some executives from pharmaceutical companies. A number of officials, from government to private industry are urging that the embargo be lifted to completely normalize relations. Other major changes have taken place or are in the works. For example, President Obama recommended that Cuba be removed from the list of countries that sponsor terrorism. There have been advances in the area of telecommunications, banking, trade, U.S. exports to the private sector in Cuba, and travel, both by air and sea.

Among recent visitors was French President Francois Hollande who met with Raul and Fidel Castro.  He also urged the United States Congress to lift the embargo.  More recently, Raul Castro met with Pope Francis at the Vatican. The reason for his visit was to thank the Pope for his efforts to promote rapprochement between Cuba and the United States and to prepare the way for the upcoming visit of the Pontiff to the island in September, 2015.

Who benefits from normalization? First and foremost, the Cuban people. One expectation is the increasing economic development of Cuba through investment and trade. Hopefully, ordinary Cubans will gain through an improvement of the economic situation, both in terms of greater possibilities for consumption and possibly the creation of jobs, especially for the poor, who lack material resources due to meager salaries and lack of money through remittances from relatives abroad. The very poor and non-whites are often the ones who do not have family in the United States. There is also a very positive effect on Latin American regional relations. Obama probably had that in mind all along, as the Summit of the Americas in Panama revealed. Most Latin American countries wanted the return of Cuba to the Latin American family. The United States had opposed that. The meetings in Panama showed how the change in the U.S. position positively altered the climate among all nations.

Finally, these changes could be very beneficial for the Catholic Church, other religious groups, and other members of Cuba’s civil society. The Catholic Church already participated in talks with the government in 2010 to release political prisoners. Before and after those talks, the Catholic Church and the government have maintained a constructive dialogue. In the words of Havana’s Cardinal Jaime Ortega, “for the church, the improvement of bilateral relations will be very beneficial… It will be easier to obtain help that we receive from other world churches to do our charity work in Cuba. The dialogue between church and state will not be broken, it will continue.”

Normalization of diplomatic relations between Cuba and the United States will not be an easy journey. For one thing, the U.S. embargo of Cuba presents legal obstacles to many of the changes that the two governments want to implement. But the process has already started, and it seems that there is no way back.

Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started