Goodwin, Shepard & Sloan, Police Brutality
Goodwin, Shepard & Sloan, Police Brutality
Goodwin, Shepard & Sloan, Police Brutality
BRUTALITY
BONDS
How Wall Street Profits
from Police Violence
ALYXANDRA GOODWIN, WHITNEY SHEPARD, CARRIE SLOAN
The Action Center on Race & the Economy (ACRE) is a campaign
hub for organizations working at the intersection of racial
justice and Wall Street accountability. We provide research
and communications infrastructure and strategic support for
organizations working on campaigns to win structural change
by directly taking on the financial elite that are responsible
for pillaging communities of color, devastating working class communities, and harming our
environment. We partner with local organizations from across the United States that are working
on racial, economic, environmental, and educational justice campaigns and help them connect
the dots between their issues and Wall Street so that each of the local efforts feeds into a broad
national movement to hold the financial sector accountable.
We’d like to thank Leslie Lowe for her essential contributions to this report.
Leslie was our program officer at the Rockefeller Family Foundation and
also the key strategic thought partner whose support and brilliance made
this work possible. We miss her dearly.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A
cross the country, city and county budgets reflect an investment in criminalization
and a divestment in the services that actually contribute to public safety. Especially
egregious is that as the cost of police misconduct increases, the communities that
police brutalize are going into debt to pay for it. Often this debt is in the form of bond
borrowing, meaning that when cities or counties issue bonds to pay these costs, banks and
other firms collect fees for the services they provide and investors collect interest.
We call the bonds used to cover police-related settlement and judgment costs “police brutality
bonds”, because they quite literally allow banks and wealthy investors to profit from police
violence. This is a transfer of wealth from communities—especially over-policed communities of
color—to Wall Street and wealthy investors. The companies profiting from police brutality bonds
include well known institutions like Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs, and Bank of America, as well as
smaller regional banks and other firms.
While municipalities across the country spend up to 50% of their general funds on policing,
the use of police brutality bonds to pay out settlements and judgments only increases the cost
burden on taxpayers - all while turning a profit for banks and investors. The use of these bonds
can nearly double the costs of the original settlement.
This report focuses on just one aspect of the cost and profits of policing—the use of borrowing
to pay for police-related settlements and judgments. Of course, addressing police brutality is
not just a budgeting issue, it is a moral one. What this report serves to do is uncover the lengths
that municipalities have gone to hide both how the costs of police violence and who profits
from it. The system of policing exists to protect capital. A society built on white supremacy and
racial capitalism will always target Black, Indigenous, and People of Color. There is no economic
solution that can prevent this. As we work to dismantle and disband the system of policing,
we must hold the government, banks, and investors accountable for the financial, physical, and
emotional costs to our communities.
In our research, we found that cities and counties across the United States issue bonds to
pay for police brutality settlements and judgments. The cities range from giant metropolises
such as Los Angeles to smaller cities like Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. Our report includes details
on police brutality bonds in twelve cities and counties, including five in-depth case studies:
Chicago, Los Angeles, Milwaukee, Cleveland, and Lake County, Indiana. Police violence should
never be a source of profit for banks or investors, or a reason we do not have the resources
we need to invest in the infrastructure and services that make our communities safer and more
livable. We need to dismantle this system of policing and build a truly just system that prioritizes
the needs and well-being of all people. While we work toward that together, here are our key
recommendations:
The table above includes the bonds we identified as paying or likely paying for police related
settlements or judgments. It does not include interest costs or issuance fees.
The table above illustrates police brutality bond and interest costs in our five case study cities
and county.
INTRODUCTION
I
n 2015, the Wall Street Journal published a story headlined “Cost of Police Misconduct Soars
in Big Cities.”10 The story reported that the U.S. cities with the biggest police departments
had collectively paid out more than $1.02 billion between 2010 and 2015 for settlements
and judgments in cases involving violence committed by officers; $1.4 billion when the total
includes cases involving incidents like officer-involved crashes. The story explained that the
costs of these settlements and judgments are almost entirely borne by taxpayers, not officers or
their home police departments. But what the article did not mention is that by enabling loans to
local cities and counties, Wall Street banks and wealthy investors are able to profit off the money
municipalities spend to compensate victims of police violence.
As the costs of police misconduct rise, cities and counties across the United States are going
into debt to pay for it. Often, this debt is in the form of bond borrowing. When cities or counties
issue bonds to pay these costs, banks and other firms
collect fees for the services they provide, and investors
collect interest. The use of bonds to pay for settlements
and judgments greatly increases the burden of policing
The use of bonds to pay for costs on taxpayers, while producing a profit for banks
and investors. Using bonds to pay for settlements or
settlements and judgments judgments can nearly double the costs of the original
greatly increases the burden settlement. All of this is paid by taxpayers.
of policing costs on taxpayers, We call the bonds used to cover police related
while producing a profit for settlement and judgment costs “police brutality bonds”,
because they quite literally allow banks and wealthy
banks and investors. investors to profit from police violence. This is a transfer
of wealth from communities to Wall Street, but it is in
particular a transfer of wealth from over-policed communities of color to Wall Street and wealthy
investors. The companies profiting from police brutality bonds include well known institutions
like Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs, and Bank of America, as well as smaller regional banks and
other financial firms.
A 2017 Chicago GO bond allocated $225 million for settlements and judgments.
Banks and other companies—including lead underwriter Goldman Sachs—collected
approximately $1.8 million in fees on the portion of that 2017 issuance that was allotted
to settlements and judgments.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
Police Brutality Bonds and Investor Profits: Five Case Studies15
Bethlehem, PA’s so-called “Hirko Tax” is named after John Hirko, a man who police
officer Joseph Riedy shot 11 times during a house raid in which SWAT officers also
burned the house down using two flash grenades, burning Hirko’s body beyond
recognition. The city enacted the tax to pay off a bond used to fund a settlement to
Hirko’s family, referring to it in budget documents as the “Hirko settlement debt”.
The following year, Riedy was named “Officer of the Year”.32 The fact that this tax is
referred to popularly as the “Hirko Tax”, while the officer who is actually responsible
for the conduct that led to the settlement is celebrated as a local hero, is an egregious
example of victim blaming.
Inkster, MI instituted a one-time property tax hike to pay for $1.4 million settlement33 in a case in
which a Black motorist was beaten by an Inkster police officer during a traffic stop.34
South Tucson, AZ instituted a “secondary property tax” that it used to pay down debt, until a city
attorney decided the tax was illegal as it had never been put to a vote.35
Cleveland, OH in 2016 faced costs relating to the police department’s consent decree with the
DOJ. Hoping to plug a huge budget hole and restore services that had been eviscerated by
budget cuts, residents voted in 2016 to impose a tax increase on themselves.36 (See Cleveland
case study for more detail)
case against police officers Schwartz has also found that most police departments
are insulated from the financial consequences of
and win financial awards, excessive settlement and judgment costs. Smaller
those officers almost never cities often have liability insurance that covers payouts
have to contribute to their related to police misconduct cases, while larger cities
are generally “self-insured”, meaning that they pay costs
legal defense costs nor to out of a dedicated fund. Sometimes that fund is part of
the payment of the award. the police budget, but often the money comes out of
the general budget with no contribution from the police
Instead, taxpayers pay.
department. However, Schwartz found that even when
the police department itself is required to contribute
to settlements and judgments out of its own budget, this does not generally impose a financial
burden on the department. Many police departments routinely go significantly over their budget
for settlements and judgments, with no financial consequences for the department. Often a
police department simply asks the city for more money and gets it from the city without a fight.58
For example, Chicago allocated an average of $16.2 million a year in its budget for police lawsuit
payouts between 2012 and 2014, but actually paid an average of $52 million for police-related
payouts in each of those years.59 Another example Schwartz cites is Boston, which had allocated
C
hicago is habitually relying on bond borrowing to fund its legal settlements and
judgments, as well as other litigation costs. The city of Chicago provides detailed
information about its use of bond financing for these purposes. However, Chicago’s
use of bond borrowing to cover police claims specifically is difficult to parse, because
the city fails to track exactly which of its settlements and judgments are covered by bond money.
In addition to police related settlements and judgments, the City of Chicago settles numerous
other types of cases every year, including property damage, “slip and fall”, and labor related
suits, among many others. This means that while we have concrete figures for Chicago’s overall
use of borrowing for settlement and judgment costs, and we have separate reliable data for
Chicago’s police related settlements, we had to extrapolate from these two data sets to reach
our conclusions about Chicago’s use of police brutality bonds.
Some of Chicago’s bond official statements mention that some of the money may or will be
used for settlements and judgments, but there is no mention of any specific cases. This makes it
virtually impossible to connect individual settlements
or judgments with specific cases of misconduct. A
member of the city’s law department explained that the
city doesn’t track the information “because it serves us
no purpose”. This person also told us that settlements
Because Chicago’s credit
may be paid for with money from a particular city fund,
rating was low at the time of which would later be replenished with bond proceeds.
the 2017 issuance, investors As this person pointed out, those settlements were in
effect paid for with borrowed money.66
are receiving a high interest
Based on the data the City of Chicago does make
rate on these bonds—more available, we estimate that the total dollar amount
than 7 percent. Though these of the settlements and judgments related to cases
bonds mature relatively against the Chicago Police Department (CPD) or CPD
officers is less than or roughly equivalent to what
quickly, investors will take Chicago is borrowing to pay for all of its settlements
home approximately $92.3 and judgments. For example, according to records
million in interest. available on the city’s law department website, Chicago
spent $360 million on police-related settlements and
judgments between 2010 and 2016. During this same
period, the city used $484.3 million in bond proceeds to pay for settlements and judgments. The
larger figure includes legal costs beyond the settlement amounts. Essentially, this means that it
is fair to say that most of the city’s police related settlement and judgments cost are covered by
bond borrowing. (See methodology section for more details on our sources and figures)
This report focuses on Chicago’s police-related settlement and judgment costs since 2010,
but we know that since 2004, Chicago has spent more than $800 million on such cases.
In early 2017, Chicago borrowed another $225 million for settlements and judgments,68 bringing
the 2010-2017 total to $709.3 million. We estimate that this borrowing will cost taxpayers
CLEVELAND
Since 2008, Cleveland has issued $12.1 million in judgment obligation bonds with help from
banks like Wells Fargo, at interest rates of up to 6 percent.94 The city has also used bonds to
LOS ANGELES
Los Angeles issued $71.4 million in judgment obligation bonds in 2009 and 2010, and came
close to issuing new JOBs in 2017. These bonds paid for settlements and judgments that
included, but were not limited to, police related cases. Banks and other private firms collected
more than $1 million in issuance fees on the 2009 and 2010 JOBs. The financial firms involved
included Merrill Lynch (Bank of America) and De La Rosa and Co.137 By the time the bonds are
paid off, taxpayers will have handed over more than $18 million to investors.138
Significant portions of the JOBs Los Angeles issued in 2009 and 2010 were police brutality
bonds. For example, the 2009 bonds covered a $20.5 million settlement related to the messy
Rampart Police corruption scandal of the 1990s and 2000s.139 The Rampart Scandal, as it is
commonly known, involved numerous officers in the city’s anti-gang Rampart Division engaging
in misconduct, including physical abuse of suspects, evidence tampering, and perjury.140 LAPD
officer Rafael Perez had been arrested on cocaine charges. As part of a plea bargain, he agreed
to help uncover corruption inside the LAPD, and the information he provided on misconduct
within the department led to the overturning of over 100 criminal convictions.141 The city had
to pay more than $95 million in police misconduct settlements in connection with the Rampart
Scandal, including the $20.5 million that was covered by the 2009 police brutality bond.142
The 2010 JOBs covered $12.8 million in settlements143 for people injured or mistreated by LAPD
in what the Los Angeles Times described as a “May Day melee”,144 when police used batons and
rubber bullets to disperse crowds that had gathered to participate in a pro-immigrant march.145
The aggressive police response resulted in over 300 claims against the city.146 The 2010 JOBs
also covered $5 million to settle two cases involving negligent driving by an LAPD officer that
resulted in personal injuries.147
In 2017, Los Angeles faced a huge spike in settlements and judgments, including about $8
million for several cases involving fatal police shootings.148 Concerned about a potential deficit of
$245 million, the Los Angeles’ City Administrative Officer (CAO), Miguel Santana, issued a memo
with recommendations for how Los Angeles should handle the deficit and “restore the reserve
fund level.”149 One of his recommendations was that the city issue between $50 million and $70
million in judgment obligation bonds to cover settlements and judgments.150 At the time, the city
had already used reserve funds for $28.5 million in settlements.151 The City Council authorized
the bond borrowing in April 2017. In November, however, a new Acting CAO, Richard H. Llewellyn
Jr, issued a memo in which he recommended that the City of Los Angeles not proceed with the
earlier plan to issue judgment obligation bonds. Llewellyn indicated that the city had eliminated
MILWAUKEE
Since 2008 Milwaukee has authorized about $26.1 million in borrowing to pay for police
settlements and judgments, with $18.3 million of that since just 2015.160 Milwaukee’s borrowing
is habitual; the city authorized borrowing for settlements or judgments in eight of the ten years
between 2008 and 2017.161 We estimate that the use of borrowed money has added about $3.7
million in interest payments to the cost of settlements.162 We estimate that Bank of America,
Wells Fargo, and other firms have collected at least $261,000 for their services related to police
brutality bonds.163 Milwaukee’s police brutality bonds have been used to cover settlements that
include:
2. If cities must borrow to pay for settlements and judgments, the Federal
Reserve should lend them that money without charging interest or fees.
“Defund the police” does not mean that victims of police violence should not be
compensated. Cities must pay settlements and judgments when police have harmed
people. But neither banks and other firms, nor private investors, should be allowed
to continue to make a profit from police violence. If cities are unable to pay for their
settlements and judgments and have to resort to borrowing, the Federal Reserve Bank
should lend them that money without charging interest or fees. This would not directly
cost the federal government anything since the money will eventually be paid back, but
it will remove the profit from police brutality bonds. The Federal Reserve already has a
history of making cheap loans available to banks and other corporations. It must make
3. Governmental bodies at the local, state, and federal levels must account for
and provide full transparency about the total costs of policing.
Police departments take up huge portions of public budgets, at the expense of the
services and infrastructure that communities need to thrive. But police department
budgets themselves do not give us the full picture of the cost of policing. Police brutality
bonds are just one of the many hidden costs of policing. Other costs, such as building,
maintaining, and operating police facilities, the costs of equipment such as surveillance
technologies and helicopters, or the legal costs of defending officers accused of
misconduct, may not be included in the official police budget. Contracts for school police
or transit police may also be listed in separate budgets. As we move to defund police, we
need government bodies to provide a full accounting and disclosure of all the money they
are allocating to policing of all kinds, whether that money comes from tax dollars, asset
forfeiture, revenue generated by traffic enforcement cameras, federal or state grants,
corporate donations, or any other source.
Our data came from a variety of sources, depending on the city or county. Data sources we used
included: