Return to Issues

Public Safety Policy Matrix

Disclaimer: I’m a systems analyst type, which means I process information/data and understand the underlying relationship between different parties. Public safety is a complex system that impacts many parties, but can be simplified. There are no magical solutions that do not require individuals to be informed, and empathize with other people. 

I have created a public safety policy framework that 

  • Takes into account  relevant parties 
  • Provide an assessment of political influence
  • Can assess public safety impact on specific parties
  • Offer long-term predictions of policy impact

Within this framework, I advocate to prioritize crime victims and provide policy recommendations that address long-term public safety needs. Please take the time to read this, and, apologies in advance, for lack of clarity, as conciseness was prioritized. 

Public Safety Policy Matrix Overview

Public safety policy is determined by the two parties, crime victims and non-victims. In a city, crime victims make the majority of the population, but have low voting rate. While non-victims have more wealth to influence politicians and vote in much higher proportion [You can see the voting map in my introductory page]. Local policies are determined by the influential party. In the graphic below, I describe the three other parties and the different crime-levels with the corresponding public safety policies.

From the above graphic, I highlight that it is the wealthy residents that influence public policy, however residents in poor communities are disproportionately harmed, who can experience either under-policing or over-policing as explained in the graphic below.

My prescribed solution for policymakers and residents is to make a moral commitment to prioritize crime victims even under low-crime settings. Using the public safety matrix, I have listed my four core public safety policies below and its impact on respective parties. Notice that every policy benefits crime victims even over non-victims. Also I go into detail for each square below the graphic and you can learn about my comprehensive public safety position here.


  1. Funding the Police to adequate staff:
  • Crime Victim: Police response services Improved
  • Non-Victims: Spending can be spent on police alternative
  • Policing Victims: Though there is more police, the less overstaffed officers decrease incident per encounter
  • Police: Self-Explanatory
  • Detained/ Criminal: Less ability to get away with crime


2. Non Police Alternatives to low priority calls

  • Crime Victim: Better Service [dependent on implementation]
  • Non-Victims: Better Perceived Service
  • Policing Victims: Decrease total encounters
  • Police: Officers don’t enjoy taking low priority calls
  • Detained/ Criminal: Ambiguous [dependent on implementation]


3. Patrol Officers with 30% paid time with resident engagement

  • Crime Victim: More personal support/ comfort
  • Non-Victims: Better Perceived Service
  • Policing Victims: Officers are more empathetic, and possibly know residents to reduce negative encounters and/or false accusations 
  • Police: Officers enjoy getting to know community
  • Detained/ Criminal: Officers treatment offenders may be more responsive to individuals and families needs, especially for juvenile offender


4. Police Accountability on officer consistent poor conduct (police liability insurance)

  • Crime Victim: Better Service
  • Non-Victims: Better Perceived Service
  • Policing Victims: The officers with poor conduct record will be off the streets
  • Police: they like the current system as how it is
  • Detained/ Criminal: Reduce excess use of force during and/or after arrest.