$500 per Public Housing Resident Monthly


Writing this proposal doesn’t mean that I fully endorse it. However, something different have to be done. This writing is merely an attempt to start a conversation about different approaches to solving a multi decades old problem. Of course, the below proposal would require a deeper and more strategic implementation based on actual figures and statistics provided by the DC government. The data in which I am utilizing within this proposal is merely estimations.
This writing has derived from an acknowledgement that current and prior attempts to mitigate crime and elevate the minority communities of this country has resulted in repetitious failures. We have tried everything from over-policing to under-policing but never a psychoeconomics (changing the psychology of a population through stipulated financial means) approach. Over-policing has led to community resentment towards authority and mass incarceration of certain communities. Under-policing has led to incentivizing increases in criminality which ultimately hurt and destabilize the same communities that are being under-policed. So, what’s the balance? The balance would be finding a measure that incentivizes high crime communities to police themselves in results-based manner. A measure that reduces police presence and crime simultaneously. A psychoeconomic measure.


First, we must agree on the locational nucleus of most crime. The consensus should arrive at the public housing sectors of most inner-city communities. The causal effect of this truth is undisputable but is not the focal point of this proposal. If, and when this proposal gains steam, we can then list the numerous reasons that these particular communities exhibit the most crime. For now, let’s just run with the idea that most crime derives from the public housing sectors of most inner cities.

An estimated 20,000 people in Washington, DC live in public housing.

What if we reduce the current police budget (est. $500,000,000) by $120,000,000 and use those funds to pay the residents in high crime communities to reduce their own crime? Essentially, this proposal is not abolishing the attempt to reduce crime (which is why the police exist), it would more so be to reallocate a portion of the public safety (policing) budget to a new methodology of crime reduction.


• $500 per month via cash/debit card to each of the 20,000 public housing residents if crime stays below a particular threshold. *Threshold to be determined*

• $500 per each 20,000 residents = $10,000,000 per month. The yearly total comes out to be $120,000,000.

• Only persons who live within high crime, low income, public housing areas will be eligible for the program. Persons must have a verifiable leasing contract with the city to claim residency.

• Crime MUST stay below the threshold agreed upon by city officials, police department personnel, and representatives of the community in order to receive the compensation.

• If crime RISES above the threshold set forward and agreed upon, then residents of that particular jurisdiction/housing community forfeit their monthly compensation.

• CRC (Crime Reduction Compensation) jurisdictions will be drawn and assessed based on public housing property. Example: Green Leaf Gardens, Barry Farm, Benning Terrace, Edgewood Terrace, and many more. These will be stand-alone jurisdictions as far as the CRC Act is concerned.

• Crime percentage rates will be assessed by the number of reported crimes to 911 per each individual CRC jurisdictions.


• This will incentivize citizens of communities to hold their own residents responsible for their actions. This will prompt community leaders to step up and demand that as a collective, the neighborhood/community must do better and meet the standards of an orderly community to ensure financial compnesation.

• This will help to deconstruct the code of silence – a measure that stands as a hindrance to the investigatory nature of police work. How? Communities would be prone to ridding their neighborhoods of actors that stand to jeopardize their livelihood by causing spikes in crime which will lead to a forfeiture in their CRC.

• Stress relief for officers. Officers wouldn’t have to over-police communities nor partake in unscrupulous amounts of overtime which strains their relationships with their household. It would also decrease the tension between police and communities due to potentially less occurrences of “tense” interactions. The rigors of the job would ease due to a self-policed community. Officers could focus more on building their psychological stability by spending more time in de-escalation training versus every hour of their shift spent in the field.

• This will also help repair the psyche of the community by not seeing nor having to interact with police every day and all day. The community would feel less suppressed by the optics of uniformed patrolman.

• For conservative minded people who would be furious with the idea of their tax dollars going towards a new government entitlement program, they should look at it like paying for better and safer streets which also benefits them. Also, this is a reallocation of funds, not an additional tax to pay for additional programs. These types of people should look at it from the perspective of low crime rates births better lifestyles and more business insertions within a community. More crime equals less safety. Less safety equals less business investments.

There’s hundreds of pages that would have to be added to this proposal to make it work in the favor of everyone impartially. However, I’m just using this synopsis as a catalyst to a conversation that needs to be had. We can’t continue to keep viewing the same problems with the same solutions. We need more great ideas from our COMMUNITY. If you think that this proposal is lunacy, then don’t call it lunacy. Instead, engage in a conversation with me and TOGETHER let’s get it right. However, legislation must start being written. I’m tired of the marches, screaming and performative acts (painting BLM). We have too many smart and engaging people in our communities to not be formulating our own policy proposals and taking them to congress and fighting for them. Smart doesn’t mean college educated. Smart means empirically informed. If I were a council member, I would begin to urge everyone within my ward to submit ideas of betterment. Not through townhalls or archaic methods. The people wouldn’t have to come to me, I would go to them. Alleyways and all. They work for us – remember that. We shouldn’t revere them; they should revere us. We are the power!