At the fourth installment of the “Workshop of Democracy” panel discussion series, organized by the University of Michigan Detroit Center and BridgeDetroit, moderator Bryce Huffman opened with a personal stake in the session topic, stating: “This is the issue that got me to change from being a sports reporter to being a community reporter.”
After presenting a short “Crash Course” video on the discussion topics, Huffman introduced a diverse panel that blended experience in community organizing, city government, elected oversight, and historical context. It included Alia Harvey‑Quinn, a longtime organizer committed to a “freer safer Detroit” through philanthropic mobilization and coalition-building; Michael Peterson II, Administrator of Detroit’s Community Violence Intervention (CVI) program; Victoria Camille, recently elected District 7 police commissioner and longtime community organizer; and Matt Lassiter, Lewis Evans Professor of History at the University of Michigan, whose scholarship focuses on urban inequality, race, justice, policing and the carceral state.
Prompted to reflect on Detroit after George Floyd’s murder and the 2020 uprisings, panelists described both possibilities and polarization. Harvey‑Quinn recalled “deep inner churning” and the challenge of holding officers accountable inside police rules, “not our social justice constructs,” while also noticing local de-escalation in action. She credited those strategies as central to why “Detroit did not go up in flames,” emphasizing that “People are the solution, not technology.” In her view, that moment helped push CVI forward in a way that became “a game changer.”
Commissioner Camille focused on how the moment revealed “the lack of listening on both sides,” noting a recurring tendency to simply increase policing budgets: “Sometimes it’s easier to feed the machine that we are used to, rather than taking a stretch and building something new.”
Peterson connected Detroit 2020 to a childhood memory of the Rodney King era in Los Angeles — when he saw neighbors standing together to protect a local store that the community depended on — an image of community self-preservation and mutual accountability.
From the perspective of a historian, Lassiter said, “I am reminded of how cyclical this is.” He observed that 2020 echoed waves of Black protest against police violence in the 1960s-70s, and 1980–90. He saw a recurring division within affected communities: with some seeing police as the problem, while others argue that they need more funding. Meanwhile, he added, communities consistently (often unsuccessfully) ask for more funding for social welfare.
On police residency requirements, Lassiter traced how post-1967 enforcement efforts largely failed as officers moved to “copper canyons,” unions resisted, state politics shifted, and fraud appeared — leaving Detroit navigating “a very hostile state government.”
Harvey‑Quinn offered an anecdote about someone with informal “hood celebrity” status who was able to be hired for his job as an outreach worker because a senior police official knew him from the community and could see him as “a full human being.” Her takeaway was not nostalgia for residency rules alone, but that “structural boundaries can facilitate relationships that are transformative,” especially when systems encourage people’s “journey to transformation.”
Camille argued that the Board of Police Commissioners often struggles to achieve structural reform, because the City Charter is routinely sidelined, effectively undermining “the will of the people.” Lassiter added that the commission’s design from its founding reflected a compromise — that it was “set up to be not that effective”— even as it attempted to address an “out of control” department through civilian oversight and affirmative action.
CVI vs. policing: credibility, accountability, and “stick and stay”
Asked what makes someone a better interventionist than the police, Peterson highlighted the role of the credible messenger — people with lived experience and relationships, able to “build trust,” avoid constraints like officers’ “duty to inform,” and maintain presence: the ability to “stick and stay.”
Harvey‑Quinn said that the core question is “who are you accountable to?” The criminal legal system is often unaccountable to vulnerable communities of color, while community-based interventionists can “make deals on behalf of their community. She added, “government support isn’t only money — it’s infrastructure”, linking housing, mental health, and public health departments. She contended that untreated trauma compounds and systems fail kids long before a crime occurs. Peterson put it plainly: it can’t be year-to-year — programs and staff need predictable budgets to work.
The panel was skeptical of “technological fixes” in a cash-strapped city. Camille said, “I’m not a fan of mass surveillance,” calling it consent-less, reactionary, and lacking transparency and oversight. Lassiter warned of a long history of civil-rights violations and “collateral consequences,” where tools sold as crime-fighting become pipelines into the system for minor offenses.
Peterson argued that when it comes to safety, “most people don’t care about the numbers. If the community doesn’t feel safe, there is still more that we need to do.” He added, “It’s all about transparency and accountability.” Harvey‑Quinn distinguished real-time interventions in violence from long-term psychological safety, stating,: “Data also doesn’t inform legislation. It is stories that inform policy.”
According to Camille, “Relationships have a lot to do with the ways people feel; we don’t have relationships with each other anymore, and that has a lot to do with feelings of safety.”
In closing, each panelist was asked for action steps. Lassiter urged treating violence and inequality as public-health issues and warned that wars on crime, drugs, and gangs have often made things worse. Peterson and Camille pushed hyper-local relationship building — meeting neighbors, knowing officers, sitting on porches, planting flowers together. Camille also urged residents to engage the Board of Police Commissioners as a charter-based lever for public power. Harvey‑Quinn challenged attendees to take concrete civic steps — write an opinion piece, attend meetings — and to be strategic about changing systems: “You have to know the policies and regulations.” The audience raised questions concerning mental health treatment, the roots of policing in white supremacy, ICE-related fears and body camera governance. Harvey‑Quinn compared safety to a table, saying, “Most communities only focus on one leg of the table, which is the police.” In Detroit, she concluded, “you have the opportunity to build a full table.”
5 takeaways you can act on
Prioritize people over technology: Panelists consistently emphasized that lasting safety comes from human relationships, not surveillance tools or reactive systems. Community violence intervention (CVI) works because of “credible messengers” — people with lived experience who can build trust, de-escalate conflict, and remain present in ways traditional systems cannot. Investments should center on people, relationships, and healing rather than short-term technological fixes that often lack transparency and fail to address root causes.
Build safety as a “full table,” not a single leg: Public safety cannot rely on policing alone. Panelists described safety as a holistic system that includes housing stability, mental health care, public health infrastructure, and strong neighborhood relationships. Focusing only on policing ignores the underlying conditions, like trauma and disinvestment, that lead to violence. A “full table” approach means aligning multiple systems to support communities before harm occurs, not just responding after.
Support stable, long-term funding for CVI: Effective violence intervention requires consistency, not uncertainty. Year-to-year funding cycles make it difficult to retain skilled outreach workers, build trust in communities, and sustain programs long enough to see results. Panelists stressed that government support must go beyond short-term grants to include long-term investment and infrastructure across agencies like housing, health, and social services.
Use and strengthen existing oversight tools: While systems like the Board of Police Commissioners were created to provide accountability, panelists noted they are often underutilized or structurally limited. Still, they remain an important lever for public influence. Residents can attend meetings, provide input, and push for transparency and adherence to the city charter. Civic engagement is critical to ensuring these bodies reflect the will of the people and function as intended.
Shift policy through storytelling and community voice: Data alone does not drive policy change — stories do. Panelists highlighted the power of lived experiences to shape public understanding, influence decision-makers, and build momentum for reform. Sharing stories, through media, public comment, or community spaces, can humanize complex issues, highlight gaps in systems, and push leaders to act in ways that data alone often cannot.