Due to poor public security, many poor communities in the United States don't even have police, and local order is maintained only by groups such as churches and gangs.
Executive summary
The blanket claim that many poor U.S. communities “don’t even have police” and that “local order is maintained only by groups such as churches and gangs” flattens a complex reality: some communities—especially small towns and remote Alaska Native villages—do lack local law‑enforcement agencies for budgetary or logistical reasons [1] [2], and many poor neighborhoods rely heavily on informal networks for safety, but evidence shows a wide spectrum of responses from county/state policing to organized civilian programs, mutual‑aid groups, faith institutions, and community‑led restorative practices rather than a binary of churches versus gangs [3] [4] [5].
1. What’s true: places without local police and why
There are indeed U.S. communities that lack local police departments, driven by affordability and staffing shortages: small towns have disbanded forces because they cannot afford officers or fill vacancies, and roughly one in three Alaska communities—primarily Indigenous—have no local law enforcement according to national reporting [6] [1] [2]. These gaps are not necessarily evidence of a deliberate withdrawal of public safety but often the result of long‑running budget constraints, recruitment shortfalls and structural neglect that leave county or state agencies to fill the vacuum [3] [2].
2. What fills the gap: a diverse, often community‑led mix
Where formal policing is thin, safety is rarely “maintained only by churches and gangs”; instead a patchwork operates: neighbors erect barricades and organize patrols during crises, faith groups and elders convene restorative circles, mutual‑aid networks and healers provide crisis support, and some communities deploy informal civilian responders—the “solutionaries” described by organizers working to provide alternatives to police [7] [4] [8]. Cities and regions have also formalized non‑police responses: pilot programs in places from Eugene to Albuquerque and newer civilian teams in San Francisco and Philadelphia divert mental‑health and nonviolent calls away from armed officers, demonstrating institutional alternatives to relying solely on informal actors [5] [8].
3. What isn’t supported: the overstated gang/church monopoly
The assertion that churches and gangs are the only organizers of order in poor neighborhoods exaggerates and misattributes agency. Reporting shows residents, neighborhood associations, and organized civic groups frequently coordinate protection—blocking streets, cleaning memorial sites, and planning collective watch efforts—especially during moments of police absence or crisis [7]. While gangs and informal armed groups sometimes fill security niches, they are not the universal or sole providers of public order; relying on that narrative risks stigmatizing communities and overlooking constructive, civic responses documented by scholars and advocates [7] [4].
4. Competing agendas and why narratives polarize the issue
Different actors push divergent frames: abolitionist and “disband” movements argue police can be rolled back and replaced with community care and claim police historically served elite interests [8], while municipal officials and law‑enforcement advocates emphasize risks from reduced capacity and the practicalities of response times and staffing [6] [2]. Media narratives about cities “living without police” can conflate experimental reallocation of resources, temporary force reductions during crises, and places that simply cannot sustain a department—these are distinct realities with distinct policy implications [9] [10].
5. Bottom line: nuance over blanket claims
The truth is conditional: some poor communities lack local police because of budget and capacity problems, and many rely on an array of community institutions for safety, but it is false to suggest that order in poor America is maintained only by churches and gangs; evidence points to a mosaic of county/state policing backstops, grassroots organizers, faith‑based and restorative practices, and formal civilian responder pilots reshaping what public safety looks like [1] [4] [5]. Where gaps exist, policy choices—how resources are allocated and whether alternatives are institutionalized—determine whether community safety will be civic and accountable or fragmented and precarious [4] [3].