Detroit’s reparations task force now has until 2025 to make its report, but going slow with this challenging work may not be a bad thing

The work of crafting reparations at the municipal level is fierce.

Detroiters know. In November 2021, residents voted to create a reparations committee that would make recommendations for housing and economic development programs to address historical discrimination against Black residents.

Three years have passed – and Detroiters recently learned the report is delayed. Some folks are wondering: What is taking so long?

We are a team of University of Michigan-based scholars of political science and sociology specializing in public opinion and attitudes toward reparations. Our research provides important context for understanding the challenges Detroit’s reparations committee faces.

The 13-member task force wasn’t officially announced until February 2023. The two-year time lapse resulted from the COVID-19 pandemic and the unexpected passing in July 2022 of former City Council Member JoAnn Watson – a pivotal advocate for reparations.

Its membership included three co-chairs appointed by City Council President Mary Sheffield and nine at-large members selected by the council itself.

The task force held its first meeting in April 2023. At that time, it was given 18 months to produce a report outlining harms experienced by Black Detroiters and recommendations for reparations.

As the October 2024 deadline approached, however, many residents voiced concerns that the task force was not progressing quickly enough or being as inclusive as expected. When the deadline extension was announced, task force co-chair Keith Williams issued his own report. This unilateral decision prompted the task force to release a statement letting Detroiters know that Williams’ report is not representative of the final report that is still in development. The official report is now due in March 2025.

The challenges faced by Detroit’s reparations task force are not unique to Detroit.

In the past five years, 19 reparations initiatives have been introduced and passed in U.S. cities such as San Francisco, Evanston, Illinois, and Providence, Rhode Island.

Every locality tasked with developing reparations recommendations has faced similar challenges. These include providing evidence of past and current harm, developing plans to rectify those harms, defining who is eligible to receive reparations benefits, and ensuring transparency in developing and implementing these programs.

This is challenging work, requiring navigating bureaucratic systems and political constraints while dealing with public opinion.

Nonetheless, in the absence of federal action, the country is experiencing a rise in reparations efforts enacted into local law, so figuring out what works is worth investigating.

Public policymaking requires a fine balance between what is administratively sustainable and what is politically acceptable.

An administratively sustainable reparations policy requires a secured source of long-term funding, trained staff and established rules and procedures for efficient implementation.

A politically acceptable reparations policy requires support and acceptance by relevant political figures and the general public.

These two elements are frequently in tension.

For example, a reparations committee could suggest reallocating money from a city’s parks and recreation fund. That would be sustainable, but it is unlikely to be politically successful due to strong public opposition to interference with parks and recreation funding.

The Detroit committee has not yet developed reparations recommendations. It has requested a harms report from a network of University of Michigan scholars and an ethnohistory of Detroit’s Black community from scholars at Columbia University. These reports are now complete and will be used to assist the task force in crafting its reparations recommendations to city council.

Another positive sign: Our research suggests it can expect goodwill from the public.

Support for reparations in Detroit, including among white residents, is higher than the national average, increasing the likelihood of passing reparations initiatives and minimizing future legal pushback from non-Black residents.

And yet, it is still true that if the committee fails to maintain a balance between sustainability and political success, it risks losing this crucial public support. So where can it turn for inspiration?

So far, Evanston, Illinois, is the only city to succeed in providing reparations to its African American population. The city’s US$10 million program is funded through a tax on the sale of recreational cannabis.

The effort began in 2002 when Evanston City Council member Lionel Jean-Baptiste proposed a reparations plan. The plan didn’t gain momentum until 17 years later when it was reintroduced by Councilwoman Robin Rue Simmons and passed.

Just two years later, reparations were issued to a first group of Black residents who lived in Evanston between 1919 and 1969, or who are direct descendants of people who lived in the city then. Eligible residents received a $25,000 grant to be used for housing, including repairs on existing homes. As of January 2024, 117 qualified residents had received a total of $2,953,596. There is a waitlist for several hundred people who will receive money as it comes available.

Critics of the Evanston program point out that the program helps only a handful of people in a city with more than 12,000 African American residents. Scholars Monique Newton and Matthew Nelsen argue that it did not adequately meet the needs of the Black people for whom it was intended to repair harm. The researchers found that many of the city’s Black residents felt the program’s focus on addressing homeownership left many residents behind.

For example, Black renters in Evanston were less likely than Black homeowners to claim reparations funds. Newton and Nelsen noted that the initiative’s quick work, “while well-intentioned, contributed to a policy that left many questions about eligibility, funding, and implementation unanswered and threatened the very viability of the policy.”

Many Black residents in Evanston wanted to see more than the enactment of a reparative policy. They wanted a reparative policymaking process, during which policymakers invested time into listening to local Black residents and who designed a policy that showed an attentiveness to their preferences, concerns and experiences in a way that most American policy does not.

In our opinion, Detroit can build a reparations program that’s fair and effective. This will mean taking the time to strike a balance between what’s practical and what people will support. The task force’s final report will need to consider funding feasibility, set up clear and obtainable steps for how the plan will work, and be transparent so the public can stay informed and confident in the process.

The task force is taking a positive step by seeking more public engagement through surveys and hosting monthly two-hour, in-person meetings to engage the public.

Despite criticisms of the task force’s efforts so far, we feel going slow allows for more time to gather input from a broader range of Black voices, ensuring that diverse concerns are fully considered.

By carefully creating its own course, Detroit’s reparations task force can not only right historical wrongs but also set a positive example for other cities looking to do the same.

This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Kamri Hudgins, University of Michigan; Erykah Noelle Benson, University of Michigan; Mara Ostfeld, University of Michigan, and Vincent Hutchings, Univer

Erykah Benson receives funding from the National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship Program.

Kamri Hudgins, Mara Ostfeld, and Vincent Hutchings do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.