Racially Biased Policing: A Principled Response - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 139
About This Presentation
Title:

Racially Biased Policing: A Principled Response

Description:

... in an unbiased manner ... can police in an unbiased manner. No saliva test! ... information in policing in the manner articulated. in the PERF Policy ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:178
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 140
Provided by: dennis99
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Racially Biased Policing: A Principled Response


1
Racially Biased Policing A Principled Response
  • Lorie A. Fridell, Ph.D.
  • Director of Research
  • PERF

2
Presented at the National Symposium on Racial
Profiling and Traffic Stops
  • Sponsored by the Northwestern University
  • Center for Public Safety
  • September 30-October 2, 2001

3
PERF Report
  • PURPOSE Provide guidance to law enforcement
    agency executives in their response to RBP and
    perceptions of RBP
  • FUNDING COPS Office
  • AVAILABILITY www.policeforum.org
  • Softbound copies available by calling
  • 1-888-202-4563

4
Chapters
Introduction
Police and Citizen Perceptions
Supervision and Accountability
Data Collection
Anti-Biased Policing Policy
Minority Community Outreach
Recruitment and Selection
Training and Education
5
  • Dont claim to have solved 150 year old problem
  • Didnt identify THE silver bullet
  • Hopefully, put LE out of the Wheel Creating
    business

6
Information Collection
  • 15 focus groups
  • National survey of 1,087 agency executives
  • The major purpose of the survey Identify
    promising practices
  • Review of documents from 250 agencies
  • Subject matter experts .

7
Advisory Board
  • Agency executives (local and state)
  • Representatives from NOBLE, ACLU, Urban League,
    Academia, Minority Advocacy Groups, a police
    union, COPS Office, other DOJ.

8
Core Team/Authors
  • Lorie Fridell
  • Bob Lunney
  • Drew Diamond
  • Assistance on individual chapters from
  • Michael Scott
  • Colleen Laing
  • Bruce Kubu

9
Report Represents the Views of the Authors
  • Authors were the last word after receiving much
    input, advice, information.
  • Content does not necessarily represent the views
    of
  • The members of the advisory board
  • PERF per se or its members
  • The COPS Office or DOJ as a whole.

10
Today
  • Selective information from each chapter
  • With the most depth on policy and data collection

11
  • Many of the recos are simple and uncontroversial
  • e.g., Supervision/Accountability
  • Lots of conventional recos that promote good
    management . pertinent to any issue
  • Key Question Are all these recos in place in
    your department? (PERF TA)

12
No handouts, but
  • Will post this PowerPoint slide show to our web
    site
  • (Under Racial Profiling Related Links)

13
Ch. 1 Defining/Labeling the Problem

14
PERF Chose Racially Biased Policinginstead
of Racial Profiling

15
Why RBP?
  • RP does not capture the concerns of police and
    community members
  • RP is a small subset of Racially Biased Policing
  • Solely definitions are too narrow in their
    characterization of the problem
  • Community members and police are speaking past
    each other.

16
Our working definition of Racially Biased
Policing
  • Racially biased policing occurs when the police
    inappropriately consider race or ethnicity in
    deciding with whom and how to intervene in an
    enforcement capacity

17
Racially Biased Policing
  • This definition is spelled out in our policy
    chapter
  • Appropriate use Legally relevant
  • Inappropriate use Based on biases/stereotypes.

18
Chapter 2
  • Included results from the national survey of law
    enforcement executives

19
Executives Views of the Problem
  • 60 believe that racial profiling/stereotyping
    is not a problem in their jurisdictions

20
  • Item Have the current events related to racial
    profiling led directly to any of the following
    activities in your department? Check all that
    apply.

21
Overall
22
Variations by Agency Size
23
Chapter 3Accountability and Supervision
  • Key roles of chief, mid-management and line
    supervisors in promoting and enforcing impartial
    policing

24
Chief Executive
  • Challenges chief executives to provide leadership
  • And to think about and respond to the various
    potential manifestations of RBP
  • How to deal with bad apples
  • How to guide/lead well-meaning officers
  • How to ID and fix institutional factors that
    contribute to the problem.

25
Bad Apples(Racist Officers)
  • Unlikely to be significantly impacted by policy
    and training
  • If they were acting within current policy .
    wouldnt be bad apples.
  • Some methods
  • Early Warning Systems
  • Effective Supervision
  • Accountability through discipline

26
Well-Meaning Officers
  • Likely many are not fully cognizant of the extent
    to which race/ethnicity are used in their
    decision-making
  • Policy to guide them on when race/ethnicity are
    and are not appropriate to use
  • Training
  • In that policy
  • That facilitates an analytical understanding of
    RBP to promote correct behavior.

27
Institutional factors that contribute to the
problem
  • What policies, procedures, hiring/promotional
    activities, etc. might be contributing to RBP (or
    perceptions)?
  • e.g., Chapter recommends Human Rights Audit of
    above

28
Other Recommendations (Targeting Chiefs and/or
Supervisors) Address
  • Sound/receptive complaint system
  • Personnel evaluations that address impartial law
    enforcement, respect for all community members,
    etc.
  • Quality assurance checks (e.g., early warning
    systems).

29
Chapter 5Recruitment and Hiring

30
Whom do we want to Hire?
  • Persons who can perform in an unbiased manner
  • People who collectively reflect the diversity of
    our communities

31
Hiring persons who can police in an unbiased
manner
  • No saliva test!
  • Careful evaluation of an applicants character,
    reputation, documented history related to
    racially biased attitudes and behavior

32
Hiring people who reflect the diversity of the
community
  • Importance of diversity
  • Recommendations regarding methods for recruiting
    minority applicants
  • Reco audit of the selection process to ensure
    valid/fair standards that dont
    unjustly/inadvertently hinder minority hiring.

33
Chapter 6Training and Education

34
OUR FOCUS
  • Emphasizing the importance of human rights
  • Facilitating an understanding of RBP to promote
    correct BEHAVIOR.
  • Tough to change attitudes!

35

Individual/human rights
  • Not presented as restrictions on police ability
    to do their jobs.
  • But as values that form the underpinnings of
    democratic policing
  • Infused throughout academy and in-service
    training.

36
Understanding RBP
  • Nature and extent of problem
  • Impact of RBP on community members,
    police-community trust, police effectiveness
  • Key Decision Points where biased policing or
    disproportionate impact can occur (incident and
    strategic levels)
  • Scenario-based training in policy that clarifies
    when race can be used as one factor in making LE
    decisions
  • Reducing perceptions of biased policing.

37
Chapter 7Engaging Minority Communities

38
We outline how agencies can reach out to
minority communities
  • On the topic of RBP
  • As well as more generally

39
Engaging Communities on the Topic of RBP
  • Recommend police-community task forces
  • 15-25 persons
  • Community members concerned with RBP
  • All levels of department personnel
  • Collaborate with the executive to analyze the
    problem and identify how the jurisdiction will
    respond to issues of RBP and perceptions
  • Advisory to the Executive.

40
Police-Community Task Force Collaborative
Problem-Solving Mode
  • Scanning What is the nature of the problem (TF
    discussion, community surveys, focus groups with
    citizens/officers)
  • Analysis What is promoting RBP or perceptions?
    (hiring practices, lack of training, lack of
    policy, lack of professionalism in traffic stops)
  • Response Develop cooperative responses to
    problem (using PERF report as guide)
  • Assessment Assess effectiveness of responses

41
Other DialogueProject Video
  • Tool for facilitating policy-community dialogue
    on issue of RBP and perceptions of RBP
  • For police-community forums
  • Sets out the issues and areas in which responses
    might occur
  • Leads to dialogue geared toward joint action

42
Community Outreach to Diverse Communities
Generally (Not focused on race issues, per se)
  • Report discusses (and provides examples of)
    Practices for five categories of outreach
  • Dialogue
  • Soliciting Feedback
  • Services/Visibility
  • Immigrant Outreach/Education
  • Participation

43
Chapter 4 Anti-Biased Policing Policy

44
Survey Policies Adopted Nationwide
  • 19 of responding agencies had adopted new
    policies
  • 31 of largest agencies

45
Need Policies to Guide Officers in the Use of
Race/Ethnicity in Making Decisions
  • Survey Fewer than 4 reported policies that
    specify when race can be used as one factor
    among several to make policing decisions
    (training)
  • Focus Groups Different views among personnel
    within same agency regarding whether/how
    race/ethnicity can/should be used to make
    decisions
  • This ambiguity creates great risk of biased
    policing activities.
  • Recommend policy AND training.

46
Returning to our definition
  • Racially biased policing occurs when the police
    inappropriately consider race or ethnicity in
    deciding with whom and how to intervene in an
    enforcement capacity.

47
Find the line ..
Inappropriate Use of Race Based on
stereotypes, biases, etc.
Appropriate Use of Race Legally relevant
Appropriate Use of Race Legally relevant

48
Three Major Models
  • Anti-Racial Profiling Policies
  • PERF Report Policy
  • Suspect-specific policies

49
From most restrictive to least
50
Anti-RP Policies
  • Reviewed 150 or more department policies
  • Mostly Anti-RP Do not intervene (stop,
    arrest, search) solely on the basis of race
  • Positive Convey a message
  • But do not provide new guidance to personnel

51
  • Surely officers knew before such policies were
    adopted that they could not intervene in a law
    enforcement capacity SOLELY on basis of race.

52
Must provide more meaningful guidance.
  • Again, 95 of departments surveyed reported that
    they did not provide this guidance in policy.

53
PERF Policy Compared toSuspect-Specific Policies

54
Suspect-Specific Policies
  • Officers may not consider race or ethnicity of a
    person in the course of any law enforcement
    action
  • UNLESS the officer is seeking to detain,
    apprehend, or otherwise be on the lookout for
  • a SPECIFIC SUSPECT sought in connection with a
    SPECIFIC CRIME who has been identified or
    described in part by race or ethnicity

55
Suspect-Specific Policies (Cont.)
  • Key A specific suspect sought for a specific
    crime has been described in terms of
    race/ethnicity
  • Example If looking for a suspect--reliable
    information indicates he is 58, lean,
    long-haired and ASIAN
  • ASIAN can be considered (along with the other
    demographics, evidence) in developing RS or PC to
    detain/arrest.

56
PERF Report Policy
  • Encompasses the Suspect-Specific provision
  • But allows for additional uses of race beyond
  • specific suspect
  • specific crime.

57
Has both 4th and 14th Amendment provisions

58
4th Amendment Provision
  • Officers shall not consider race/ethnicity to
    establish reasonable suspicion or probable cause
    EXCEPT ..

59
Exception
  • Officers may take into account the reported
    race/ethnicity of a potential suspect(s) based on
    trustworthy, locally-relevant information that
    links a person or persons of a specific
    race/ethnicity to a particular unlawful
    incident(s).

60
This policy we propose
  • Disallows race used as a general indicator for
    criminal behavior
  • Disallows use of stereotypes/biases
  • Allows for the consideration of race AS ONE
    FACTOR in making law enforcement decisions IF
  • trustworthy and locally relevant information
  • links specific suspected unlawful activity to a
    person or persons of a particular race/ethnicity.

61
Trustworthy and Locally Relevant
  • Trustworthy Worthy of confidence.
  • Same standard officers should apply to any
    information they use as a basis for intruding
    upon the liberty of individuals.
  • Locally Relevant Information is relevant to
    local conditions
  • Cannot rely on stereotypes or e.g., national
    statistics).
  • Recognizes cross-jurisdictional nature of crime.

62
Links specific suspected unlawful activity to a
person or persons of a particular race/ethnicity.
  • The information must pertain to a specific crime
    type
  • e.g., a commercial robberies, hijacking or
  • Pertain to a category of crimes
  • e.g., drug production, distribution.

63
Similarity between S-S and PERF Report Policy
Only talking about using race/ethnicity as ONE
factor among multiple factors in establishing RS
or PC
64
Difference as applied to recent events
  • Suspect-Specific Policies
  • Middle-Eastern descent can be used (as one factor
    in a set of factors) to establish RS/PC
  • when seeking a particular suspect involved in the
    terrorism
  • if reliable information indicates the particular
    suspect being sought is of Middle-Eastern
    descent.
  • Looking for Person A. (Or looking for A, B and
    C.) Information indicates A is of Middle-Eastern
    descent.

65
PERF Report Policy Application
  • Middle Eastern descent can be used (as one factor
    in a set of factors) to establish RS/PC
  • when seeking potential suspects (NOT NECESSARILY
    PARTICULAR ONES) involved in the terrorism
  • IF reliable information links persons of M-E
    descent to this particular unlawful incident(s).
  • Looking for A,B,C, and ?????.

66
Example Continued
  • Suspect-Specific If looking for Suspect A and
    police have reliable information indicating
    Suspect A is of Middle Eastern descent, can use
    this factor as ONE .
  • PERF REPORT If looking for potential suspects
    and police have reliable information indicating
    the suspects are of Middle Eastern descent, can
    use this factor as ONE..

67
Applying the PERF Provisions
  • Trustworthy Information Numerous and reliable
    sources point to involvement of persons of Middle
    Eastern Descent
  • Locally Relevant Information Does not have to
    be locally BASED/GENERATED, but it must
    reasonable to believe that it is relevant to the
    local area.
  • Multi-site attack on 9/11
  • Reasonable concerns in many cities

68
Link to specific suspected unlawful activity
  • That is, cannot use Middle Eastern descent as a
    factor if investigating e.g., home burglaries
  • There is no trustworthy, locally-relevant
    information linking persons of this descent to
    such crimes.

69
Applying PERF Policy
Other possible factors to establish Reasonable
Suspicion One-way ticket across country
Paid with cash Box Cutter Suspicious
Behavior
70
Aside Do we NEED race/ethnicity to establish
RS/PC in the examples?
  • Examples have been tough to come up with in light
    of variations in the application of RS/PC across
    (and even within) jurisdictions
  • Dont get bogged down in the specific examples
  • For purposes of analyzing policy think of having
    95 RS/PC and then focus on whether
    race/ethnicity can add to the totality of the
    circumstances.

71
The Principles Underlying PERF Report Policy
  • Accept or reject.

72
Principle Race/ethnicity should be treated like
other demographic descriptors
  • Police can use race/ethnicity as one factor in
    the same way that they use age, gender, etc. to
    establish RS/PC.

73
Opposing ArgumentRace/Ethnicity Are Different
  • Race/ethnicity are among a group of factors that
    have heightened constitutional protection (others
    include, e.g., religion, gender)
  • Does this mean we should also give gender this
    special status in guiding police behavior? ..

74
Race/Ethnicity are Different(Cont.)
  • No, race/ethnicity are different, because
  • We have heightened community concern about the
    use of race/ethnicity (not gender).
  • We have prejudices in society vis a vis
    race/ethnicity (not gender) that provide for the
    potential abuse.
  • Relatedly, we have a history of actual abuse
    and/or perceived abuse on the part of police vis
    a vis race/ethnicity (not gender).

75
Race/Ethnicity are Different(Cont.)
  • Perfectly valid arguments!
  • If you think race should be treated differently
    from other demographics
  • then you would adopt suspect-specific policy

76
Principle We use (or should use) demographic
information in policing in the manner articulated
in the PERF Policy
  • That is, the parameters on the use of
    race/ethnicity are the same ones that do (or
    should) apply to other demographics (e.g.,
    gender, age).

77
That is
  • Information on Demographic A (e.g., age) can be
    considered as one factor
  • IF trustworthy, locally relevant information
  • Links specific suspected unlawful activity to a
    person or persons who manifest Demographic A
    (e.g., age).

78
Opposing Argument
  • We should focus only on behavior, not
    demographics
  • (At least outside of a suspect-specific
    description.)

79
Supporting Example
  • Graffiti problem at particular location
  • Credible witnesses describe several perpetrators
  • 54 white male juvenile, red hair, blue
    sweatshirt and khakis, tattoo
  • 53 black female juvenile, black hair, jeans and
    red t-shirt
  • 5 1 Asian male juvenile, tattoo, Redskins
    jacket and jeans
  • Etc

80
Example (Cont.)
  • Officer is charged with stopping this behavior
  • She will use multiple factors to establish
    reasonable suspicion prior to any detention
  • Is juvenile relevant to her activity??
  • PERF Report Policy Yes

81
Multiple factors and juvenile can be one of
them..
82
Because, we have
  • Trustworthy, locally relevant information
    (witnesses)
  • that links a person or persons of a specific
    demographic (juvenile)
  • to particular unlawful incidents (graffiti).

83
Which policy is for you?
  • Do you think police personnel need more guidance
    regarding how race/ethnicity can be used to make
    law enforcement decisions?
  • If yes Either suspect-specific or PERF Report
    models

84
Which policy is for you? (Cont.)
  • Should race/ethnicity be treated like any other
    demographic?
  • No, race is different
  • Suspect-specific policy
  • Yes
  • PERF policy--If you believe it articulates how
    police use (or should use) demographic info
    generally.

85
Selecting a Policy
 
 
 
 
86
More on the PERF Report Policy
  • Thus far, we have focused on the 4th Amendment
    provision of the policy
  • Indicating when police can use race as one factor
    in a set of factors to establish RS or PC.

87
There is also a 14th Amendment (equal
protection) provision
  • The 4th Amendment provision does not go far
    enough.
  • While it restricts the use of race/ethnicity as
    information to develop RS/PC
  • It does not prohibit officers from misusing
    race/ethnicity in other decisions that they make.
  • That is, the 4th amendment provision is
    necessary, but not sufficient.

88
14th Amendment Provision
  • Except as provided above, race/ethnicity shall
    not be motivating factors in making law
    enforcement decisions.

89
We need this second provision to prohibit, for
instance
  • Disproportionately arresting minorities (but not
    non-minorities) for noise violations because of
    their race/ethnicity
  • Disproportionately targeting minorities for Whren
    stops, because of their race/ethnicity
  • Treating persons with disrespect because of their
    race/ethnicity.

90
  • Again it reads Except as provided above,
    race/ethnicity shall not be motivating factors in
    making law enforcement decisions.
  • The Except as provided above references the
    ability to use race/ethnicity if trustworthy etc.
    etc.

91
Sets up the but for test for officers
  • Would I be engaging this particular person but
    for the fact that this person is white?
  • Would I be asking this question of this person
    but for the fact that this person is African
    American?

92
Recommend that agencies add this provision to the
  • Suspect-Specific Model

93
Recommendation
  • Please strongly consider adopting a policy that
    guides your officers in the use of race/ethnicity
    to make law enforcement decisions
  • Make it at least as restrictive as PERFs or go
    further and adopt the suspect-specific model.

94
Chapter 8DATA COLLECTION SYSTEMS

95
PERF Recommendation Regarding Data Collection
  • PERF is neither for nor against data collection
    per se
  • There are positive and negative aspects of data
    collection
  • We are in favor of INFORMED (local) decisions
    that consider the potential and the constraints
    of this form of response.

96
Major Argument For Data Collection
  • Helps agencies convey a commitment to unbiased
    policing shows accountability

97
MAJOR CAVEAT
  • Challenges associated with interpreting those
    data to provide valid answers.
  • Issue If we find that 25 of all vehicle stops
    involve Hispanics what does that mean? What
    percentage indicates RBP?
  • Need hypothetical comparison groups benchmarks
    to help us determine what percentage indicates a
    problem
  • Lacking valid benchmarks leads to legitimate
    concerns regarding irresponsible use against
    departments and officers.

98
This is relevant to key arguments put forth in
favor of Data Collection
  • Before you can determine whether and how to
    respond to RBP, you should understand the nature
    and extent of the problem.
  • Good management is based on information. I need
    RP data to manage the problem.

99
Response
  • A agree with both of these in principle
  • But, the question remains Do cost effective
    methods exist that can produce valid information?
  • Yes, good management is based on information.
  • There is only one thing worse than managing
    without information and thats managing with
    invalid information.

100
The key if collecting data for purposes of
determining nature/extent of RBP
  • Quality Analysis/Interpretation

101
For agencies that decide to or are required to
collect data we provide recommendations
  • Regarding which activities to target
  • Regarding data elements to collect
  • ALSO Preliminary guidance on analysis/interpreta
    tion (benchmarking issue).

102
Our Recommendations Based On
  • Review of existing literature/reports
  • In particular, A Resource Guide on Racial
    Profiling Data Collection (Available thru PERF
    web site)
  • Examination of nearly 150 data collection
    protocols from police agencies
  • Discussions with social scientists, executives,
    supervisors, line officers.

103
On what law enforcement activities should data be
collected?
  • Citations
  • Traffic Stops
  • Vehicle Stops
  • Detentions

104
Decision-making Factors Balance to Achieve
  • Balance need for information on
    high-discretion/low-visibility stops
  • Trying to to assess whether officers misuse their
    discretion.
  • Want to target activities in which RBP or
    perceptions of RBP are most likely
  • Balance above against Considerations of time,
    officer safety, convenience, community priorities
    and resources.

105
Stops Resulting in Citations
  • Advantages Can rely on existing forms, relative
    simple data collection
  • Major Disadvantage
  • Does not tap into stops of individuals that do
    not result in citations
  • While this may include fortunate drivers who
    could have been issued tickets but were not
  • Could just as well include drivers for which
    there were no legally justifiable reasons for the
    stops. (Might minorities be over represented
    here?)

106
Traffic Stops
  • Arguments for
  • Much of discussion of RBP has focused on traffic
    stops
  • Because of great frequency, hold greatest
    potential for RBP (or perceptions of it)
  • Likely to represent the greatest number of
    pretext stops
  • May be a representative sample of police
    behavior
  • Easiest to benchmark
  • Caveat Data are not collected for other, less
    visible, high-officer-discretion encounters

107
Vehicle Stops (traffic investigative stops of
motorists)
  • Arguments for
  • Superior to traffic stops because includes
    investigative stops (with great potential for RBP
    or perceptions)
  • Caveats
  • Additional logistics, staff time and costs
  • Increases challenges associated with identifying
    appropriate benchmarks for purposes of analysis

108
Detentions (traffic investigative stops of
motorists and pedestrians)
  • Basically, increases the advantages and
    disadvantages discussed above
  • Arguments for
  • Includes activities with great potential for RBP
    or perceptions
  • Pedestrian stops, in particular, are high-officer
    discretion, low-visibility activities
  • Potential for grave civil rights abuses
  • Extends data collection to officers who do not
    conduct vehicle stops
  • Caveats
  • Logistics, time, costs, benchmarking challenges

109
PERF Report Recommends Vehicle Stops
  • For many agencies, this would reflect an
    appropriate balance between resources and
    desirability of collecting data on high
    discretion/low visibility stops.

110
Other Options
  • Not unreasonable to collect data on
  • Traffic stops
  • All detentions
  • Not advisable Targeting only vehicle stops that
    result in citations

111
Data Elements to Collect

112
Again Requires a Balance Between
  • Need for Information
  • If too few data elements, may produce system that
    is essentially worthless
  • Time, convenience, etc.
  • Dont want a system that is so cumbersome even
    your best officers think twice about engaging in
    the targeted activities

113
Key to selecting data elements
  • Measure whom police are engaging
  • Also the circumstances and context of the stop
  • Trying to collect circumstantial data to tell
    us the real reasons individuals are being stopped
  • Trying to assess officer motivations

114
Time, Date, Location
  • Driving behavior can be expected to vary across
    these variables
  • Drivers can be expected in specific areas on
    specific days
  • e.g., factory workers traveling to and from work
    mornings and evenings, college students driving
    to football game

115
Age and Gender
  • These characteristics correlate with allegations
    of greater police abuse of power and with driving
    behavior
  • e.g., young black males are the frequent
    targets of racial profiling
  • e.g., young drivers are associated with more
    aggressive driving behavior

116
Race and Ethnicity
  • Suggest separate variables to retain the option
    of comparing stop data with census data
  • Race White, Black/AA, Asian/Pacific Islander,
    Native American/Eskimo/Aleut, Middle Eastern/East
    Indian
  • Hispanic/Latino Yes/No

117
Big Issue How to Measure Race/Ethnicity
  • Social science issues raised, as well as
    political/moral ones
  • Two major options
  • Race/ethnicity gauged by officers perceptions
  • Information from drivers licenses
  • (Asking people to self-report may be offensive,
    escalate tensions)

118
Argument for Perceptions
  • This reflects appropriate measure from social
    science standpoint (which is what this endeavor
    is)
  • Assumes research question is
  • Are officers using race/ethnicity inappropriately
    in deciding with whom to engage?..

119
Perceptions (Cont.)
  • To the extent that officers are make stopping
    decisions based on race/ethnicity, they do so
    based on their perceptions of race/ethnicity, not
    on the basis of DLs info they havent seen
  • That these perceptions are likely erroneous in
    some unknown number of incidents does not negate
    fact that perceptions are the valid measure in
    light of the research question being addressed.

120
Arguments for Using Drivers License Information
  • Officers should not be put in the position of
    making this sensitive distinction (and states
    should put race/ethnicity back on DLs)
  • Drivers license information is a more accurate
    measure of the race/ethnicity of the person
    stopped.

121
Reason for the Stop
  • Ramirez, McDevitt and Farrell, 2000 Refer to
    this as one of the most important pieces of info
    that will be collected

122
Need to Measure Degree Of Officer Discretion
  • Greatest potential for for RBP occurs in
    high-discretion stops

123
Level of Discretion (Cont.)
  • For instance
  • Officers have and exercise great discretion in
    deciding whether to pull someone over for failing
    to signal
  • They have little or no discretion deciding with
    whom to engage if responding to call for service
  • We need to be able to differentiate for purposes
    of analysis the high versus low discretion stops.

124
Reason for the Stop(To capture high, medium and
low discretion)
  • Reactive (e.g., call for service, special detail)
    v. Self-initiated (e.g., proactive
    vehicle/pedestrian stop)
  • Reason for the Stop
  • Vehicle Code Violation (with 10 listed)
  • Penal Code Violation (4 listed)
  • Violation of Local Ordinance
  • BOLO/Person Wanted
  • Suspicious Circumstances

125
Disposition of Stops
  • Additional potential measure of equitable v.
    disparate treatment
  • Beyond data collection on whom police stop,
    another question whether they treat those they
    stop differently based on race/ethnicity

126
  • Disposition
  • Arrest
  • Ticket/Citation
  • Verbal Warning
  • Written Warning
  • No Action

127
Verbal Warnings
  • Several departments Changed policies to
    discontinue verbal warnings
  • Did this to deter unnecessary stops and to
    facilitate use of existing forms for data
    collection (i.e., forms existed for every other
    dispo)

128
No Action or No Disposition
  • Pay attention to stops that do not result in
    official sanction
  • Again May be fortunate drivers who could have
    been ticketed . Or could be drivers that should
    not have been stopped in the first place.
  • At least one department requires that all no
    dispo stops pass through an extra level of
    review.

129
Other
  • Length of stop
  • Were individuals characteristics observable
    before stop? Y/N
  • Comment
  • Employee ID or smallest next unit.

130
Regarding Employee ID
  • Controversial Linking data to individual
    officers
  • Argument to include ID If, in fact, as officers
    told us, RP is committed by a small number of
    officers need to find out who these persons
    are.
  • Caveat All the concerns associated with our
    ability to analyze/interpret these data to
    produce valid results regarding departments
    applies to individuals, as well.

131
If data are linked to individual employees
  • Results indicating RBP should NOT be considered
    definitive and NOT directly linked to
    disciplinary action!
  • Cannot rule out all competing hypotheses that
    might explain why data for an officer indicates
    disproportionate stops of racial/ethnic
    minorities
  • Should be considered one indicator prompting
    further review, at best.

132
Searches
  • Again, not just WHOM police engage, but what
    happens during the engagement.
  • Some studies have identified even greater racial
    disparities with regard to who is searched than
    with who is stopped

133
Search Variables
  • Was a search conducted?
  • What was searched?
  • Authority to search (e.g., consent, incident to
    arrest)
  • Search results (positive, negative)
  • What was recovered (5 listed)?

134
Key to Data Collection System
  • Quality analysis/interpretation
  • In todays lingo Benchmarking the data
  • Departments can produce relatively valid data to
    answer the question What percent of the
    persons we stop are Hispanic?
  • The challenge is determining What percentage
    indicates racial profiling?

135
Benchmarks Being Used
  • Problems Census (alone) and UCR (particularly
    arrests)
  • Some possibilities People with Drivers
    licenses, Accidents, Internal benchmarking,
    community surveys
  • Promising (if can be made affordable, yet
    generalizeable) Observations

136
Second Project Try to identify best practices
for the analysis/interpretation of data
  • COPS Funded
  • Several working group sessions
  • Social scientists
  • Department RD types
  • Chiefs
  • Develop models, guidelines
  • Test in sites

137
Conclusions
  • Many areas for police to consider in responding
    to the issue of racially biased policing
  • Supervision/Accountability
  • Policy
  • Recruitment/Hiring
  • Training/Education
  • Community Outreach
  • Data Collection

138
  • Involving community members in deciding on
    appropriate responses is an important part of
    trust-building, accountability
  • Responses should address both RBP and the
    perceptions of it.

139
Racially Biased Policing A Principled Response
  • www.policeforum.org
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com