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