Racially Biased Policing:
A Principled Response
Office of Community Oriented Policing Services
Police Executive Research Forum

Racially Biased Policing:
A Principled Response
Lorie Fridell, Robert Lunney,
Drew Diamond and Bruce Kubu
with Michael Scott and Colleen Laing
POLICE EXECUTIVE
RESEARCH FORUM

The research reported here was conducted through the Police
Executive Research Forum and funded by the Office of Community
Oriented Policing Services under grant 1999-CK-WX0076. The
points of view expressed here are those of the authors
and do not necessarily represent the official position of the
Office of Community Oriented Policing Services or the Police
Executive Research Forum or its members.
Police Executive Research Forum, Washington, D.C. 20036
Published 2001.
Printed in the United States of America
Library of Congress Number 01-132420
ISBN 1-878734-73-3
Cover art by Kittner Design
Interior design by Elliot Thomas Grant, etg Design

Contents
Acknowledgments......................................................vii
Foreword..............................................................ix
I. Critical Issues in Racially Biased Policing ....................... 1
II. Police and Citizen Perceptions .................................. 13
III. Accountability and Supervision ................................. 35
IV. A Policy To Address Racially Biased Policing
and the Perceptions Thereof ......................................... 49
V. Recruitment and Hiring ........................................... 65
VI. Education and Training........................................... 79
VII. Minority Community Outreach .................................... 99
VIII. Data Collection on Citizens Race/Ethnicity
To Address Racially Biased Policing and the Perceptions Thereof .... 115
References...........................................................145
About the Authors .................................................. 153
About the Office of Community Oriented
Policing Services (COPS) ........................................... 157
About PERF ......................................................... 159
Related PERF Titles ................................................ 161

Acknowledgments
The PERF project team is especially grateful to the Office of
Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS Office) for determining
the need for this undertaking, and for providing both
funding and guidance. Particular thanks go to Ellen Scrivner,
deputy director, who served as our project monitor. She was
actively involved in the project at all stages, providing much-
valued ideas, guidance and support. We are grateful to previous
COPS Office directors Joe Brann and Tom Frazier, and to
Acting Director Ralph Justus, for their vital support. We also
extend our thanks to Tamara Clark for her characteristically
professional assistance in attending to the seemingly endless
details involved.
We also express our great appreciation to the project advisory
board, who provided able guidance to the project team.
This group comprised a diverse group of law enforcement
practitioners, community activists, civil rights leaders, and
academics. We brought this group together to be sure that we heard
and considered all competing viewpoints. The recommendations
herein are not necessarily endorsed by each individual
member of this group: Lynn Bataglia, U.S. Attorneys Office,
Baltimore; Chief David Bejarano, San Diego Police Department;
the Rev. Jeffery Brown, Union Baptist Church, Cambridge,
Mass.; Commissioner Patrick Carroll, New Rochelle (N.Y.)
Police Department; John Crew, ACLU of Northern California;
Richard Green, Crown Heights Youth Collective, Brooklyn, N.Y.;
Colonel Charles Hall, Florida Highway Patrol; J. Howard
Henderson, Baltimore Urban League; Pat Hoven, Corporate
Community Partnerships; Chief Harold Hurtt, Phoenix Police
Department; Deborah Jeon, ACLU of Maryland; Chief Jerry

Oliver, Richmond (Va.) Police Department; Chief Robert Olson,
Minneapolis Police Department; Richard Roberts, International
Union of Police Associations; Annette Sandberg, former chief,
Washington State Patrol; Robert Stewart, National Organization
of Black Law Enforcement Executives; and Samuel Walker,
University of Nebraska-Omaha.
We extend our thanks to the more than 1,000 law enforcement
executives who responded to our survey, many of whom
forwarded department materials for our review and consideration.
We thank, as well, other practitioners around the nation
who forwarded materials to us or called us with input, ideas
and advice. We very much appreciate the insights provided to
us by the citizens and sworn personnel from across the country
who participated in the project focus groups. Their input
was critical to identifying the key issues, as well as to
developing the proposed agency responses.
In addition, we extend our appreciation to subject-matter
experts from around the country whom the authors engaged in
discussions or who reviewed and provided valuable input on drafts
of various chapters. These experts include sworn police personnel,
constitutional scholars, law enforcement counsel, academics,
and civil rights activists. While we will not name them all
here, particular thanks go to Chief Larry Austin, professor David
Carter, Sgt. Don Grinder, professor David Harris, Richard Jerome,
Chief Gil Kerlikowske, professor Robert McNamara, Assistant Chief
Timothy Oettmeier, Mark Posner, professor Margo Schlanger, Dennis
Slocumb, Deputy Chief Mark Spurrier, Detective Clarence
Woody, and Alicia Zatcoff. These individuals do not necessarily
endorse the recommendations herein.
We are also very grateful to Martha Plotkin and David Edelson
of PERF for their able, patient and professional assistance
in editing and producing this document. We thank Jim Burack and
Rebecca Neuburger of PERF for reviewing chapters and for overseeing
the development of the project website, respectively.
Suzanne Fregly greatly improved the document with her able
editing. Finally, we express our appreciation to Chuck Wexler of
PERF for his ongoing support, guidance and leadership.

Foreword
The vast majority of law enforcement officersof all ranks,
nationwideare dedicated men and women committed to serving
all citizens with fairness and dignity. The Police Executive
Research Forum (PERF) shares their intolerance for racially
biased policing, and hopes Racially Biased Policing: A Principled
Response will enhance citizen and police efforts to detect and
eradicate it. Addressing racially biased policing, and the
perceptions of its practice, involve complex issues and challenges.
PERF members and their colleagues need to effectively allocate
their limited agency resources to address the problem. PERF,
with funding and guidance from the Department of Justices
Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, has prepared
this report to assist agencies in meeting this challenge. This
report is meant to provide the first step in assisting progressive
police professionalsin partnership with citizensto seriously
consider the issues and develop approaches tailored to their
communitys unique needs. It guides law enforcement professionals
in their response to racially biased policing and, equally
important, to the perceptions of its practice, to strengthen
citizen confidence in the police and improve services to all our
communities.
The issues involved in racial profiling and racially biased
policing are not newthey are the latest manifestation of a long
history of sometimes tense, and even volatile, police-minority
relations. This need not be viewed, however, as proof of the
problems intractability. Police are more capable than ever of
effectively addressing police racial bias. In the past few decades,
there has been a revolution in the quality and quantity of police
training, the standards for hiring officers, the procedures

and accountability regarding police activity, and the widespread
adoption of community policing.
There is no single cure for the problems underlying racially
biased policing, and you will not find any definitive one here.
This report summarizes some of the latest thinking and efforts
across the nation regarding this difficult problem. PERF used
many sources to develop the recommendations contained in
this report. We conducted a national survey of more than 1,000
agency executives, reviewed the materials of more than 250
agencies, spoke with citizens and practitioners in a series of
focus groups held around the country, conducted a literature
review, and conferred with subject-matter experts in various
topic areas. PERF also integrated comments from discussions
among chiefs at PERF national meetings. In addition, this project
greatly benefited from the guidance of an advisory board composed
of respected law enforcement agency executives, Justice
Department personnel, community activists, and civil rights
leaders.
These sources helped PERF identify six key response areas:
department accountability and supervision, policy, recruitment
and hiring, education and training, minority community outreach,
and data collection. PERF believes important and meaningful
changes can occur within each of these areas. Of course,
the contents of this report cannot allay long-standing police-
minority tensions. Clearly, resolving racial bias in law
enforcement, as in society at large, will require long-term dedication
and innovation. We hope this report will help agencies continue
on that path.
There are key themes underlying the recommendations we
have developed. First, racially biased policing is at its core a
human rights issue. While some may view it as merely a public
relations problem, a political issue or an administrative challenge,
in the final analysis, racially biased policing is antithetical
to democratic policing. Protecting individual rights is not
an inconvenience for modern police; it is the foundation of
policing in a democratic society. Second, racially biased policing
is not solely a law enforcement problem, but rather a problem
that can be solved only through police-citizen partnerships
based on mutual trust and respect. We provide guidance for

forming such partnerships in this report. Third, police personnel
around the country want to respond effectively to local and
national concerns regarding racially biased policing. It is to these
personnel that we dedicate this report. We must support their
efforts to address racially biased policing and, in so doing, help
them serve, protect and defend all citizens with the highest
professional values and standards.
We will surely benefit from the experience of departments
that translate the recommendations we provide into action, and
from the new ideas generated in the process. We hope this report
will advance the approaches to and national debate on
racially biased policing. The result will be a fair and dignified
system of justice for us all.
Chuck Wexler
PERF Executive Director

1 -
Critical Issues in
Racially Biased Policing
INTRODUCTION
American policing is facing a tremendous challengea widespread
perception that the police are routinely guilty of bias in
how they treat racial minorities. This comes at a time when
crime rates have fallen almost everywhere in recent years, and
when the police might otherwise be celebrating their contribution
to reducing crime and creating safe communities. Instead,
the police find themselves baffled and defensive.
Racial and ethnic minorities constitute a substantial and
growing segment of the U.S. population. Strength is in diversity,
and we look to minority communities to participate fully
in all aspects of society. Police are now looking to the public for
partnerships and collaborative problem-solving solutions to
community ills. If substantial segments of the community are
the victims of police bias, or even perceive that they are, the
likelihood of success is dim. We all know that racial profiling
is unacceptable and is at variance with the standards and values
inherent in ensuring fair and dignified police response to
all. We believe that the vast majority of law enforcement in this
country are hard-working men and women who are committed
to serving all members of our communities with equity and
dignity. Yet the challenges of addressing racially biased
policing, and perceptions thereof, clearly indicate that police must
do more to address the concerns of minority citizens.

The Police Executive Research Forum (PERF), with funding
from the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services,
developed this report as a reference to help police
leaders respond to the issues associated with racial
profiling. The acknowledgments attest to the extensive
participation of police leaders, academics, civil rights
activists and others.
THE STORIES
Many minorities believe that the police routinely stop and
search them because of their skin color. The evidence of this
belief is found first in stories, and the stories are legion. Many
of these recounted tales ring with authenticity; they are compelling
and devastating in their impact on peoples lives. Racial
bias distorts attitudes toward civil authority and the police,
and blights the quality of everyday life. In addition to actual
bias, a strong and ingrained perception of bias is a substantial
barrier to full enjoyment of freedom and civil rights. It colors
every aspect of life for minorities. At its root, bias is a denial of
justice.
These are accounts of people who have been stopped by
police on questionable grounds and subjected to disrespectful
behavior, intrusive questioning and disregard for their civil
rights. The storytellers come from all walks of life: they are
young men and women, the elderly, people from the middle
and upper classes, professional athletes, lawyers, doctors, and
police officers at every rank.
This is how it goes:
 A young black woman, in desperation, finally trades
her new sports car for an older model because police
have repeatedly stopped her on suspicion of
possession of a stolen vehicle.
 An elderly African-American couple returning from
a social event in formal dress are stopped and
questioned at length, allegedly because their
car resembles one identified in a robbery.
 A prominent black lawyer driving a luxury car is
frequently stopped on various pretexts.


A Hispanic deputy police chief is stopped numerous
times in neighboring jurisdictions, apparently
on suspicion.

A young Hispanic man working evening shift drives
home on the same route five nights a week after
midnight, and is stopped for suspicious behavior
almost every night.

A black judge far removed from her home jurisdiction
is stopped, handcuffed and laid facedown on
the pavement while police search her car. They issue
no citations.
According to recent national surveys, the majority of white,
as well as black, Americans say that racial profiling is
widespread in the United States today. Law enforcement executives
need to reflect seriously on this and respond to both the reality
of, and the perceptions of, biased policing. This chapter provides
a context for defining the issues, and previews our
recommendations for an effective response.
ISSUE DEFINITION
We have chosen to avoid the term racial profiling and,
instead, refer to racially biased policing. We believe racial
profiling has frequently been defined so restrictively that
it does not fully capture the concerns of both police practitioners
and citizens. For instance, racial profiling is
frequently defined as law enforcement activities (e.g.,
detentions, arrests, searches) that are initiated solely on the
basis of race. Central to the debate on the most frequently
used definitions is the word solely. In the realm of potential
discriminatory actions, this definition likely references
only a very small portion. Even a racially prejudiced officer
likely uses more than the single factor of race when conducting
biased law enforcement. For example, officers might
make decisions based on the neighborhood and the race of
the person, the age of the car and the race of the person, or
the gender and the race of the person. Activities based on
these sample pairs of factors would fall outside the most
commonly used definition of racial profiling.

Moreover, one could interpret the common definition of
racial profiling to not include activities that are legally
supportable in terms of reasonable suspicion or probable cause,
but are nonetheless racially biased. As above, a definition that
prohibits enforcement decisions based solely on race would
not encompass decisions based on reasonable suspicion or probable
cause plus race. That is, this definition could be interpreted
to exclude, for instance, officers pulling over black traffic
violators and not white, or citing Hispanic, but not white, youth
for noise violations. Such disparate treatment would not
necessarily be encompassed by a definition that referred to actions
based solely on race, because the officers would have acted
on the basis of reasonable suspicion or probable cause, as well
as race.
In addition, using the word profiling to address the issue
of bias not only creates confusion about an otherwise legitimate
policing term, but also semantically limits the potential
abuse to those instances in which an officer might use race as
an indicator of criminal activity. While, indeed, this is a major
concern and likely where the greatest potential for abuse lies,
departments wish to prohibit biased law enforcement that is
based not only on stereotypes regarding the link between race
and crime, but also on other negative attitudes regarding race.
For instance, an officer may be prejudiced against ethnic
minorities and stop them for purposes of harassment,
independent of any notion that their race is an indicator of criminal
activity. The narrowest definitions of racial profiling refer to
police activities in the context only of vehicle stops, ignoring
the potential for police abuse of power in the many other activities
in which they engage citizens.
Most importantly, during the course of this project, it became
clear that the term racial profiling hampered the national
discussion of the problem. This was most clearly
exemplified in project focus groups composed of both police
and citizens. Project staff noted that most citizens were using
the term racial profiling to discuss all manifestations of
racial bias in policing. The police participants were likely
to define racial profiling quite narrowlyas law enforcement
activities (particularly vehicle stops) based solely on race. The

citizens claimed that racial profiling, as they defined it, was
widespread. In contrast, the police, using their more narrow
definition, were frequently quite adamant that police activities
based solely on race were quite rare. These contrasting, but
unspoken, definitions lead to police defensiveness and citizen
frustration.
We found that citizens and police can have constructive
conversation on the topic of racially biased policing. This
term more accurately reflects the concerns expressed by citizens,
and few police officers would deny that some officers are
influenced by personal bias in performing their duties, whatever
the motivation.
Racially biased policing occurs when law enforcement
inappropriately considers race or ethnicity in deciding with whom
and how to intervene in an enforcement capacity. Racially biased
policing is defined and interpreted through the policy
outlined in Chapter 4.
Racially biased policing and the perceptions thereof are the
themes of this report. We hope the recommendations and guidance
will facilitate an effective law enforcement response to
both of these important issues. The report focuses only on
racially biased policing, although some recommendations could
apply to situations in which gender, age, economic status, or
sexual preference are at issue.
BALANCE IN THE CAUSE OF JUSTICE
In charters and legislation across the country, we find primacy
given to the role of the police as enforcers of the law. While law
enforcement is undeniably essential to maintaining good government,
policing in a democratic society demands more. The
police are essential to the fabric of society, not only as
enforcers of first resort for federal, state and local laws, but also as
moderators of behavior, keepers of the public peace and agents
of prevention. Increasingly, police are recognized for their
capacity for community problem-solving, collaborating with a
broad range of citizen groups, individuals and institutional
partners to improve the quality of life. Law enforcement remains
a prime responsibility, but as a means for attaining the
goals of justice and the good of society, and not as an end in

itself. Recognition of this principle is a shared responsibility of
police, government and the community. Failure to achieve a
balance in police priorities creates misunderstanding and misdirection.
There are grave dangers in neglecting to take the issue of
biased policing seriously and respond with effective initiatives.
Societal division on racial grounds will leach the vigor from
quality-of-life initiatives, regardless of how well-intended and
well-funded. If a substantial part of the population comes to
view the justice system as unjust, they are less likely to be
cooperative with police, withholding participation in community
problem-solving and demonstrating their disaffection in a variety
of ways. The loss of moral authority could do permanent
injury to the legal system, and deprive all of society of the
protection of the law.
PROGRAM FOR ACTION
This report provides assistance to agencies so they may take
responsibility for addressing the important issues of racially
biased policing and the perceptions thereof. It is divided into
six areas in which action is needed:
 accountability and supervision,
 policies prohibiting biased policing,
 recruitment and hiring,
 education and training,
 minority community outreach, and
 data collection and analysis.
Accountability and Supervision
Police accountability and supervision are important factors
in reducing or eliminating bias in policing. The tasks of
policing are most often performed by single officers or pairs of
officers operating independently and without immediate
institutional oversight or independent observers. Under these
circumstances, accountability is difficult to ensure. One verdict
appears clear from the most recent controversies regarding
police misconduct: The bad apple analogy is no longer
resonating as the only credible explanation. Increasingly, or

ganizational culture is recognized as the most important
factor influencing police behavior. Enlightened police leaders
have learned that influencing the culture may be the most
effective means of deterring bias and pursuing the goals of
quality policing.
The chapter on accountability and supervision addresses
human rights, a core value of policing in a democratic society.
Indeed, if we were to suggest a single focus for ameliorating the
many problems surrounding the topic of biased policing, it
would be to influence recognition of the centrality of human
rights in the broadest sense. In addition, we provide recommendations
for maintaining quality assurance, valuing diversity and
managing public complaints. We discuss the roles and
responsibilities of middle managers and supervisors, and
include proposals for consideration.
Policies Prohibiting Biased Policing
Police policy gives direction and authority to mission and value
statements. Procedures provide the operating details to guide
personnel in conducting their duties. Policies and procedures are
critical to achieving agency goals. In the wake of current events
related to racial profiling, police departments across the nation
have adopted policies prohibiting racial profiling. These policies
represent an important effort to convey to both citizens and
police that racial profiling will not be tolerated. Unfortunately,
the vast majority of these policies do little to clarify how officers
can conduct their activities in a racially neutral way (albeit some
agencies may address this in training). Of particular concern is
the lack of guidance that we provide officers with regard to whether
and how they can use race as one factor in a set of factors to
establish reasonable suspicion or probable cause and to make other
law enforcement decisions. In this report, we propose a policy for
agencies that addresses both racially biased policing and the
perceptions thereof, and provide guidance to officers on using race
as a factor in law enforcement decisions.
Recruitment and Hiring
In terms of recruitment and selection, police agencies have the
potential to reduce racial bias by hiring officers who can police

in an unbiased way, and by hiring a workforce that reflects the
communitys racial demographics. Communities expect their
police officers to carry out their duties with fairness, integrity,
diligence, and impartiality. Police agencies must ensure they
recruit the best-suited women and men to meet these expectations.
In developing a workforce that reflects the diversity of
the community served, an agency conveys a sense of fairness
and equity to the public; increases the probability that, as a
whole, the agency will be able to understand the perspectives
of its racial minorities and communicate effectively with them;
and increases the likelihood that officers will come to better
understand and respect various racial and cultural perspectives
through their daily interactions with community members. In
this report, we discuss police recruitment and hiring as they
relate to the issue of biased policing, providing recommendations
for police-community initiatives.
Education and Training
Education and training are essential components of a comprehensive
strategy to reduce racially biased policing and perceptions
thereof. They can be used to convey new information,
provide and refine critical skills, encourage compliance with
policies and rules, facilitate dialogue, and/or convey a commitment
to addressing the problem. Programs can target citizens,
as well as the police, and should be tailored to the particular
needs, concerns and experiences of the local agency and community.
A key theme to be conveyed to both academy and in-
service practitioners is that respect for human rights is a central
and affirmative part of the police mission. Within this context,
police can benefit from understanding the dimensions, complexities
and subtleties of racially biased policing, as well as
the impact of these types of activities on individual citizens,
the department and the community. Police should receive specific
guidance regarding whether and how race can be used to
make decisions and reflect upon not only officer-level decisions,
but precinct- or department-level decisions that may manifest
racially biased policing. In this report, we discuss these priority
topics for police training and successful methods for conveying them.

Minority Community Outreach
In the absence of strong functional links to community groups
and local institutions, the police mission will likely fail. Grave
damage is inflicted on police-community relationships when
the police become consciously disengaged from the public. An
aloof police agency making decisions motivated by its own self-
interest risks alienation that often culminates in violence and
disorder. The police hold primary responsibility for community
outreach on many levels. The community bears a reciprocal
responsibility to respond to opportunities for positive
relationships. Policing with the community can function only
in an environment of mutual engagement and respect. In the
context of the issue we are addressingracially biased policing
outreach to minority communities is imperative.
This report lists necessary competencies for police agencies
seeking to develop and maintain outreach to minority communities,
and recommends that agencies form police-citizen
task forces to identify how they can effectively respond to the
issues of biased policing and the perceptions thereof. We also
include a list of contemporary and progressive practices for
consideration. To build and sustain relationships reflecting
mutual trust and respect is the ultimate objective.
Data Collection and Analysis
However compelling, anecdotal evidence of racially biased
policing is not sufficient to determine the nature and extent of
the problem. Progressive policing is committed to accountability
and openness, which can be reflected in efforts geared toward
self-assessment. Data collection conveys to citizens that
the agency will address community concerns.
That said, we caution against an overemphasis on data collection
and analysis as the sole or primary methods for responding to
the issues of biased policing, and against high expectations
regarding their use in producing valid answers to the serious
and legitimate questions an agency seeks to answer. In this report,
we set forth the positive and negative aspects of data collection
and analysis, and encourage agencies to make decisions
regarding whether to collect and analyze data in light of agency
resources, political factors and other efforts to address racially

biased policing. For those that are mandated or choose to
collect and analyze data, we provide guidance for developing a
data collection and analysis protocol.
GOVERNMENT SUPPORT
The political system, courts, civilian administrators, and various
oversight agencies share responsibility to hold law enforcement
police leaders and individual officersaccountable.
While, historically, these accountability mechanisms have
functioned unevenly, they remain central to initiating and
strengthening any change process. This report focuses on the police,
but other parties must be prepared to assume their responsibility.
For instance, other government agencies must be prepared
to provide support and guidance. Most notably, local, state and
federal government must be prepared to provide the financial
support police agencies will need to implement the recommendations
in this report. Racial distinction is not a problem unique
to policing; rather, it is a societal issue for which all
government agencies must share responsibility.
Many of the policy and behavioral changes recommended
in this report may be achieved at negligible cost, but
innovative recruitment and selection initiatives, data collection and
analysis, in-car video equipment, curriculum development, and
training will be added expenses to police budgets. State or local
governments that mandate data collection and analysis and
other changes must be prepared to offer financial support.
CONCLUSION
If prejudice, arbitrary decisions, treatment disparity, and
disrespect are to be replaced by universal respect and equitable use
of police powers, then we must begin a process of bringing all
of policing into accord with democratic principles. We must
insist that protection of human rights is a fundamental responsibility
of police. We must ensure at all costs the primacy of the
rule of law, and scrupulously monitor the use of police authority
for compliance. We must carefully examine our beliefs regarding
the role of the police, and eradicate from the police
culture the mentality that leads to the use of bias in dealing
with citizens. We must do this everywhere, and all of the time.

The research and conclusions in this report are meant to
further the process of thoughtful, ethically based revision and
reform needed to ensure quality policing to all citizens,
regardless of race or cultural background. In a society where race is
inherently played out in all aspects of life, racially biased
policing presents both a challenge and an opportunity for the
police to exercise quiet determination and moral leadership,
addressing the problem head-on.

2 - Police and Citizen Perceptions
PERF staff used various data-gathering techniques to collect
information for developing recommendations and guidelines
regarding the occurrences and perceptions of biased policing.
Staff compiled information from informal discussions with
various practitioners, subject-matter experts (e.g., law
professors and social scientists) and citizens, as well as from several
large-scale discussions among police executives at PERF meetings.
PERF also conducted focus groups around the nation, and
a national survey of police administrators. This chapter describes
PERFs key information-gathering methods and results.
FOCUS GROUPS
Trained facilitators conducted 15 focus groups around the country:1
three with citizens, four with police line staff, three with
police command staff, and two with police executives (one with
state chiefs, and the other with local agency chiefs). In addition,
we held three focus groups with both citizen and law enforcement
participants. The facilitators led discussions on
vehicle stops, racial profiling and biased policing. Below we
report on some of the key findings from these sessions that
informed our recommendations.
1 One focus group was held in New York, one in Virginia, four in Maryland,
four in California, and five in Massachusetts.

Citizen Views
Consistent with national polls, most of the citizens in the groups
believed that racial profiling occurs. As noted in the previous
chapter, their comments indicated a broad definition of
the term, encompassing all manifestations of racially biased
policing. That is, in describing racial profiling, these citizens
cited a wide range of behaviors, including excessive force against
racial and ethnic minorities, as well as illegal stops and rudeness
to minorities.
A number of minorities said they are likely to interpret various
negative aspects of a vehicle stop as racially biased policing.
For instance, these participants acknowledged that officer
rudeness, discourtesy and/or unwillingness to give the reason
for a stop might well be perceived as the result of racial bias as
opposed to, for instance, overall (and impartially demonstrated)
lack of professionalism.
The racial profiling stories the citizens shared made clear
the multiplicative impact of negative incidents on citizen trust
of police. While some minorities shared their own stories of
what they perceived to be racial profiling, virtually all the
minorities could share stories of incidents involving other
people. As practitioners well know, people are much more likely
to share stories of negative police-citizen interactions (regardless
of citizen race) than stories of positive interactions. Thus,
each negative police-citizen interaction has the potential to
harm overall police-citizen trust in the jurisdiction.
Overwhelmingly, the participating citizens indicated that,
on a vehicle stop, they would like the officer to introduce him-
or herself, explain the reason for the stop, be courteous and
respectful, and apologize (or at least explain) if a mistake is
made (such as on a stop for suspicious circumstances or pursuant
to a Be on the Lookout). Many of the participating citizens
expressed frustration because they perceived that law
enforcement was denying the existence of racial profiling.
Law Enforcement Views
Many of our law enforcement participants did express skepticism
that racial profiling was a major problem, exacerbating
some citizens frustration. It became clear to staff that these

differing perceptions among citizens and police regarding racial
profilings pervasiveness were very much related to the
respective definitions they had adopted. The citizens equated
racial profiling with all manifestations of racially biased
policing, whereas most of the police practitioners defined racial
profiling as stopping a motorist based solely on race. Presumably,
even officers who engage in racially biased policing rarely
make a vehicle stop based solely on race (often ensuring probable
cause or some other factor is also present). When the facilitators
broadened the discussion by using the term racially
biased policing, police participants were much more likely to
acknowledge that a larger problem exists.
Perceptions among law enforcement focus group participants
regarding the extent to which either racial profiling or
biased policing exists seemed to vary by officer race. In several
of the practitioner focus groups, similar interactions occurred:
After a white officer in the group downplayed the scope
of the problem, a minority officer would speak up and describe
his or her personal experience with being pulled over by police.
In several cases, it was clear to the facilitators that white
officers were surprised by these stories. Their peers experiences
seemed to impact them in a way that the citizens stories
conveyed in press accounts did not.
Many of the practitioners expressed the belief that, to the
extent that racially biased policing occurs, it can be attributed
to a small number of rogue officers. It appeared that in jurisdictions
where collaboration and trust were good, both the police
and citizens were less likely to believe that racial profiling and/
or racially biased policing was a major issue.
The facilitators sought views on the definition of racially
biased policing, asking participants to identify, for instance,
the circumstances in which officers could use race to make
law enforcement decisions. As discussed further in the chapter
on policy, even practitioners within the same departments
had very different answers to this question.
Officers of all races were united in their great frustration
concerning unfounded accusations of all types of biasincluding,
but not limited to, racial bias. The practitioners remarked,
for instance, that citizens might accuse officers of pulling them

over on a vehicle stop because they were black, female, Jewish,
driving a red car, and so forth. They lamented that many citizens
could come up with many reasons for their being stopped,
other than the fact that they had just violated a traffic law.
Some of the discussions with the practitioners focused on
what happens during a vehicle stop. While virtually all practitioner
participants agreed that officers should be courteous and
respectful during a stop, opinions differed regarding whether
an officer should initiate the stop with an introduction and
explanation or with a request for license and registration.
Those supporting the introduction/explanation thought that
such communication reduced the tensions otherwise inherent
in the stop. Those supporting the request for papers believed
they needed to access them before the citizen started arguing
over the reason for the stop and refused to supply them.
Officers also expressed their desire that citizens better
understood that a vehicle stop can be very dangerous and must be
handled as such. It was clear that the practitioners had a heightened
awareness of the potential danger of vehicle stops.
Conclusions and Caveats
Focus groups can be valuable forums for better understanding
an issue and various viewpoints related to it. Clearly, however,
because focus groups are not as scientifically rigorous as other
data collection techniques (e.g., samples are not representative),
we cannot necessarily presume that the information shared with
us by both citizens and practitioners can be generalized to all
citizens and police. To gather additional information regarding
this issue, PERF conducted a national survey.
NATIONAL SURVEY
PERF used a mail survey of police executives to examine various
aspects of racially biased policing and the perceptions
thereof. Specifically, the purposes of the survey were to (1)
identify how departments have responded to racial profiling, (2)
identify effective responses that could form the basis of our
recommendations to the field, and (3) assess the impact of current
events related to racial profiling on law enforcement agencies.

Instrument
The survey of police administrators contained a combination
of open-ended and multiple-choice questions and included requests
that respondents return with their surveys policies they
had adopted, training curricula related to the topic, and data
collection instruments and protocol, where applicable. The
survey and original cover letter are included as the appendix
to this chapter.
The project staff developed the survey, and the advisory
board members and other selected police administrators pilot-
tested it. All were requested to provide feedback regarding
questionnaire content and form. PERF used this feedback to improve
and refine the instrument.
Sample Frame and Sample
Our target group for the survey was state and local law
enforcement agencies. We drew the sample from the 2000 National
Public Safety Information Bureau National Directory of Law
Enforcement Administrators. The total number of state and local
agencies in this directory is 13,539.2 To ensure that departments
of varying sizes and types were represented, we used a
stratified random sample with disproportionate sampling from
each strata. We stratified the population of targeted agencies
by department size (as measured by number of sworn officers)
and department type (i.e., police department, sheriffs department,
state police agency). We randomly selected a sample of
2,251 agencies from this stratified population, as set forth in
Table 1 (see next page).
Data Collection and Entry
PERF first mailed the survey to the 2,251 agencies on Oct. 16,
2000. We sent a cover letter and second copy of the survey to
2 Departments that were excluded before generating the stratified random
sample were campus law enforcement, child support law enforcement, tribal
law enforcement, airport and harbor law enforcement, conservation law
enforcement, federal law enforcement, military law enforcement, and railroad
law enforcement.

Table 1. Number of Departments, Sampled by Type and Size
First Table headers - Number of Officers, Police Departments Sheriffs Departments State Police Agencies TOTAL
Second Table headers -  Pop. Sample Pop. Sample Pop. Sample Pop. Sample
Row data - 149 8,968 904 (10.1%) 2,393 254 (10.6%) 0 0 11,361 1,158 (10.2%)
50249 1,134 462 (40.7%) 570 231 (40.5%) 6 6 (100%) 1,710 699 (40.9%)
250 or more 196 195 (99.5%) 160 156 (97.5%) 43 43 (100%) 399 394 (98.7%)
TOTAL 10,298 1,561 (15.2%) 3,123 641 (20.5%) 493 49 (100%) 13,470 2,251 (16.7%)
3 The Hawaii State Sheriffs Department handles state law enforcement activities. However, Hawaii does not have a state police agency, per se.

each nonresponding agency on Nov. 7. Finally, we sent a third
reminder to nonrespondents on Dec. 16. We received 1,087
completed surveys, resulting in a response rate of 48.3 percent.
More than 250 agencies submitted policies, data collection protocol
and/or training curricula to aid in developing the recommendations
and guidelines.
Of the 1,087 surveys received, 811 (74.6%) were from police
departments, 241 (22.2%) from sheriffs departments, and
35 (3.2%) from state police agencies. This reflected response
rates, by agency type, of 52 percent for police departments, 37.6
percent for sheriffs departments, and 70 percent for state police
agencies.
To verify that respondents are representative of the police
population, Table 2 (see next page) compares descriptive analyses
of the responding law enforcement agencies and the population.
Overall, the departments responding to the survey
employ an average of 217 sworn officers. The median number
of sworn officers for the sample is 60. This compares with the
target population, with an average of 52 and a median of 12. Of
the departments responding to the survey, the average population
of the jurisdiction is 119,654, with a median of 32,500.
This compares with a target population average of 38,350 and
a median of 7,500. Those departments that responded, on average,
employ more sworn officers than those departments in the
population. Similarly, and unsurprisingly, they serve greater
numbers of people than those departments in the population.
The departments in the sample differ from those in the population
because we oversampled larger departments, as their raw
numbers in the population were smaller (see row percentages,
Table 1). We chose to oversample large jurisdictions because
they serve the vast majority of the U.S. population.
We conducted analyses to determine if there were identifiable
differences between the responding and nonresponding
agencies. We used a one-way analysis of variance to determine
if agency size was related to response rates. The analysis results
indicate that agency size did not significantly impact response
rates (F = 0.150, p = 0.699).
A chi-square analysis indicated that sheriffs departments were
significantly less likely to return surveys than police departments

Table 2. Number of Sworn Officers Employed by Responding Departments,
and Populations Served by Those Agencies
Table headers - Number of Officers (Population Sample) Population of Jurisdiction (Population Sample)
Row data -
Mean 52 217 38,350 119,654
Median 12 60 7,500 32,500
Std. Dev. 426 642 241,960 286,301
Minimum 1 1 52 154
Maximum 40,000 13,400 10,000,000 3,501,487
No. of Respondents 13,470 1,087 13,474 1,053
Missing 69 0 65 34

and state police agencies.4 The low response from sheriffs
departments may be due to the fact that a significant proportion of
them do not engage in patrol activities. Although we requested that
such agencies return their surveys indicating this so that we could
classify them as ineligible, many likely did not do so and, instead,
ignored the survey. Anecdotally, this was found to be the case.
One-way analysis of variance followed by chi-square analysis
indicated that agencies in the northwestern and southwestern
regions were significantly more likely to submit surveys
than agencies in the north central, south central, northeastern,
and southeastern regions.5
Methodological Caveats
The results presented below reflect responses from a large number
of law enforcement executives generally representative of
executives nationwide. However, as discussed above, our ability to
generalize these results to all executives of local and state law
enforcement agencies is limited by the following: (1) fewer than
half of the agencies in the sample submitted surveys, (2) larger
agencies are overrepresented, (3) sheriffs departments are
underrepresented, and (4) agencies in the northwestern and southwestern
regions are overrepresented. Further, although our target
respondents were the agency executives, it is likely that in some
cases, someone other than the executive completed the survey.
Thus, we cannot be assured that the results pertaining to opinions
and perceptions do, in fact, represent those of all agency
executives. However, despite these caveats, it is important to note
that the local agencies responding to the survey serve one-quarter
of the entire U.S. population served by local agencies, and employ
one-third of the sworn personnel. One can comfortably assume that
their responses can be generalized to many of their
counterparts nationwide.
4 Chi-square value = 46.811, df = 2, p = 0.001
5 We also tested for interaction effects of (1) department size and region, and
(2) department type and department size. The interactions terms increased
the predictive ability of the model only slightly.

Results
As indicated above, a major purpose of the survey was to identify
promising agency responses to racial profiling.
Information on agency responses was key to making the
recommendations in this report. Particularly valuable were the
extensive materials agencies forwarded us (e.g., policies,
protocol, curricula) and the information they provided about
effective practices both within and outside the agencies (e.g.,
effective training programs and community outreach efforts).
We also included survey items to assess perceptions of the
seriousness of racial profiling, to weigh the impact of current
events related to racial profiling on agencies, and to identify
the activities in which agencies have engaged. This section reports
our findings for these items. Additional results are reported
in the chapters that follow.
Two related survey items attempted to weigh the extent to
which administrators perceive racial profiling to be a problem,
and their perception of the extent to which their minority
citizens believe it to be a problem (see Figure 1). A great challenge
Fig. 1. Law enforcement executives perceptions of the degree to which
racial profiling/stereotyping or racially biased policing is a problem,
and their perceptions of the degree to which minority citizens in their
jurisdiction think it is a problem

associated with designing these items related to all of the
terminology issues discussed in Chapter 1. Staff wrestled with
whether to ask about racial profiling, biased policing or both.
Finding no completely satisfactory wording, we chose to include
references to both terms. Specifically, one item inquired,
To what extent do you think racial profiling/stereotyping or
racially biased policing is a problem in your jurisdiction? and
a second inquired, To what extent do the racial minority citizens
in your jurisdiction think that racial profiling/stereotyping
or biased policing is a problem in your jurisdiction? The
subjects responded using a five-point scale ranging from not a
problem (1) to very serious problem (5). It is important to
note that the issues associated with definitions make it difficult
to interpret the responses with any precision.
Figure 1 indicates that law enforcement administrators do
not believe that racial profiling/stereotyping or racially
biased policing is a serious problem in their jurisdictions, and
they believe that the racial minority citizens in their area would
generally agree with them. Specifically, a majority of the
respondents (59.9%) believe that racial profiling/stereotyping
or racially biased policing is not a problem in their jurisdiction.
An additional 29.1 percent perceive racially biased policing to
be a minor problem. Only 0.2 percent characterize the
problem as very serious, and an additional 1.2 percent
characterize the problem as somewhat serious.
Similarly, one-third (32.6%) of the respondents believe that
the minority citizens in their jurisdictions think that racial
profiling/stereotyping or biased policing is not a problem, and
another one-third (33%) believe minority citizens view it as a
minor problem. Only 12 percent report that minority citizens
view racial profiling as somewhat or very serious.
There is a positive correlation between department size and
perceptions that racial profiling is a problem. That is,
respondents from larger departments are more likely to perceive
a problem in their jurisdictions than are respondents from smaller
agencies.6 It is important to note, however, that despite this
6 Spearmans rho value = 0.214 (p > 0.01)

difference, most of the respondents from larger agencies (e.g.,
83.5% of respondents from agencies with 250 or more personnel)
believe that racial profiling is not a problem or is only a
slight problem. Similarly, respondents from the larger agencies
are more likely than their counterparts in smaller agencies to
perceive that minority citizens believe racial profiling is a
problem.7 Again, however, most of these large-agency respondents
perceive low levels of concern among minority citizens.
We asked the respondents to characterize the relationship
between [their] department and [their] racial minority citizens/
community. The vast majority of respondents characterized
the relationship as either very positive (32.1%) or somewhat
positive (47.4%). Only 1.5 percent characterized the relationship
as negative.
A survey item requested that respondents indicate what
activities their departments had engaged in as a result of
current events related to racial profiling. The survey listed six
particular activities and allowed departments to list other
activities. More than half of the responding agencies (56.1%)
had engaged in one or more of the listed activities. As indicated
in Figure 2, more than one-third of the agencies (37.4%)
had held formal internal discussions of racial profiling or
racial stereotyping. Almost one-fifth (18.9%) had adopted new
policies, and 12.3 percent had modified existing policies.
Similar percentages of agencies reported that they had modified
academy or in-service training (17.5%), instituted data collection
on race of citizens stopped (17.5%), or engaged in enhanced
outreach to the community on issues of race (17%). A
small number of agencies listed other activities not included
on the survey. Specifically, 21 agencies reported that they had
held informal internal discussions, 10 had sent representatives
to conferences and/or training, and four had created task forces
to address the issue.
7 Spearmans rho value = 0.256 (p > 0.01)

Fig. 2. Departmental responses to current events related to racial profiling
As indicated in Figure 3 (see next page), agency responses
vary by department size. Specifically, larger departments are
more likely than smaller ones to engage in the various activities
stimulated by current events related to racial profiling.
The survey helped staff determine what impact public debate
and reports of racial profiling were having on agencies.
Specifically, we asked respondents to indicate how current
events related to racial profiling, including [the] departmental
responses to these events, had affected (1) their relationship
with minority communities, (2) accusations against their
officers of racial profiling and/or biased policing, (3) media
coverage of the agency, (4) morale of agency personnel, and (5)
activity levels (e.g., number of vehicle stops) of their line
personnel. For each question, the respondent designated a number
between one and five, with 1 indicating a negative impact,
3 indicating no impact, and 5 indicating a positive impact.

Fig. 3. Departmental responses by department size (number of officers)
Overwhelmingly, departments reported no impact across all five
areas; specifically, between 72.6 percent and 90.6 percent
reported no impact for each of the five items.
Where impact was reported, it was more likely to be positive
with regard to departments relationships with minority
communities, and more likely to be negative with regard
to department morale and accusations against officers. Because
of the overwhelming finding of no impact, we did not
conduct analyses to assess the relationship between departmental
activities (e.g., enhanced outreach to minority communities)
and the various impacts (e.g., relationships with
minority communities).
An open-ended item asked, What resources do departments
need to help them deal with either the incidence of racially
biased policing or the community perception thereof? Respondents
reported that they needed funds for training, education,
equipment, and/or technology. Some also indicated that they
could better handle the problems if the department and the
media had a more positive relationship.

CONCLUSIONS
Information generated in our citizen focus groups is consistent
with national surveys that indicate that many citizensparticularly
racial and ethnic minoritiesperceive the existence of various
forms of racially biased policing, including racial profiling.
Practitioner focus groups and survey responses indicate that law
enforcement personnel perceive the problem to be less serious
than does the public. These differing perceptions may be partly a
function of definitions. As previously discussed, we perceive that
citizens and police are defining the problem very differently
with citizens defining the problem very broadly, and many police
practitioners defining the problem only as stops based solely
on race. When we asked citizens and police around the same table
specifically about racially biased policing, perceptions of
seriousness started to converge. Further, both groups believed that
activities could be implemented to reduce both racially biased
policing and the perceptions thereof. Both citizens and practitioners
want to prevent the disparate targeting of various racial/
ethnic groups and the differential treatment of people with whom
police engage.
Of course, we dont know and, in fact, likely can never know
exactly how much biased policing there is, and when and where
it occurs. Nor can we know the extent to which citizens perceptions
of biased policing do, in fact, accurately reflect officer
behavior and motivation. However, we do not believe that jurisdictions
need the precise answers to these questions before
they can act. To the contrary, we believe agency executives
should lead their communities in discussions about racially
biased policing and the perceptions thereof, and work with citizens
to develop responses to both. In the subsequent chapters,
we provide recommendations for jurisdictions to consider in
the course of this collaborative process.

Appendix: PERF Survey on Issues
Related to Racial Profiling

Police and Citizen Perceptions
PERF Survey on Issues Related
to "Racial Profiling"
October 16, 2000
Dear Agency Executive:
PERF is conducting a project related to the very potent topic of "Racial Profiling" with
financial support from the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. As part of that
study, we have enclosed a survey that we hope you will complete and return to us.
In this survey, we have broken down the broad (and frequently misused) term "racial
profiling" into what we believe are the two key issues facing law enforcement: racially
biased policing and citizen perceptions that policing is racially biased. We know that
many departments are seeking ways to deal with both of these issues. In fact, youll note
that some of the questions in the survey are designed to identify promising practices.
With this information, PERF will produce a web-based clearinghouse of effective policies
and curricula and develop recommendations that draw upon the best ideas from around
the country.
INSTRUCTIONS
These surveys will be scanned into a computer. To facilitate effective scanning,
please:
* Use a blue or black ink pen. (Do not use a pencil or typewriter.)
* Write as neatly as possible withot touching the sides of the text boxes.
* Completely blacken the check boxes (e.g., ).
Please return this survey no later than October 31, 2000. Thank you very much for your
assistance with this important project. Please feel free to call me or my associate, Bruce
Kubu, if you have any questions or comments.
Sincerely,
Lorie A. Fridell, Ph.D.
Director of Research
lfridell@policeforum.org

PERF Survey on Issues Related
to "Racial Profiling"
November 7, 2000
Dear Agency Executive:
As mentioned in a previous correspondence, the Police Executive Research Forum
(PERF) is conducting a project related to the very important topic of "Racial Profiling" with
financial support from the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. We sent a
questionnaire to you on October 16th designed to collect information regarding the issue
of racially biased policing and perceptions thereof. If you have already completed this
survey, please disregard this letter. If you have not yet completed this survey, we request
that you do so by December 1, 2000. Your participation is, of course, voluntary, but would
help us to explore this very important topic. Please respond to this survey even if the
issues associated with "Racial Profiling" have not impacted your jurisdiction. If
your agency does not conduct law enforcement activites, please write that on the front of
the survey and return it in the self-addressed envelope.
In this survey, we have broken down the broad (and frequently misused) term "racial
profiling" into what we believe are the two key issues facing law enforcement: racially
biased policing and citizen perceptions that policing is racially biased. We know that
many departments are seeking ways to deal with both of these issues. In fact, youll note
that some of the questions in the survey are designed to identify promising practices.
With this information, PERF will produce a web-based clearinghouse of effective policies
and curricula and develop recommendations that draw upon the best ideas from around
the country.
INSTRUCTIONS
These surveys will be scanned into a computer. To facilitate effective scanning, please:
* Use a blue or black ink pen. (Do not use a pencil or typewriter.)
* Print as neatly as possible withot touching the sides of the text boxes.
* Completely blacken the check boxes (e.g., ).
We request that you respond no later than Friday, December 1, 2000. Thank you very
much for your assistance with this important project. Please feel free to call me or my
associate, Bruce Kubu, if you have any questions or comments.
Sincerely,
Lorie A. Fridell, Ph.D.
Director of Research
lfridell@policeforum.org

PERF Survey on Issues Related to "Racial Profiling"
The Police Executive Research Forum (PERF), with funding from the COPS Office (1999-CK-WX-0076), is
conducting a project that examines racially biased policing, and the perceptions that policing is racially biased, in
order to produce recommendations to help law enforcement departments deal with both issues.
This survey is just one vehicle for collecting information for this project. With it, we want to determine how racially
biased policing and perceptions that policing is racially biased have impacted law enforcement agencies
nationwide, determine how departments are responding, and collect and disseminate the best ideas developed by
departments. Regarding the latter, we request that you send us copies of various types of policies. We understand
that this is a somewhat cumbersome request, but hope you will see this as an opportunity to assist in the
development of a central clearinghouse of resources for use by all departments nationwide.
Please be assured that your responses will remain entirely confidential. That is, the results will be reported in the
aggregate with no department or respondent names associated with responses.
1.
Have the current events related to "racial profiling" led directly to
any of the following activities in your department?
Check all that apply.
Formal internal discussions of racial profiling or racial stereotyping.
Modifications to academy and/or in-service training.
Modifications to existing policies.
Development of new policies.
Enhanced outreach to the community on issues of race.
Data collection on race of citizens stopped.
Other1:
Other2:
2.
We want to know whether and how current events related to "racial
profiling," includingyour departmental response
to those events (for instance, those specified in Question #1),
have impacted your department. That is, what has
been the impact of current events related to "racial profiling,"
including your departmental responses to those
events, on:
A. The relationship between your department and racial minority
communities (circle one answer)?
Negative Impact to Positive Impact (Scale of 1-5)
B. Accusations against officers of racial stereotyping and/or
biased policing (circle one answer)?
Decreased to Increased (Scale of 1-5)
C. Media coverage of your agency (circle one answer)?
More Negative Coverage  to More Positive Coverage (Scale 1-5)
D. The morale of your personnel (circle one answer)?
Negative Impact to Positive Impact (Scale of 1-5)
E.
Activity on the part of line personnel (e.g., vehicle stops,
arrests) (circle one answer)?
Decreased to Increased (Scale of 1-5)

PERF Survey on Issues Related
to "Racial Profiling"
3.
Does your department have a written policy that specifically
addresses racial profiling, stereotyping, or other
biases based upon race?
Yes. Please attach a copy of this policy.
No.
4.
Does your department have a written policy that specifies
when race can be used asone factor among several to
make policing decisions (e.g., such as decisions to stop,
question, search)?
Yes. Please attach a copy of this policy (if different from the one identified in Question #3).
No.
5.
Has your department initiated the collection of new data or
the analysis of existing data for the purpose of
assessing the race of citizens encountered, stopped and/or
arrested?
Yes. Please attach a copy of your protocol, policy and/or data collection instrument.
No.
==>Regardless of whether you answered "Yes" or "No, please
indicate one or two of the most important
reasons why you made this decision regarding the collection
of new data or the analysis of existing data.
Reason 1:
Reason 2:
6. What resources did you need or would you need for data collection/analysis?
7.
Do you know of any academy or in-service training curricula that
is particularly effective in addressing the issues of
racial stereotyping or bias in law enforcement?
Yes.
Who provides this training? Please be as specific as possible
so we can contact the providers to
learn more about their curricula.
No.

PERF Survey on Issues Related
to "Racial Profiling"
8. Describe, if applicable, any special department projects or
programs that serve to strengthen the department's
relationship with ethnic minority communities.
9. Other than the activities encompassed in the questions above,
what have you initiated in response to, or in
anticipation of, concerns related to racial bias and/or
stereotyping?
10. What resources do departments need to help them deal
with either the incidence of racially biased policing or the
community perception thereof?
11. How would you characterize the current relationship
between your department and your racial minority
citizens/community? (circle one answer)
Very Negative to Very Positive (Scale 1-5)
12.
To what extent do you think "racial profiling/stereotyping"
or racially biased policing is a problem in your
jurisdiction? (circle one answer)
Not a Problem to Very Serious Problem (Scale 1-5)
13.
To what extent do the racial minority citizens in your
jurisdiction think that "racial profiling/stereotyping" or biased
policing is a problem in your jurisdiction (circle one answer)?
Not a Problem to Very Serious Problem (Scale 1-%)
Please provide additional comments:

PERF Survey on Issues Related
to "Racial Profiling"
THANK YOU!
Thank you for taking the time to complete this survey. Please do the following:
(1) Provide the information requested below. We will use this information only if necessary for
purposes of calling to clarify information or learn more about one or more of your initiatives.
Again, all of your responses will remain confidential.
Contact Person:
First name
Last name
Title/Rank
Phone number
--
Extension
(2) Attach if relevant:
Department policy prohibiting the use of race as the sole factor in making policing
decisions.
Department policy that specifies when race can be used as one factor among
several to make policing decisions.
Data collection/analysis protocol and/or instrument related to documentation of race of
citizen.
(3) Please check the appropriate boxes below if you would like PERF to send you (check all that
apply):
(4) Place this survey and your attached policies in the enclosed self addressed envelope. If this
envelope has been misplaced, mail to:
Bruce Kubu
PERF
1120 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 930
Washington, DC 20036
Please direct any questions or comments to either Lorie Fridell (lfridell@policeforum.org) or Bruce
Kubu (bkubu@policeforum.org) at PERF (202-466-7820).
Sample policies prohibiting racial profiling.
Sample policies indicating when race can be used as one factor to make policing decisions.
Information regarding data collection protocol.
8171145108

3 - Accountability and Supervision
Police accountability and supervision are important factors in
reducing or eliminating bias in policing. A police agency has
two effective levels of accountability for operational performance:
the chief executive, and the middle managers and supervisors.
In this chapter, we discuss their respective
responsibilities and propose recommendations for action.
CHIEF EXECUTIVE RESPONSIBILITIES
The role of leadership is to inspire to higher purpose and to
energize the organization toward achieving its goals. The chief
executive sets the tone by word and deed, articulating the mission
and the style of operation for all to understand. Chiefs
must consistently practice the organizations values in their
professional and personal behavior. When things go wrong, such
as with the highly charged accusation of biased policing, leadership
 must respond.
The chief establishes operational and administrative priorities and
bears primary responsibility for ensuring a positive working
relationship with the policing authority, other
government agencies and all elements of the community. The
chief is responsible for ensuring that the police function lawfully,
protecting the rights of all. The chief is also responsible
for ensuring that the communitys diverse needs and
interests are addressed openly and equitably, with respect
and dignity for all.

The chief is responsible for shaping and guiding the organizational
culture, and for ensuring that the police meet quality
standards. Acumen for strategy and timing is critical for an
internal climate that welcomes and adapts to change. Quality
performance is a constant demand on the chiefs time and attention.
Managing the public complaint system with fairness
and justice is a critical performance indicator, as complaints
are integral to quality control and serve as a sensitive barometer
of police-citizen relationships. Chiefs direction of the
performance appraisal process is another critical function, as it
affects all staff development. In summary, the good management of
the organization is in the chiefs hands, with responsibility to
provide a vision for the future and to organize, direct
and control.
Human Rights
Policing in a democratic society requires that law enforcement
personnel be accountable for their actions based on the principles
of legality, subsidiarity and proportionality. Legality addresses
whether officers have a clear and public legal authority
to act. Subsidiarity addresses whether an action is the least
intrusive and least damaging to a subjects rights. Proportionality
addresses whether an action is excessive or inefficient in
dealing with a situation or problem.
The courts have long been regarded as the first bulwark in
the protection of citizens rights. As democratic principles are
infused into law enforcements basic activities, and as we perceive
a broader police role, it is reasonable and desirable to
conceive of a greater police role as guardians and protectors of
democratic rights. In other words, law enforcement should respect
the rights of all citizens to be free from unreasonable government
intrusion or police action. Certain initiatives are
necessary to bring about this transformation.
The first step is to direct an audit of all operational and
administrative practices. Self-evaluation against standards is
accepted practice in policing, and the standards for a human
rights audit are best worked out in collaboration with experts
in the field. Vestiges of institutional racism are often found in
long-standing practices that have not been challenged for lack

of focused review. For instance, officers acculturized to
conduct vehicle checks and searches based on inherently racially
biased grounds may not at first recognize that they have been
operating out of policy.
The institutional review should entail, for instance, scrutinizing
policy, examining the public complaints system and internal
disciplinary records for patterns of bias or rights abuses,
checking the agency record of civil litigation and criminal
charges, conducting surveys of public opinion, and gathering
feedback from frontline supervisors.
Awareness of human rights and correction of improper practices
are best ensured by integrating policy amendments into
the basic and in-service training curriculum, reinforced by
frontline supervisors. Training in the powers of arrest, search and
seizure, use of force, communication skills, interrogation
techniques, exercise of discretion, conflict management, problem-
solving, and decision-making is a vehicle for conveying the
significance of human rights. Individually and corporately, the
police must pursue excellence and uphold professional standards.
Chief executives are responsible for ensuring that their
officers conduct complies with and promotes basic human
rights.
Recommendation: The chief executive should direct an audit of
the agency mission and value statements, code of ethics and all
policies, procedures and practices to ensure they consistently
reflect a commitment to integrity, justice, protection of human
rights, and unbiased performance of duties. This audit should
be embedded in the ongoing professional standards or quality
assurance processes in all agencies, regardless of size.
We further recommend that the chief executive consider engaging
a qualified professional specializing in human rights in
creating the standards that will be used for self-evaluation.
Organizational Culture
Leadership effectiveness is influenced by organizational culture,
a culture shaped by a host of diverse factors, external and
internal. The organization reflects the communitys customs
and conventions, although not all characteristics may be evenly

represented. Internal factors influencing the culture may include
the critical events of the past; the impact of leadership,
past and present; the existing climate of labor relations; and
the history of economic and political support.
Some occupational stress factors of policing are a negative
influence on organizational culture, affecting the frontline officers
willingness to learn and to accept change. These stressors range
from disappointing experiences with the criminal justice system
to the corrosive impact of shift work and excessive overtime on
personal health and family life. These factors can affect the
attitude the officer brings to engaging with the public.
A culture that values individual differences, rewards good
work and promotes respectful interaction among its members
is generally indicative of an organization capable of assimilating
change. Healthy organizations invariably place a high value
on professional competence, with competence defined as extending
beyond the technical aspects of the work to encompass individual
and institutional integrity.
Leaders ability to support, encourage and build on the internal
cultures positive aspects is critical to the acceptance of
progressive policies and control over attitudes and behavior
threatening isolation of the police and disengagement from the
public. A heavy burden rests with the chief executives leadership
capacity.
Recommendation: The chief executive should assess the organizational
cultureits strengths and vulnerabilitiesidentifying
occupational stress factors for remedial action and reinforcing
activities reflecting appreciation for good work, individual
differences and respectful interaction among all employees.
Quality Assurance
An agencys capacity to change and adjust to a higher level of
awareness and compliance with expectations depends on the
quality of its operation. The first level of quality assurance with
decentralized systems rests with recruitment and selection,
addressed elsewhere in this report. The good character and
personal integrity of the officer are paramount to ensuring
honesty and respectful behavior.

The next most critical element is the means by which the
departments values are communicated. Mission and value statements
and an aspirational code of ethics are the standards by
which the agency and its members are measured.
The third level is quality control. Quality control and organizational
integrity are founded on standards, inspection and
audit systems. Firm and consistent enforcement of policies and
procedures ensures quality results. Lax enforcement opens the
door to mediocrity and eventual decline, as well as institutional
and individual malfeasance. Supervisors are responsible for
ensuring that frontline officers comply with policy. Middle
managers are responsible for spot-checking behavior and written
reports, and for encouraging and supporting supervisors in
maintaining high standards.
Audit and inspection systems provide the structure for
institutional overview and quality assurance. There are various
local, state and national standards for comprehensive
quality control. A well-managed agency will apply these
standards, meeting and exceeding them in a process of continuous
improvement.
Recommendation: The chief executive should focus the agency
on quality assurance methods in all aspects of operation
directing, supporting and managing internal controls and employing
state, local and national standards whenever possible.
Diversity
Valuing diversity is a fundamental premise of democratic government.
Regrettably, there are times when acceptance of diversity is lost
in a well-intentioned zeal for conformity. The
police bear responsibility for law enforcement, as well as maintaining
peace and order. The good officer continually scans the
environment for anomalies to normalcyfor conditions, people
and behavior that are unusual for that environment. In learning and
practicing their craft, officers quickly develop a sense
for what is normal and expected, and conversely, for what is
not. The true anomalies offer valuable information on potential
threats to people, breaches of the law or disturbances of the
peace. No one would expect an officer to fail to act on spotting

a weeping child in the custody of someone who did not behave
as a parent, or to idly watch a person lurking suspiciously near
parked cars.
If an officer is operating on a limited set of expectations of
the normal, any manner of characteristics or behavior may engage
his or her attention as anomalies. These characteristics
may be style of clothing, differences in gestures or vocal expression,
or variation in culture or race. If officers are operating on a
narrow set of perceptions, they may draw false
conclusions and check people out on grounds that are unwarranted,
unreasonable and unsupported by law.
The chief must be acutely aware of the communitys social
environment and ensure that officers are educated about the
communitys racial and cultural diversity, and about diversity
beyond the local jurisdictions limits. Policing has approached
this challenge in the past through recruit and in-service diversity
training, but with uncertain results. In too many instances,
frontline officers have concluded that the training was premised
on the assumption that all officers are inherently biased and
prejudiced. Resentment has often overshadowed good intent.
More recently, agencies have found that integrating the theme
of racial and cultural diversity into mainstream curriculum
subjects, and into normal and everyday functions, is a much
more successful approach.
The principle of valuing diversity finds expression in the
racial composition of the department, content of the recruit
and in-service training curriculum, employment of minority
race trainers, provision of educational material, and provision
of support in word and deed by leaders at all levels. Participation
in training programs by community members and human
rights specialists will also help to ensure a culture of openness
and external partnerships, if the participation is consistent with
training goals. Evaluation of diversity training is accomplished
by linking training objectives to operational outcomes.
Respect and appreciation for diversity relating to gender,
race, victims, and people with special needs are central to
recognizing human rights. Police agencies that understand and
value diverse communities create structures and systems that
reach outward, enjoining and empowering police officers and

citizens to collaborate in problem-solving on issues of crime
and disorder.
Recommendation: The chief executive should assess the need to
introduce or reinforce an integrated approach for encouraging
police awareness and appreciation of racial/ethnic diversity and
cultural differences.
Public Complaints
Public complaints have long been regarded as an indicator of
the climate existing between the public and frontline officers.
The growing number of civilian oversight agencies have sprung
from the belief that complaint investigation cannot be left solely
to police leadership, and that the public interest is best served
by some outside assessment and disposition. While well-intended and,
in some cases, contributing positively to the transparency of
the process, in general, civilian oversight committees
have proven as bureaucratic and uncertain in their results as
the internal systems they replaced.1
It falls to the chief executive to set the tone, establish the
policies, systems and procedures and, in many cases, ultimately
decide the merit of public complaints. A record system with a
separate category for complaints of biased policing will afford
the chief an opportunity to monitor and respond publicly to
questions of alleged improper discrimination by race, perceived
or well-founded. Above all, the reception system must ensure
that complainants are not subject to any form of discouragement,
intimidation or coercion.
Recommendation: The chief executive should direct regular reviews
of the complaint reception process to ensure that complainants
are not subject to any form of discouragement,
intimidation or coercion in filing their complaints.
We further recommend that the public complaint management system
include a separate category to permit clear and
1 For more information on citizen review of police, see Walker, S. (1995). Citizen
Review Resource Manual. Washington, D.C.: Police Executive Research Forum.

accurate monitoring of complaints of biased policing, with the
capacity to identify patterns and practices inimical to equal
treatment of citizens.
Public Complaint Audits
The chief executive should monitor complaint systems through
periodic reviews of the nature and incidence of complaints and
spot-checks of individual files. Regular reviews should assess the
total number of complaints and complaints broken down by type;
by involvement of individual officers, teams of officers or groups
of officers; and by geographic district and command. The audit
should take into account factors such as chronic complainers,
false or frivolous complaints and complaints calculated to deter
officers from performing a lawful duty.
The audit may encompass integrity testing, internal records
and control assessments, accessibility reviews, timeliness
standards, and complaint disposition. Agencies contemplating the
introduction of integrity testing will prudently obtain legal advice,
review the impact on discipline codes and labor agreements,
and consult with union representatives. Spot-checks of
completed files are a useful way to assess performance, together
with surveys of complainants conducted at regular intervals.
Active participation by an external review body may help to
ensure the transparency of the process and respect for the public
interest.
Recommendation: The chief executive should provide for regular
audits of the complaint system, comparing performance
against policy and using spot-checks and reviews to evaluate
effectiveness and efficiency.
Officer Performance Measures
Annual and periodic performance appraisals offer outstanding
opportunities for recognizing good performance and introducing
persuasive behavior modification when necessary. The appraisal
instrument should provide an opportunity to grade
officers on their communication skills, ability to carry out
duties absent of bias, and ability to demonstrate tolerance and
respect for human rights in enforcing the law. Above all, the

appraisal process should ensure opportunities for positive
reinforcement for doing the right things, and doing things right.
Many progressive law enforcement organizations are implementing
record systems with decision-prompting mechanisms
called early warning systems. These systems collect occurrence
data on a broad selection of individual performance indicators,
not only from public complaints, but other elements of an officers
performance from disciplinary actions, vehicle collisions,
absenteeism reports, performance appraisals, personal problems, and
training results. Any employee activity that could signal the
presence of stress, dysfunctional behavior or a training need becomes
the subject of record. To provide for balance and equity, data
collection could include positive inputs such as commendations,
letters of appreciation and awards.
Within the system, there are triggers calling for management
review. For example, three public complaints within a prescribed
period would call for a supervisory review and personal interview
of the subject officer. Depending on the systems design, any
combination of events could do the same. On the premise that
the totality of behavior may indicate a developing problem, the
supervisor has the opportunity to intervene. The more progressive
systems are designed to bring about constructive outcomes,
providing the ability to select from an array of remedies drawn
from employee assistance programs and staffing actions.
Police personnel should understand a number of things about
such systems. They should understand whether the systems are
based solely on an analysis of citizen complaints, or on a broader
analysis of the patterns of individual officers enforcement
decisions and other performance indicators. They should understand
who is reviewing the data, and what standards are used to determine
whether an officers activity suggests possible racial bias.
They should understand the possible consequences of being
identified as a potentially racially biased officer.
Recommendation: The chief executive should study the advantages
offered by early warning systems and consider a design appropriate
to the agencys particular conditions and needs.

MIDDLE MANAGER AND SUPERVISOR
RESPONSIBILITIES
Close supervision over all public contacts is difficult to ensure,
and few police organizations today can offer close supervision
over all officers behavior. The tasks of policing are most often
performed by a single officer or pairs of officers operating in a
detached assignment, without on-site institutional oversight or
independent observers.
An increasing number of agencies are pursuing community
policing, with its inherent philosophy of decentralizationdismantling
the hierarchy and delegating responsibility to frontline
officers. This philosophy stresses self-discipline and personal
accountability, and supervisors are encouraged to practice their skills
in coordination and coaching. Even in the traditional command-
and-control systems, supervisory oversight has been curtailed as
downsizing and other efficiency measures have decimated middle
management and broadened the span of control. These conditions by
no means relieve the supervisor of responsibility for control
functions; rather, they illustrate the added burden management
strategies place on supervisors.
Policing is a round-the-clock function, and in the larger
police departments and state police agencies, the posts,
divisions and detachments may be widely separated. While top
managements influence is always important, it is the frontline
supervisor and middle manager who capture frontline officers
attention. Sergeants, lieutenants and captains wield by far the
most powerful influence over the day-to-day activity, attitude
and behavior of operational police officers. These supervisors
must take responsibility for carrying out any effective program
of change or reinforcement of behavior. They cannot do this
without clarity in their assignments and expectations.
Recommendation: As a preliminary to focusing an action program
on bias-free performance, chief executives must first clarify
for middle managers and supervisors the agency expectations
regarding their responsibilities. Top leadership must support and
encourage middle managers and supervisors by visibly promoting and
enforcing high professional standards.

Leaders at the supervisory level must exercise motivational
and control practices that ensure officers are operating within
policy at all times, and through word and action represent the
agencys ethical commitments. The frontline supervisors and
managers have responsibility for reinforcing the organizational
cultures positive aspects in public and in the station. Frontline
leaders must consistently support and personally demonstrate
respect for the rights of all citizens. The responsibility for
control and the exercise of discipline when officers disregard
standards concerning the treatment of citizens are major obligations.
Supervisors will realize, however, that many police officers
in good faith insist that race does not affect their decisions.
Indeed, there is evidence that suspects attitudes and actions
determine officers enforcement decisions. Officers can be encouraged
to go beyond this observation to consider how suspects actions
and attitudes toward police might be affected by their own
perceptions of racial bias. Officers need not be made to feel
that suspects who behave badly to police are blameless in order to
acknowledge that there may be room to improve the overall
relationship between police and minority citizens.
Recommendation: Middle managers and supervisors should
ensure that all officers under their supervision are familiar with
the spirit and intent of policy in dealing professionally, ethically
and respectfully with the public, and that officers are complying
with orders. This goes hand in hand with respecting officers
perceptions of offenders and encouraging them to gain insights
into their own responses.
Officer Probation and Mentoring
New officers on probation are impressionable, and their first
experiences with senior-officer partners often establish their
patterns of behavior. These early opportunities for imprinting
merit the highest priority within the organization. Coach or
mentoring officers must be carefully selected from among those
known to operate within policy and with a record of respectful
relations with the public. A probationary officer assessment
system should include a category for evaluating the probationers
skills in communicating, manner of dealing with the

public, and knowledge of the law relating to protecting human
rights.
Recommendation: Middle managers and firstline supervisors should
pay particular attention to the assignment of probationary officers
or officers undergoing field training to ensure they are partnered
with experienced officers known to operate within policy.
We further recommend that the field training reporting system
have categories for evaluating skills in communicating,
manner of dealing with the public, and knowledge relating to
protection of human rights.
Spot-Checks and Monitoring
The firstline supervisor has the responsibility to spot-check
officer performance in a variety of circumstances, observing
the style of verbal communication, use of safety tactics,
and quality of discretionary decision-making and enforcement
action. In particular, spot-checks should focus on vehicle
stops on suspected drug law violations to ensure that
officers follow all departmental policies and procedures, and
that they do not go beyond the limits of reasonableness. The
supervisor establishes the principle of balance and proportionality
in the exercise of discretion through monitoring
and coaching. Agency activity reports, including all available
data on officer-initiated vehicle stops, will be helpful
to the supervisors review.
The supervisor must be alert to any pattern or practice of
possible discriminatory treatment by individual officers or
squads. Periodic sampling of in-car videotapes, radio transmissions,
and in-car computer and central communications records
is effective for determining if both formal and informal
communications are professional and free from racial bias and other
disrespect. The department should inform officers of the monitoring
procedure in advance, with periodic reminders. Corrective action,
when warranted, should normally be carried out
by the frontline supervisor. In some cases, disciplinary action
may be warranted. Conversely, officers consistently observed
to operate within policy should be favorably recognized through
their annual and periodic appraisal reports.

Middle managers and supervisors must be alert to new laws
and court decisions affecting critical procedures of arrest, search
and seizure, and use of forceinforming, monitoring and coaching
officers about the impact of updated interpretations of the
law. Learning from mistakes and reacting positively to new
conditions are simply intelligent approaches to law enforcement.
In instructing frontline officers, supervisors must take care to
present change in a positive way, and not as a hindrance to
obtaining results.
Recommendation: Supervisors should monitor activity reports
for evidence of improper practices and patterns. They should
conduct spot-checks and regular sampling of in-car videotapes,
radio transmissions, and in-car computer and central communications
records to determine if both formal and informal communications
are professional and free from racial bias and other
disrespect.
Public Complaint Processing
The sergeant, lieutenant or captain is often the first point of
contact for citizens lodging a complaint at a police station. How
complainants are received and addressed makes an indelible
impression on his or her sense of trust and confidence in the
agencys ability and willingness to accord the complaint a fair
hearing. The officer has the responsibility to ensure that complaints
are received with formality, that all departmental procedures
are carried out to the letter, and that complainants are
treated with respect. The ranking police representative should
ensure that complainants are not subjected to any form of
discouragement, intimidation or coercion.
The complainants comments should be recorded and provided to
the departmental investigation unit. The complainant
must be provided with information on how the department deals
with complaints, and be given the name of the office responsible
for handling them.
Recommendation: Middle managers and supervisors should accept
responsibility for ensuring that citizen complaints of biased
policing are given a formal and respectful hearing, and that

complaints are documented in accordance with agency policy.
The ranking police representative should ensure that complainants are not
subjected to any form of discouragement, intimidation or coercion
in filing their complaints at the police station or in bringing their
complaints to the attention of any officer.
We further recommend that middle managers and supervisors provide
the complainant with information on how the department deals
with complaints, and with the name of the office
responsible for handling them.

4 - A Policy To Address Racially Biased Policing and the Perceptions Thereof
In Chapter 1, we specified that racially biased policing occurs
when law enforcement inappropriately considers race or ethnicity
in deciding with whom and how to intervene in an enforcement
capacity. In this chapter, we propose a policy for
police agency adoption that reflects this definition, addressing
both racially biased policing and the perceptions thereof. This
policy was based on information collected from the focus
groups, the national survey, existing policies, constitutional law
scholars, law enforcement agency counsel, and others with
expertise. Specifically, the policy we propose
 emphasizes that arrests, traffic stops, investigative
detentions, searches, and property seizures must be
based on reasonable suspicion or probable cause;1
 restricts officers ability to use race/ethnicity in
establishing reasonable suspicion or probable cause
1 This particular provision addresses only those activities that require reasonable suspicion or
probable cause. The policy wording reflects the fact that not all detentions (e.g., at sobriety checkpoints)
or all searches (e.g., consent searches) require either reasonable suspicion or probable cause. These
other activities are not prohibited by the policy.

to those situations in which trustworthy, locally relevant information
links a person or persons of a specific race/ethnicity to a particular unlawful
incident(s);2
 applies the restrictions above to requests for consent
searches and even those nonconsensual encounters that
do not amount to legal detentions;
 articulates that the use of race and ethnicity must
be in accordance with the equal protection clause
of the 14th Amendment; and
 includes provisions related to officer behavior during
encounters that can serve to prevent perceptions
of racially biased policing.
Recommendation: Departments adopt the policy set forth in this
chapter.
BACKGROUND
PERFs national survey indicates that, as a result of recent high-
profile events related to racial profiling, 12 percent of law
enforcement agencies surveyed have modified existing policies,
and 19 percent have adopted new policies. PERF asked the
respondents to include copies of their policies when they returned
their surveys. Staff review of these policies determined that
most of them prohibit officers from enforcement action (e.g.,
stops, arrests and searches) based solely on an individuals
race. While the policies convey the positive message that the
police agencies will not tolerate racial profiling, they do not
provide sufficient guidance on the use of race to make law
enforcement decisions.3 Agencies can do more than reiterate what
2 In some situations, the link may be made to civil violations as well as unlawful incidents.
3 Note that agencies with this type of provision may very well have additional, broader provisions elsewhere in policy and/or may provide more guidance to their officers in training.

has always been unconstitutionalthat police actions cannot
be based solely on race.4
The policy we propose specifies when it is and is not
appropriate to consider race/ethnicity in making law enforcement
decisions. This policy defines racially biased policing
building on Fourth Amendment (Search and Seizure)5 and 14th
Amendment (Equal Protection)6 principles. The complementary
provisions clarify when officers can use race/ethnicity as a
factor to establish reasonable suspicion or probable cause and
provide similar clarity for using race/ethnicity in making other
law enforcement decisions. It also includes procedures that can
reduce perceptions of racially biased policing.
We start by setting forth the policy itself. We then discuss
and elaborate on the content.
THE POLICY
Title: Addressing Racially Biased Policing and the Perceptions Thereof
Purpose: This policy is intended to reaffirm this
departments commitment to unbiased policing,
to clarify the circumstances in which officers can
consider race/ethnicity when making law enforcement decisions,
and to reinforce procedures that
4 For example, in U.S. v. Brignoni-Ponce, a Fourth Amendment case regarding
a vehicle stop near a border, the Supreme Court held that police cannot stop
motorists based solely on their racial or ethnic appearance, even if the
officers are investigating illegal aliens (422 U.S. 873, 1975).
5 The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and
effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated; and
no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation,
and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons
or things to be seized.
6 [N]o State shall make or enforce any law which shall . . . deny to any
person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

serve to assure the public that we are providing
service and enforcing laws in an equitable way.
Policy:
A) Policing Impartially
1.
Investigative detentions, traffic stops, arrests,
searches, and property seizures by officers will be
based on a standard of reasonable suspicion or
probable cause in accordance with the Fourth
Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Officers must
be able to articulate specific facts and circumstances
that support reasonable suspicion or probable cause
for investigative detentions, traffic stops, arrests
nonconsensual searches, and property seizures.
Except as provided below, officers shall not
consider race/ethnicity in establishing either
reasonable suspicion or probable cause. Similarly,
except as provided below, officers shall not
consider race/ethnicity in deciding to initiate even
those nonconsensual encounters that do not
amount to legal detentions or to request consent
to search.
Officers may take into account the reported
race or ethnicity of a specific suspect or suspects
based on trustworthy, locally relevant information
that links a person or persons of a specific
race/ethnicity to a particular unlawful incident(s).
Race/ethnicity can never be used as the sole basis
for probable cause or reasonable suspicion.
2.
Except as provided above, race/ethnicity shall not
be motivating factors in making law enforcement
decisions.
B)
Preventing Perceptions of Biased Policing
In an effort to prevent inappropriate perceptions of
biased law enforcement, each officer shall do the
following when conducting pedestrian and vehicle stops:
 Be courteous and professional.

 Introduce him- or herself to the citizen
(providing name and agency affiliation), and state the
reason for the stop as soon as practical, unless
providing this information will compromise officer
or public safety. In vehicle stops, the officer shall
provide this information before asking the driver
for his or her license and registration.
 Ensure that the detention is no longer
than necessary to take appropriate action for the known
or suspected offense, and that the citizen
understands the purpose of reasonable delays.
 Answer any questions the citizen may have,
including explaining options for traffic
citation disposition, if relevant.
 Provide his or her name and badge number when
requested, in writing or on a business card.
 Apologize and/or explain if he or she determines
that the reasonable suspicion was unfounded
(e.g., after an investigatory stop).
Compliance:
Violations of this policy shall result in disciplinary action as set
forth in the departments rules and regulations.
Supervision and Accountability:
Supervisors shall ensure that all personnel in their command
are familiar with the content of this policy and are operating in
compliance with it.
DISCUSSION
Title and Purpose
We titled the policy Addressing Racially Biased Policing and
the Perceptions Thereof to reflect our strong preference for
the term racially biased policing over racial profiling, and
to reflect the importance of addressing both the instances of
and the perceptions of its practice. The policys stated purpose
is to reaffirm [the] departments commitment to unbiased policing,
to clarify the circumstances in which officers can consider

race/ethnicity when making law enforcement decisions,
and to reinforce procedures that serve to assure the public that
[the department is] providing service and enforcing laws in an
equitable way. Importantly, while this policy addresses racially
biased policing, agencies could adapt it to cover biased policing
related to gender, age, etc.
Policing Impartially
Using Race/Ethnicity as a Factor To Establish Reasonable Suspicion or Probable Cause
One aspect of ensuring the unbiased treatment of citizens is to
consistently apply the standards of reasonable suspicion and
probable cause to law enforcement interventions. The proposed
policy affirms these Fourth Amendment requirements. Specifically,
the policy reads as follows:
Investigative detentions, traffic stops, arrests,
searches, and property seizures by officers will
be based on a standard of reasonable suspicion
or probable cause in accordance with the Fourth
Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Officers
must be able to articulate specific facts and
circumstances that support reasonable suspicion
or probable cause for investigative detentions,
traffic stops, arrests, nonconsensual searches,
and property seizures.
However, the policy goes beyond reaffirmation of the
constitutional provisions and provides clarity to these standards
of proof. Specifically, the policy sets forth limits on
when officers can consider race/ethnicity to establish probable
cause7 or
7 Probable cause for a warrant or warrantless arrest exists when the facts and
circumstances within the officers knowledge and of which they had reasonably
trustworthy information are sufficient in themselves to warrant a man of
reasonable caution in the belief that an offense has been or is being committed
(Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160, 1949). Probable cause is required for
some searches and applies the above requirements (i.e., facts and circumstances...)
to the belief that seizeable evidence is in a particular location.

reasonable suspicion.8 We identified this need through our
focus groups, in which it became very clear that practitioners at
all levelsline officers, command staff and executiveshave
very different perceptions regarding the circumstances in which
officers can consider race/ethnicity. Participants discussed when
officers can use race/ethnicity as one factor in the totality of
the circumstances to establish reasonable suspicion or probable
cause.9 We found many differences of opinion among line
officers and command staff, even within agencies, on this point.
Some believed that officers should not use race/ethnicity to
justify law enforcement intervention except when specified as
part of a suspects description. Otherswhen provided with
hypothetical examplesclearly revealed an on-the-street use
of race/ethnicity as a general indicator of criminal activity.
Our survey data confirm that many agencies do not provide
guidance to their line personnel on this point in policy.
Just under 4 percent of the responding agencies reported that
they have policies that specify when race can be used as one
factor among several to make policing decisions.
While we acknowledge that agencies may, to differing extents,
address this issue in training, training alone is not sufficient.
Policy is used in policing to provide parameters for officer
discretion. Without clear parameters, some officers will, and
do (as indicated by the focus group data), use race/ethnicity as
a general indicator of criminal activity, to help justify, for
8 Reasonable suspicion, which is required for detentions, is a less
demanding standard than probable cause...in the sense that reasonable suspicion
can be established with information that is different in quantity or content
than that required to establish probable cause (Alabama v. White, 496 U.S.
325, 1990).
9 The Supreme Court has not provided specific guidance in this area; the
courts decisions in this realm have addressed only those cases related to
illegal aliens (e.g., United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 1975). In a
Ninth Circuit case, it was held that officers could not use race/ethnicity to
establish reasonable suspicion in a geographic area where the majority (or
any substantial number) of people are of that particular race/ethnicity (United
States v. Montero Camargo, 208 F. 3d 1122, 9th Cir., 2000).

instance, detentions of citizens. In this environment of minority
citizen mistrust of law enforcement, we strongly recommend that
agencies set forth written policy parameters on the use of race/
ethnicity to justify law enforcement intervention. Without clear
guidance in both policy and training, law enforcement executives
risk having line personnel inappropriately intrude on citizens
freedom based on those officers personal biases as
opposed to objective criteria.
The policy we propose prohibits the use of race/ethnicity as a
general indicator of criminal activity, but allows officers to
consider it in some situations, such as when provided with suspect
descriptions. Specifically, the policy states, Officers may take into
account the reported race or ethnicity of a specific suspect or
suspects based on trustworthy, locally relevant information that links
a person or persons of a specific race/ethnicity to a particular
unlawful incident(s). Race can never be used as the sole basis for
probable cause or reasonable suspicion.
The standard for trustworthy information is the same one
that officers should apply to any information they use to establish
reasonable suspicion or probable cause.10 It means that the
information is worthy of confidence. Locally relevant means
that the information is relevant to local conditions. In other
words, officers cannot rely on widely held stereotypes, or even
on the fact that in some areas of the country, a certain race/
ethnicity is linked to a certain crime. Officers have to have
information that supports a link between race/ethnicity and a
specific crime in their own jurisdiction.11 It is not absolutely
necessary that the information be generated locally, but it is
necessary that it be reasonably relevant to the local area.12
10 For instance, potential sources of trustworthy information include officer
observations, tips (e.g., from colleagues or credible witnesses) and crime reports.
11 This is the case, for instance, when a local victim reports that the
perpetrator was of a particular race/ethnicity.
12 This statement recognizes, for instance, the cross-jurisdictional nature of
criminal activity. Thus, for instance, if a jurisdiction experienced a great surge
in car thefts that were associated with a particular racial/ethnic group, a nearby
jurisdiction might reasonably link the crimes to the identified group.

This trustworthy, locally relevant information must link
specific suspected unlawful activity to a person or persons of a
particular race/ethnicity. The requirement of specific suspected
unlawful activity precludes the use of race/ethnicity as a general
indicator of criminal activity. The information must pertain to
a specific type of unlawful activity (e.g., a commercial
robbery) or category of unlawful activity (e.g., activities related
to drug production/distribution). To allow officers to use race/
ethnicity to establish reasonable suspicion or probable cause
based on the fact that most crimes in their jurisdiction are
committed by, for instance, Hispanics, would allow officers too much
latitude to treat an entire segment of the population as potential
suspects and would be prohibited by the policy.
Below are two examples of situations in which officers,
applying the proposed policy, could consider race/ethnicity in
establishing reasonable suspicion or probable cause:
Reports of undercover officers and several recent
arrests indicate that white students from the local college are
buying cocaine at a particular inner-city apartment complexthe residents of
which are primarily black. In this situation, applying the proposed
policy, an officer could consider the race of citizens visiting this complex
as one factor in a set of factors to establish, for
instance, reasonable suspicion to detain. (For example,
other factors an officer might use when
considering the totality of the circumstances
might include having observed on several subsequent
nights a student with prior arrests for
drug possession who is evidencing intoxicated
behavior going to the residence of a known drug
dealer for 2 minutes in the middle of the night.)
Thus, the officer could consider race as one factor
that could justify a stop that is related to suspicion
of drug activity.
A number of middle school students have reported that
Hispanic men are selling guns to students

in the area immediately surrounding the
school. Again, applying the proposed policy, an
officer could consider the ethnicity of citizens
around the school as one factor in a set of factors
to establish, for instance, reasonable suspicion
to detain. (For example, the officer might
also have obtained corroboration through parents
observations and his or her own observations over
several days of a man matching the
students physical description standing in the
same location exchanging goods for money with
students, as witnesses described.) Thus, the officer
could consider ethnicity as one factor in
the totality of the circumstances that could
justify a stop related to suspicion of illegal gun
sales.
Below is an example of when the proposed policy would
preclude the consideration of race/ethnicity:
An officer sees a poorly dressed young African-
American male walking in an upper-class white
neighborhood. Without trustworthy, locally
relevant information linking African-American
males to particular crimes in the area, the officer
could not consider this persons race as a
factor among others in establishing reasonable
suspicion or probable cause. That is, this policy
prohibits officers from detaining people merely
because they are purportedly out of place by
virtue of their race/ethnicity.
Considering Race/Ethnicity in Initiating Other
Nonconsensual Encounters or Requesting Consent To Search
We have described restrictions on the use of race/ethnicity
to justify law enforcement activities that are covered by the
Fourth Amendment (e.g., detentions, nonconsensual
searches, arrests). Another provision in the policy extends
those restrictions to law enforcement activities that fall outside

Fourth Amendment restrictions, but nonetheless pose
great risks of being conducted in a racially/ethnically biased
way. Specifically, the policy restricts police consideration
of race/ethnicity in decisions to initiate even those
nonconsensual encounters that do not amount to detentions,13
and in decisions to request consent to search. Officers must
be able to articulate some reason (not necessarily
amounting to reasonable suspicion) for initiating even a
nonconsensual encounter that does not amount to a detention
or arrest and for requesting consent to search. They
cannot justify either action based on race, except when, as
previously discussed, they take into account trustworthy,
locally relevant information that links a person or persons
of a specific race/ethnicity to a particular unlawful
incident(s).
Ensuring Equitable Treatment
The policy provisions discussed above do not go far enough to
describe and prohibit racially biased policing activities.
Although the provisions place restrictions on police using race/
ethnicity as information to justify law enforcement interventions,
they do not prohibit officers from acting on that information
in a biased way, or from otherwise acting in a biased way.
That is, those provisions are insufficient alone as they do not
prohibit officers from disproportionately targeting certain
racial/ethnic groups who are suspected or guilty of breaking the
law. Nor do they prohibit officers from otherwise treating people
differently (e.g., without dignity and respect) based on race/
13 In other words, this provision extends the restrictions on the use of race/
ethnicity to even those nonconsensual encounters that do not require either
reasonable suspicion or probable cause. We use the term nonconsensual
encounters to encompass activities that require reasonable suspicion or
probable cause (e.g., arrests, detentions) as well as activities that do not require
those levels of proof. An example of the latter is when an officer approaches
a group of people and asks them who they are and what they are doing.
(Nonconsensual implies that it is the officer, not the citizens, who initiates
the encounter, but it does not necessarily imply that the citizens are opposed
to the encounter.)

ethnicity. We need the second provision reflecting the general
principle of equal protection.
As an example, this second provision prohibits an officer
from stopping a white traffic violator and releasing that
violator because he or she is white, and then stopping a black traffic
violator and requesting consent to search because that violator
is black. Even if the officer has acted in accordance with all
Fourth Amendment provisions, he or she has violated the 14th
Amendments Equal Protection clause. As another example, this
provision would prohibit officers from conducting Whren14 (that
is, pretext) stops only of a particular racial/ethnic group and
not of others, because of race/ethnicity. Thus, the policy includes
a provision that recommits the department to ensuring
equal protection in all aspects of its work: Except as provided
above, race and ethnicity shall not be motivating factors in
making law enforcement decisions.
The qualification except as provided above is necessary
to allow officers, in very restricted circumstances, to treat people
differently on the basis of race/ethnicity (for instance, when
trustworthy, locally relevant information links a person(s) of a
particular race/ethnicity to specific unlawful activity). Those
narrow exceptions aside, the provision sets up the but for
test for officers in evaluating all of their interactions with
citizens. For example, officers should ask themselves, Would I be
engaging this person but for the fact that this person is black?
Would I be asking this question of this person but for the fact
that this person is white?
Together, the provisions above prohibit racially biased policing.
They will prompt officers to carefully consider their
motives for engaging citizens, and tightly circumscribe their
use of race/ethnicity in making enforcement decisions.
14 In Whren et al. v. United States (517 U.S. 806, 1996), the Supreme Court
held that, as long as a traffic law is violated, an officers underlying motive
for stopping the vehicle (e.g., to check for drugs) is irrelevant. Important for
this discussion, the court noted that conducting selective enforcement on
the basis of race (e.g., making a pretext stop because of a persons race) is
prohibited by the 14th Amendments Equal Protection clause.

Preventing Perceptions of Biased Policing
A number of minority citizens who participated in our focus
groups acknowledged that they would be much more likely to
suspect that a police stop was racially motivated if they were
treated discourteously or not informed of the reason rather than
being treated with respect and told why the stop was made.
Some of the racial profiling policies we reviewed reflected
this by including provisions emphasizing the need to prevent
perceptions of racial bias. Part B of our proposed policy includes
some of these directives.
Specifically, we propose that an officer who detains a pedestrian
or motorist do the following:15
 Be courteous and professional.
 Introduce him- or herself to the citizen (providing
name and agency affiliation), and state the reason
for the stop as soon as practical, unless providing
this information will compromise officer or public
safety. In vehicle stops, the officer shall provide this
information before asking the driver for his or her
license and registration.
 Ensure that the detention is no longer than necessary
to take appropriate action for the known or suspected
offense, and that the citizen understands the
purpose of reasonable delays.
 Answer any questions the citizen may have, including
explaining options for traffic citation disposition,
if relevant.
 Provide his or her name and badge number when
requested, in writing or on a business card.
15 We support, also, the comprehensive list of practices suggested for traffic
stops by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in its publication,
Strengthening the Citizen and Law Enforcement Partnership at the Traffic Stop:
Professionalism Is a Two-Way Street (DOT HS 809 180, December
2000). See also the relevant provisions in the Sample Professional Traffic
Stops Policy and Procedure developed by the International Association of
Chiefs of Police (n.d.).

 Apologize and/or explain if he or she determines that
the reasonable suspicion was unfounded (e.g., after
an investigatory stop).
Some of these provisions merit further discussion of how
they were developed.
The second provision that directs the officer to introduce
him- or herself and provide a reason for the stop was the
subject of much focus group discussion. Not surprisingly,
virtually all citizens favored initiating stops this way. Practitioners
had mixed opinionssome advocated this method of contact,
and others criticized it. The critics claimed that they need to
get a citizens license and registration before stating the reason
for a stop, lest the citizen argue and refuse to turn over the
papers. On the other hand, officers who generally provide the
reason for the stop up front said such cases are rare and, when
they occur, manageable. We believe that providing an introduction
and a reason for a stop sets a professional tenor and
establishes clear, direct and respectful communication between
the citizen and officer. We believe that these benefits outweigh
the infrequent negative citizen response.
Providing a name and badge number upon request is standard
within departments, but providing a business card is not.
Citizens in our focus groups perceived that action as a very
positive sign of professionalism and accountability. Some
departments have adopted as standard practice the provision of
business cards following all detentions.
Some of the citizens in the focus groups had been detained
because, presumably, they resembled someone who was being
sought. Many of these participants expressed continued anger
over the event, and lamented that if only the officer had
apologized or explained the circumstances, they would have
felt differently. Respectfully explaining a stop and, in some cases,
offering an apology for any inconvenience caused by the stop,
has great potential for reducing the residual ill effects of such
encounters. (The officer is not apologizing for what may have
been lawful and proper actions, but rather for the inconvenience
and embarrassment the stop caused the citizen.)

Compliance, Supervision and Accountability
Supervisors have important responsibilities in ensuring
compliance with new policies. They must hold those officers
who fail to comply accountable, taking disciplinary action
as appropriate.
CONCLUSION
A policy that delimits the circumstances in which race/ethnicity
can be considered in law enforcement decisions is critical
to any department plan to respond to racially biased policing
and the perceptions of its practice. The overwhelming majority
of officers on our streets are well-intentioned and do not
want to engage in racially biased policing. However, very few
departments have meaningful policies that articulate the
circumstances in which race/ethnicity can and cannot be used to
make decisions. A chief executive must not only declare a
prohibition against racially biased policing, but also clearly define
the prohibited conduct in policy.

5 - Recruitment and Hiring
This chapter addresses issues and recommendations related to
recruiting and hiring police officers toward the goal of reducing
racial bias in policing. While the chapter does not comprehensively
cover all issues related to recruitment and hiring of
police personnel, it does address those most clearly and directly
associated with racial bias. The important, complex legal issues
related to affirmative action laws and associated
consent decrees are also beyond the scope of this chapter.
Recruitment and hiring policies and practices have the potential
to reduce racial bias in policing in two basic ways: (1)
by hiring officers who can police in an unbiased manner, and
(2) by establishing a police workforce that reflects the racial
demographics of the community the agency serves.
RECRUITING AND HIRING
UNBIASED POLICE OFFICERS
Good police officers carry out their duties with fairness,
integrity, diligence, and impartiality. They respect basic human rights
and civil liberties. They know how to communicate effectively
and respectfully to people of any race, culture or background.
They make the effort to understand the culture, language, mores,
and customs of whatever population they are policing, and
to get others to understand their own perspective. They look
for ways to resolve disputes and address chronic community
problems without creating or aggravating racial tension. They

do not rely solely on their arrest powers to establish their
authority. They exercise their professional discretion thoughtfully
and judiciously. They understand why some communities distrust
the police as an institution, and work hard to earn their
trust. They reject racial and cultural stereotypes, recognizing
how unfair, inadequate and even dangerous they are to effective
policing. They have the self-confidence and courage that
is sometimes needed to reject the biased attitudes and behavior
they occasionally find among fellow police officers. These
qualities are essential to reducing racial bias in policing.
Many police officers today have these qualities, and it is in
no small measure because of how they police that there is not
greater tension between the police and citizens in many
communities. Police agencies must seek to recruit and hire more
applicants who have, and can further develop, these qualities.
To recruit and hire such applicants is no simple matter, however.
It calls not only for making judgments about applicants
racial attitudes, but also for predicting how applicants would
act on those attitudes while working in the highly autonomous
and discretionary environment of street policing.
It is important to bear in mind that few, if any, people are
totally free of bias in one form or another. Most people
stereotype others whom they dont know in some, usually benign,
way. The search for unbiased police officers is not a search for
the saintly and pure, but rather a search for well-intentioned
individuals who, at a minimum, are willing to consider and
challenge their own biases and make a conscious effort not to
allow them to negatively affect their decision-making as officers.
Nor is it the case that racial bias operates only when white
police officers are biased against minority citizens. Racial bias
in policing can operate in many different directions. Minority
officers themselves can harbor biasesagainst white citizens
or members of other minority groups, or even members of their
own minority group.
Police recruitment messages should appeal not merely to
potential applicants desire for the adventure of policing or the
wages and benefits offered, but also to a spirit of fairness,
justice and racial equality. It is important to try to overcome some
potential applicants mistrust of the police institution and the

perception that the police serve only to preserve a social order,
to the disadvantage of racial and cultural minorities.
Recruitment messages should promote policing as an opportunity to
serve society in ways that can truly advance justice and racial
harmony. These messages might go so far as to acknowledge
past problems in policing and the lingering perceptions of
racial bias, and to suggest to potential applicants that becoming a
police officer is a powerful way to improve conditions. Police
executives should solicit input from the community, particularly
minority communities, as well as from professional advertisers
and marketers in crafting and delivering recruitment
messages.
In the search for unbiased police officers, personnel staff
must consider applicants own statements on matters involving
race and what background investigations might reveal about
applicants character, reputation and documented history.
Applicant interviews, whether conducted by community members
or police staff, might include questions that reveal
applicants understanding and attitudes about race relations
and police-community relations. Asking the questions alone
signals to applicants that their attitudes about race are
important to the police agency, and that the agency will not tolerate
racial bias. Applicants will sometimes admit to harboring
attitudes and opinions that one might expect they would keep to
themselves. While not foolproof, if one wants to know about
applicants racial attitudes and biases, there is no better place
to start than by asking them directly.
Background investigations should explore many facets of
applicants lives, including clues about how they feel and act
toward members of other racial and cultural groups. It is
especially important to look for applicants who have some
experience interacting with members of other races and cultures, and
to assess how well they have done so. While no single factor
should dictate whether an agency offers an applicant employment,
some factors that personnel staff might consider when
assessing an applicant include
 what people of other races and cultures say about
the applicant;

 whether the applicant has ever experienced being
in the racial minority in any setting; and
 whether the applicant has ever been in a situation
where there was racial tension or conflict, and if so,
how the applicant handled the situation.
Psychometric instruments have been developed to measure
racial attitudes and bias, but few police agencies use them in
screening applicants. Perhaps someday such instruments will
be validated and gain wider acceptance as a predictive tool for
police hiring, but as yet, that has not occurred. Police
executives should be open to learning more about using
psychometric instruments, but we do not know enough about them to
recommend them yet.
Recommendation: Personnel staff should carefully evaluate
applicants character, reputation and documented history as they
relate to racially biased attitudes and behavior.
HIRING A RACIALLY DIVERSE POLICE WORKFORCE
A police agency whose officers reflect the racial demographics
of the community they serve fulfills several important purposes
in reducing racial bias in policing. First, it conveys a sense of
equity to the public, especially to minority communities. Second,
it increases the probability that, as a whole, the agency
will be able to understand the perspectives of its racial
minorities and communicate effectively with them. Third, it increases
the likelihood that officers will come to better understand and
respect various racial and cultural perspectives through their
daily interactions with one another.
Agencies hiring practices are one signal to a community of
how police leaders view the relationship of the police with
various racial and cultural groups. Diversity in the police ranks is
necessary to earn minority trust and manifest equity in the public
image of the police. Where the police force reasonably reflects the
communitys racial makeup, it promotes a general sense of fairness.
Where it does not, it invites suspicion and mistrust as to
why members of various racial and cultural groups are not willing
or able to serve in the police ranks. This is not to say that

having a racially representative workforce guarantees that the
police agency will be free from racial bias or necessarily perceived
as fair by the public, but at a minimum, it can demonstrate a
good-faith commitment on the part of police leaders to work toward
those goals. Police agencies across America have made substantial
progress toward racial representation over the past several
decades. Nationally, they have nearly achieved proportional
representation of African-American officers.1 To be sure, this varies
across jurisdictions: some police agencies have achieved proportional
representation, while others remain far from it. A general
sense of fairness in police employment opportunities can reduce
underlying mistrust of the police among minority citizens, a
mistrust that can affect how minorities and police officers relate to
one another on the streets.
Having a racially representative police workforce also enhances
the range of experiences and communication skills that
are essential to effective policing. Having police officers who
understand and empathize with various cultures and socioeconomic
conditions can translate into more effective street policing in many
ways. In some communities, this means having bilingual officers
who can communicate with minorities who dont speak English.
It is well understood that much of racial bias and prejudice
stems from peoples fear of what (and whom) they do not know.
Ignorance of the perspectives, manners and customs of other
races and cultures can fuel officers fears and increases the
likelihood that citizens motives and actions will be misunderstood.
It is further well understood that police officers come to form
special bonds with and rely heavily on one another. Given the
opportunity, they will usually look beyond one anothers race
and culture to find common bonds and, in the process, almost
inevitably come to learn more about, and respect and appreciate,
their diverse racial and cultural identities. Simply put, racial
bias and prejudice thrive when members of different races
are isolated from one another, and they dissipate the more that
1 Reaves, B., and A. Goldberg (1999). Law Enforcement Management and Administrative
Statistics, 1997: Data for Individual State and Local Agencies With
100 or More Officers. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau
of Justice Statistics.

members of different races interact. Police executives can create
such opportunities to interact by surrounding their officers
with colleagues of different races and cultures. (Police executives
must then, of course, manage their agencies so as not to
generate friction and factions along racial lines among the
officers, but that discussion goes beyond the scope of this chapter.)
Recommendation: Police executives should strive to hire a workforce
that reflects the highest professional standards and the racial and
cultural demographics of the community they serve.
RECRUITING MINORITY APPLICANTS
Recruiting minority applicants, especially in highly competitive
labor markets, requires commitment and effort. Police executives
must communicate that commitment to their recruiting
staff and devote the resources necessary to achieve minority
recruitment goals.
Police recruiters themselves should reflect the communitys
racial and cultural makeup. They may well be the only direct
contact that potential applicants have with police personnel:
meeting officers of different races and cultural backgrounds
signals a police agencys interest in recruiting similarly diverse
applicants. It is not essential that recruiters always be matched
with potential applicants of their own race or culture; at times,
though, such matches are helpful. In addition, recruiting materials
such as brochures, videos, posters, television commercials,
and websites should depict a diverse group of police officers
from the agency.
Recruiters must first understand the rationale for hiring a
diverse workforce, and be committed to this goal. They must
be able to articulate the rationale to potential applicants and to
the public at large; they will surely be asked to do so. It is also
important that the agencys current employees understand the
benefits of a diverse and representative workforce, and that the
agencys hiring standards need not and will not be lowered to
achieve this objective. Police executives should try to get police
union support for minority recruitment. Such efforts help
ensure that newly hired minority officers do not enter a hostile
organizational environment.

Being committed to a diverse workforce means more than
just acknowledging numeric goals. If recruiting and hiring
initiatives are to help in reducing racial bias in policing, they must
aspire to more than just filling racial quotas. They must strive
to bring into the agency people who themselves are committed
to policing fairly and without bias.
Recruiters should use several methods for recruiting minority
applicants. The particular methods they should adopt
will vary from community to community, depending on the
available opportunities. Among the many methods for recruiting
minority applicants are the following:
 Recruiting at historically black colleges and
universities. A high percentage of African-American
college students are drawn to studies in the social
sciences, social work and education, all disciplines
that lend themselves well to policing.2 Historically
black colleges and universities, and any college or
university with a high minority enrollment, are
naturally attractive recruiting grounds for police
agencies. Recruiters should introduce themselves to
college career counselors and faculty who teach in
police-related fields (such as sociology, criminology,
criminal justice, and social work), and ask them to
be alert for students who show an interest in police
work.
 Recruiting through military channels. The military
forces have succeeded in enlisting large numbers of
minorities, and many of them, upon leaving the service,
will find another public service such as policing
an attractive career. Particularly in times of peace
and when military enlistment is strictly voluntary,
the military system will have screened, trained and
educated many good service personnel who might
make similarly good police officers.
2 See, for example, Carter, D., and A. Sapp (1991). Police Education and
Minority Recruitment: The Impact of a College Requirement. Washington, D.C.:
Police Executive Research Forum.

 Recruiting through current minority police officers.
Most police officers know people who have expressed
an interest in joining the police force. Minority
officers might know other minorities
interested in police work. Recruiters should encourage
minority officers to make referrals. Officers who
work in high schools should be supplied with recruiting
information to cultivate interest in police
work among good students, even though most high
school graduates will lack the maturity and experience
to be hired immediately.
 Recruiting through the religious community.
Churches, temples, synagogues, and other places of
worship are important institutions in many communities,
especially in some minority communities.
Religious leaders often know people who might be
interested in and suited for police work.
 Recruiting from other fields. Recruiting efforts should
not be limited to searching for young people looking
to embark on a first career. Police agencies are
increasingly finding excellent older applicants who
want to change careers. Social workers, teachers and
small-business owners often find policing an attractive
second career, and their fields are well represented
by minorities in many communities. Some
police agencies may do well to reconsider maximum
age limits for entry-level positions in order to tap
into the second-career labor market.
Some police agencies employ the services of high-profile
minorities such as athletes and business executives to promote
police work as a career. While this holds some appeal and is
unlikely to hurt recruiting efforts, it is likely that most
potential applicants are influenced more by people they know and
trust than by celebrities.
A final word about recruiting minority applicants: how the
police treat minority citizens on the streets can have a
profound impact on minority recruitment efforts. Citizens who
believe they or someone they know has been treated unfairly

by police because of their race will not likely be inclined to
consider policing as a career. Not many people join organizations
they consider hostile to people like them, even for the
purpose of trying to change those organizations. In this respect,
it is the patrol officers and detectives who work the streets
every day who constitute, for better or worse, the most
influential recruiting staff in any police agency.
Recommendation: Police executives should ensure that special
recruiting initiatives designed to attract minority applicants
supplement the agencys general recruitment program.
MANAGING PERSONNEL SELECTION
Police executives should periodically audit their agencys
personnel recruitment and hiring process for two main purposes
related to racial bias in policing: (1) to assess to what extent the
agency is succeeding in recruiting and hiring applicants, of
whatever race or culture, who can police effectively, without
racial bias; and (2) to assess whether the process has any adverse
impact on the hiring of minority applicants.
The first question to ask is whether, as a general proposition,
the process is designed to screen out unqualified applicants or to
select in qualified and desirable applicants. Obviously, all
processes do some of both, but the relative emphasis of these two
objectives can affect the success of recruitment efforts.
A recruitment and hiring approach that is designed principally
to screen out unqualified applicants is reactive. It involves
little effort to actively recruit desirable applicants, but rather is
restricted to weeding out unwanted applicants and selecting
all those who remain. The message conveyed to applicants is
that they must prove themselves worthy of joining the agency;
this approach entails little effort to sell the agency to desirable
applicants. The testing and measuring mechanisms are designed
to identify applicants who are demonstrably unqualified. Anyone
who exceeds the cutoff scores continues in the process.
The agency recruits all applicants in the same way and with
the same message, with no special appeal to minority applicants.
By contrast, a recruitment and hiring approach that is
designed principally to select in qualified and desirable

applicants is proactive. It stresses the positive qualities the
agency is looking for, such as sound mind and good character,
excellent communication skills, demonstrated public
service commitment, problem-solving skills, empathy, and
social tolerance. It conveys clear and consistent messages
about the value of equitable policing, and that the agency
will not tolerate overt racial bias. It tailors recruiting
messages to particular target audiences. Once the agency
identifies qualified and desirable applicants, it assumes that other
employers will seek out those applicants, and so it looks to
convince them of the benefits of becoming an officer in that
agency. The testing and measuring mechanisms, while also
serving to identify patently unqualified applicants, differentiate
among qualified applicants to allow recruiters to focus on
attracting the best of them. The difference between
these recruitment and hiring approaches can spell the difference
between succeeding and failing in hiring qualified,
unbiased police officers and achieving minority hiring goals,
particularly in a highly competitive labor market.
Recommendation: Personnel selection processes should be geared
principally to select in qualified and desirable applicants rather
than screen out unqualified applicants.
Most police personnel selection processes assess applicants
along a range of dimensions, including
 basic qualifications such as education, requisite
licenses and citizenship;
 intelligence and problem-solving capacity;
 psychological fitness;
 physical fitness and ability;
 current and past illegal drug use;
 character as revealed by criminal record, driving
record, work history, military record, credit history,
reputation, and sometimes, polygraph examination;
and
 racial and cultural biases.

An audit of the personnel selection process should gauge
the validity of each job qualification and each testing standard.
It should ensure that the job qualifications and testing
standards accurately reflect the nature of the police officers job as
the agency expects it to be done. For example, if the agency has
embraced the principles and methods of community or problem-oriented
policing, the agency, through the personnel selection process,
should assess whether applicants have the
knowledge, skills and abilities necessary to be effective
community or problem-oriented police officers. Job task analyses
should be current to validate the selection process.
The audit should also gauge the fairness of each aspect of
the selection process and whether the process as a whole, or at
any stage, disproportionately disqualifies minority applicants.
If there is evidence of disparate impact, the agency should
explore the reasons for it and look for ways to remedy it without
compromising hiring standards.
Police executives must assess whether the sequence of the
various testing stages disproportionately impacts minority
applicants. Conventional wisdom suggests that the least expensive tests
be conducted first, and the most expensive tests conducted last,
to preserve budgetary resources. This is usually a sound recommendation,
but if the process as a whole is disproportionately
disqualifying minority candidates, some reordering of the sequencing
of the stages might prove helpful. For example, if a disproportionate
number of minority applicants are failing standard written
examinations that measure general knowledge, that testing might
be postponed until after personal interviews of applicants have
been conducted that might identify those with the character and
attitudes the agency desires. Once such an applicant has been
identified, both the agency and the applicant might be better
motivated to prepare the applicant for the written examination.
In many jurisdictions, there are police exam preparatory courses
available to applicants. Those applicants who know they stand a
good chance of being hired if they pass the written exam might be
more motivated to avail themselves of preparatory training and
perform better on the written exam. This applies equally to
desirable minority and majority applicants.

Recommendation: Police executives should periodically audit the
personnel selection process to ensure that the hiring qualifications
and standards are both valid and fair to applicants of all
races and cultures.
In addition to examining the sequencing of the selection
process, the audit should assess whether the time between an
initial application and a job offer is excessively long, resulting
in qualified and desirable applicants being lost to employers
who can hire more expeditiously. Again, the testing standards
should not be compromised, nor the process short-circuited,
but better management of the process might expedite it.
Recommendation: Police executives should audit the personnel
selection process to ensure that neither the sequencing of the
testing stages nor the length of the selection process is hindering
minority hiring objectives.
A special note is in order about whether higher education
requirements help or hinder the hiring of minority applicants.
Conventional wisdom holds that higher education requirements
hinder minority hiring, but past research indicates this is not
necessarily so. In some areas of the country, minority applicants
tend to be more highly educated than majority applicants.3
This is especially true in areas where there are plentiful
opportunities for minority students to attend college. Given the many
benefits police agencies gain from having college-educated officers,
notably their greater propensity to relate effectively to
people of other races and cultures, higher education requirements
need not be sacrificed in the interests of minority recruitment
and hiringthey may even advance those interests.
Agencies should also carefully consider the impact of residency
requirements on minority recruitment. Many believe that
requiring police officers to live in the jurisdictions where they
police will work to the advantage of minority applicants. This
3 See Carter and Sapp (1991).

may be true in some, though not all, jurisdictions. Proponents
of residency requirements argue that they promote better policing
because officers are more likely to know and have a personal
stake in a community where they both live and work.
This is a difficult proposition to prove or disprove, but residency
requirements nearly always have the effect of limiting
the potential applicant pool from which police officers will be
hired, and that is seldom advantageous in any respect when
trying to recruit and hire the best-qualified officers.
With respect to both higher education and residency, it may
prove more effective and equitable to advance these worthwhile
goals through financial incentives to applicants rather than
mandatory requirements. In some jurisdictions, changing education
and residency requirements and incentives will require
legislation or labor contract negotiations.
Recommendation: Police executives should consider using financial
and other incentives to advance worthwhile higher education
and community residency objectives, and in any case, ensure that
these objectives do not hinder minority hiring objectives.
Readers are reminded that the entire personnel selection
process is the subject of much legislation and litigation. Large
bodies of literature and law guide and govern how any particular
police agency should conduct its personnel selection process.
Police executives are strongly encouraged to avail
themselves of sound and current legal advice when making
decisions affecting personnel selection.
Recommendation: Police executives should avail themselves of
sound legal and professional advice when making decisions
affecting personnel selection.
Finally, although this chapter focuses on recruitment and
hiring, and not on training (see Chapter 6), an audit of the
personnel selection process should extend to looking at
whether successful minority applicants are disproportionately
dismissed from the agency during subsequent recruit
training, field training and probationary employment periods.

These stages should properly be viewed as part of the
overall personnel selection and development process. Unless
and until police officer applicants are serving on the
street as permanent officers, their presence in the police
organization does little to advance the goal of having a
police workforce that reflects community diversity.
Recommendation: Police executives should determine whether
minority recruits are disproportionately dismissed from the
agency during recruit training, field training and probationary
employment periods, and if so, determine why and seek ways to
reduce that disparate impact.
CONCLUSION
Recruiting and hiring police officers can help greatly in a
comprehensive strategy to reduce racial bias in policing if police
executives are firmly committed to employing a qualified and
diverse workforce. Hiring standards need notindeed, should
notbe lowered as a means to achieve minority hiring objectives.
Lowering standards courts disaster for the agency and
the community, and is in itself an insidious form of racial bias.
There are many capable and conscientious peopleof all races
and cultureswho would make fine officers and who would
police their communities fairly and without racial bias; it is up
to police executives and their personnel selection staff to
dedicate the effort and resources to find them, hire them and keep
them.

6 - Education and Training
INTRODUCTION
In this chapter, we discuss the role education and training can
play in reducing actual and perceived racial bias in policing,
and recommend practical steps for police executives to take.1
We discuss education and training programs specific to the
police, as well as programs to educate the public. This is
necessarily a broad overview; the particulars of how to implement
the recommendations will not be found here. PERF hopes to
develop a detailed education and training curriculum in the
future. We will provide some additional education and training
resources on the portion of our website dedicated to this
project (www.policeforum.org) as they become available.
Education and training are but two aspects of what must be
a comprehensive strategy. Alone, they will not cure the ills of
police racial bias. Policy development, policy enforcement,
personnel selection, supervision, community relations,
operational strategy, accountability systems, and the tone set by the
chief executive must all align toward this goal.
Police executives should be clear about the objectives of
various education and training programs presented to police
and the community, and understand what such programs can
1 For the purposes of this chapter, education is the process of learning
cognitively, and training is the process of developing skill through repetition.

realistically accomplish. They can convey new information,
provide and refine critical skills, encourage compliance with
policies and rules, facilitate dialogue, and/or convey a
commitment to addressing the problem. They are unlikely, at least in
the short term, to alter individuals fundamental beliefs and
biases.
EDUCATING AND TRAINING POLICE:
TOPICS TO ADDRESS
Education and training programs relating to racial bias in
policing must be high-quality to be effective. They should
be developed with input from police personnel, community
members, and professional educators and trainers from outside
the agency. Each provides unique skills, perspectives and
credibility that, when properly combined, can prove critical to
effective learning. Education and training programs relating to
racial bias in policing should be carefully monitored and
evaluated to ensure they are credible to the participants and cover
the issues in sufficient breadth and depth. They should be
developed and presented in a genuine spirit of professionalism in
which police executives commit themselves to helping their
personnel understand and deal more effectively with an
extraordinarily complex matter.
Education and training programs to reduce racial bias in
policing should not convey an accusatory tone to police
personnel. They should engage personnel in discussion, rather than
preach to them. They should respect the complexities and
subtleties of the problem. Good programs and materials cannot
merely be taken off a shelf and presented locally; they should
be customized for each agency and community. (Recognizing
that many police agencies rely on regional training academies
for much of their education and training, we recommend that
each agency offer at least some agency-specific information to
its personnel, covering policies and procedures relating to
racial bias, for example, and that conveys leaderships
commitment to addressing the problem.)
Recommendation: Police agencies should develop and deliver
education and training programs relating to racial bias in polic

Education and Training
ing as a means to help personnel understand and address a
complex issue, without being accusatory.
Recommendation: Police and community perspectives must be
incorporated in education and training programs relating to racial bias.
We further recommend that education and training programs
should be tailored to agency- and community-specific needs,
concerns and experiences.
We do not propose that all of the topics presented here be
packaged in a single education and training program. In fact,
we do not recommend it. Considerations of racial bias in policing
should be woven into many education and training courses,
so that police personnel become mindful that all of their actions
shape public perceptions of and support for the police.
We recognize, of course, that fully integrating discussions of
racial bias in policing into other education and training courses
takes time, and that it may be necessary to develop a single
course of instruction to meet immediate needs.
Recommendation: Police agencies should integrate education
and training relating to racial bias in policing into a wide range
of curricula, although a single course of instruction may suit
immediate needs.
The particular topics described below can be addressed in a
variety of ways and contexts. They can be tailored for the various
police ranks and roles, but all police personnel, including command
officers, should participate. Limiting participation to line
officers and supervisors invites their resentment and detracts from
managements commitment to addressing the issues. Some topics lend
themselves to education methods, others to training methods. Some
lend themselves to both police and citizen participation;
others are better covered with police personnel only. All topics
should take into account perspectives from outside the police
organization, as well as perspectives unique to the police. What is
most important is that the topics and issues be covered openly,
honestly and in sufficient depth for real learning to occur.

Protection of Human and Civil Rights
Discussions of racial bias in policing should begin by having
police personnel reflect on the core mission and values of policing.
The founding principles of modern policing should be revisited,
as should the mission and value statements adopted by the trainees
own agencies. Police personnel should understand that the
protection of human and civil rights is a central and affirmative
part of the police mission, not an obstacle to effective policing.
Among these are the right to equal protection under the law, to be
free from unreasonable search and seizure, to be free from compulsory
self-incrimination, to have access to counsel, and to be
free from unnecessary force and violence. Sacrificing individual
rights in the name of law enforcement must be understood as a
profound failure of policing, rather than a necessary tradeoff. It is
only in this light that apparent conflicts between multiple police
objectives can be reconciled.
Recommendation: All police personnel should receive academy
and supplemental recruit training that conveys the message that
the protection of human and civil rights is a central part of the
police mission, not an obstacle to it.
Nature of the Problem
Education and training intended to reduce racial bias in policing
should address the nature of the problem. Police personnel
need to understand that racial bias is neither a simple nor a
one-dimensional issue. It is complex and takes many forms
some obvious, and others subtle. Examples include
 targeting motorists for traffic stops on the basis of
racial profiles;
 applying discretionary enforcement on the basis of
race;
 tolerating different degrees of disorder and deviance
on the basis of race;
 interfering with citizens routine activities on the
basis of race (e.g., stopping, questioning and searching
citizens without adequate cause);
 assuming someone is dangerous on the basis of race;

 unduly relying on race as a part of suspect identification; and
 providing different levels of police patrol and protection
on the basis of race, or because of unfounded
racial fears.
While the vast majority of police officers are not racially
biased in either their attitudes or their actions, it cannot be
denied that some racial bias does exist in policing. It is not
solely a matter of individual officers racist or bigoted views,
although that is part of the overall problem. Nor is it solely a
matter of officers intentional misconduct, although that, too,
is part of the problem. Racial bias exists in policing because of
more complex social and structural reasons, as well, and most
police officers recognize this, at least intuitively. Good
education and training can help them understand the issues more
clearly and allow them to participate in finding solutions to
the problem.
Recommendation: Education and training programs relating to
racial bias in policing should more precisely define the numerous
dimensions, complexities and subtleties of the problem.
Evidence of Racial Bias in Policing
Education and training programs should present what evidence
exists about the forms and dimensions of racial bias in policing
(see e.g., Walker, Spohn and DeLone 2000; Bureau of Justice
Statistics 2001). They should present public opinion and survey
data on perceptions of racial bias, as well as statistical data
on such things as police stops, searches and arrests, and case
dispositions for minority and majority citizens.
Some police officers remain unconvinced of police racial
bias, at least in their own agencies. Consequently, evidence for
it at the national or state level takes the discussion only so far.
For education and training to be most productive, facts from
the local level should be presented, as the experiences of police
trainees own agencies and communities are the most relevant to
them. Good data may not have been effectively collected
or analyzed at the local level, but even in its absence, local

experiences should be discussed and considered against the
national, state or regional picture.
Racial bias in policing does not manifest itself the same
way in every jurisdiction. Thus, it might make sense in one
jurisdiction to explore how racial bias plays out in police
efforts to interdict illegal drug shipments along major highways,
but not make sense to do so in a jurisdiction where drug
trafficking is not a major concern. In some jurisdictions,
the potential for racially biased policing might manifest itself most
prominently in how police handle problems associated with
disorderly youth, gangs, migrant workers, or any number of
other concerns.
Discussions of the evidence of racial bias need not be limited
to the police function, but might profitably extend to the
prosecutorial, judicial and correctional functions, as well. This
can help police personnel put the issue into a larger context.
Well-conducted research, properly presented, can put some facts
on the table, facts that can serve as the basis for subsequent
discussions about the reasons for racial bias, and what might
be done to reduce it.
Recommendation: Education and training programs should
present the available data about racial bias in policing and
throughout the criminal justice system.
Effects of Racially Biased Policing on
Individual Citizens, Police and the Community
Surveys indicate that a significant number of minority
citizens harbor deep mistrust of the police. Even many white
citizens believe that police engage in racial profiling of
minorities. Police personnel should consider how the level of
public trust in the police affects their ability to carry out
their duties. Specifically, they should consider how public
support for police policies and initiatives is eroded, how
the flow of information from citizens to police so necessary
for effective criminal investigations and problem-solving is
inhibited, and how police officers themselves are placed at
greater risk because of mistrustful citizens who might harm
or fail to assist them.

Personal testimonials from minorities who have suffered from
the effects of racial profiling or other forms of racial bias
in policing can be effective in personalizing the problem and
emphasizing the real harm caused to real people. Police personnel need to
hear how racially biased actions can have profoundly damaging
and long-lasting effects on citizens. Those effects range from
embarrassment and humiliation, to fear and mistrust, to anger and
rage. For personal testimonials to be most effective, the citizens
who talk about their experiences should be credible to the police;
there should be no doubt that the poor treatment they received
was unwarranted. Known criminal offenders or people who are
perceived to be advancing a political causewhile they might
have valuable things to sayare unlikely to have the credibility
needed to make this method of instruction effective.
Recommendation: Education and training programs relating to
racial bias in policing should convey the impact the problem has
on individual citizens, police and the community as a whole.
Reasons for Racial Bias in Policing
Having established the nature of the problem and its impact on
individuals, police and the community, education and training
programs should turn to exploring the reasons for racial bias in
policing.
Racial Bias at the Individual Level
Discussions of the reasons for racial bias in policing commonly
start with the biases and prejudices of individual police officers.
In many cultural diversity training programs, police personnel
are asked to reflect on and discuss their personal biases and
prejudices. They are often asked to cite common stereotypes of various
racial and ethnic groups, and to test those stereotypes against facts
and others perceptions. Soul-searching exercises such as these
may prove useful for some participants, but too often, they also
evoke a negative reaction from others. Some police officers might
be offended by implications that they are biased, prejudiced or
bigoted, and might consequently tune out further discussion of
how racial bias in policing can be reduced. If self-assessments of
bias are used, trainers should be alert to negative reactions. We

are not convinced that, on the whole, having officers discuss their
individual biases is the most productive way to work toward
reducing racial bias in policing. As we said earlier, it is too much to
expect that education and training programsespecially in the
short termwill alter individuals deeply held attitudes and beliefs.
Truly biased, prejudiced or bigoted police officers should be
identified and dealt with through supervisory and disciplinary
processes, rather than through education and training.
Whether or not education and training programs should
address racial bias at the individual level is an issue regarding
which we make no definitive recommendation. However, we
do believe that focusing on racial bias at the organizational,
institutional and social levels will ultimately prove more productive.
Moreover, we believe it is more productive for education and
training programs to focus on racially biased behavior
of police, rather than racially biased attitudes.
Racial Bias at the Organizational, Institutional and Social Levels
There is ample historical evidence of poor police-minority relations
in many places, and even of institutionalized racial bias in
some places, during certain periods of time. Todays police personnel
should not be made to feel personally responsible for this,
but they need to know about it and recognize that larger societal
forcesbeyond those of individual police officershave been
responsible for some degree of racial bias in policing.
While most of todays police agencies do not engage in the
overtly biased actions of yesteryear, other forms of racial bias
still present in society can contribute to racial bias in policing,
however inadvertently. For example, most of Americas
communities remain heavily racially segregated, not by law, but
often by economic and social forces. Where there is racial bias
in bank lending and real-estate marketing practices, there is
racial segregation. Heavily segregated communities contribute
to police officers notions of who belongs where, and accordingly,
who is suspicious by virtue of their race and where they
are. In some communities, for example, blacks are thought not
to belong in predominantly white neighborhoods, and vice
versa, or Latinos are thought not to belong in Anglo neighborhoods,
unless they are there to work. Thus individuals can come

under suspicion, largely because it is perceived that they have
few legitimate reasons to be out of their own neighborhoods.
Police commanders may feel pressure, explicit or implicit, to
keep those who do not belong out of others neighborhoods.2
That pressure can easily be passed along to line-level officers,
with the expectation that they keep a close watch on individuals
who are out of place. Education and training programs
should help police recognize and resist such pressure.
In addition, there are organizational pressures on the police
that contribute to racial bias, or perceptions of bias, in
policing. In some agencies, police officers are still held to
enforcement quotas, whether officially or unofficially. Some
newer officers, eager to establish a reputation as being active,
see high-volume enforcement activity as the path to career
advancement. Organizational pressures can lead some officers to
conclude that conducting a lot of stops and searches will yield
a lot of arrests and contraband seizures. Some will go on to
conclude that they have a better chance of getting the results
they want if they stop and search minorities, a conclusion not
supported by the evidence (Harris 1999b; Bureau of Justice Statistics
2001). For officers assigned to special enforcement units,
particularly those that emphasize arrests and seizures for drugs
and guns, the pressure can be acute. It is helpful for police to
recognize and try to address these organizational pressures.
Police executives and field commanders must make sure that
crime control strategies are consistent with the principles of
democratic policing.
One approach to addressing how police should respond to
social and institutional pressures that can lead to racial bias in
policing is to have officers carefully consider the costs and
benefits of being right about race-based suspicions, and of being
wrong. Police are conventionally trained to give more weight to
the costs of not taking action and being wrong (e.g., not stopping
a suspicious person who turns out to commit, or to have
2 In fact, in many communities, it is not uncommon for citizens to call the
police about a suspicious person, a person who is suspicious only for being
a minority in a majority area. Such calls put an officer in the untenable position of being asked to respond to a citizens profiling.

committed, a crime) than to the costs of taking action and
being wrong (e.g., stopping and frisking a suspicious person who
turns out to be innocent of any wrongdoing). The matrix below
provides a framework for more fully understanding the
consequences of race-based policing.
Table -
Table headers - Police Take Action on Basis of Race, Police Take No Action
Row data -
Criminal Activity Is Occurring,
or Has Occurred Correct3 Incorrect
Criminal Activity Is Not Occurring Incorrect Correct
The following example illustrates what can happen when
police officers use a persons race to make enforcement
decisions. Police receive a report of an armed robbery that
just occurred in a predominantly white neighborhood. The suspect is
described only as a black man. Officers spot a black man in the
vicinity just after the crime has occurred. There are four possible
outcomes to the officers enforcement decisions. Each
outcome has consequences for crime control, individual rights
and public perceptions of the police:
Police Take Action on Basis of Race and Criminal Activity
is Occuring: The officers decide to
stop, search and arrest the man based on the
description of the suspects race and the mans
presence in the vicinity. Evidence subsequently
develops that proves he is the correct suspect.
In this outcome, crime control interests are
served, even though the officers may have violated
the mans right to be free from unreasonable
search and seizure (without a more specific
suspect description, the police may have lacked
3 Importantly, in using the terms correct and incorrect, we are not judging
the reasonableness of decisions. We use these terms to denote whether the
police action or inaction corresponds to the occurrence or nonoccurrence of
a crimebased on knowledge we would not likely have, but for the fact that
we are dealing in hypotheticals.

reasonable suspicion to stop him). Public perceptions
of the police will likely be mixed; however, because
the police got the right man, most
of the public will likely support their actions.
Police Take Action on Basis of Race and Criminal
Activity is Not Occuring: The officers decide
to stop and search the man. Subsequent
investigation proves he is not the correct suspect.
In this outcome, there is no impact on crime
control, and the officers may have violated the
mans rights. As to public perceptions, the police
will likely be criticized both for failing to
apprehend the correct suspect and for improperly
detaining the wrong suspect.
Police Do Not Take Action on Basis of Race and
Criminal Activity is Occuring: The officers decide
not to stop the man (who is, in fact, the correct
suspect), despite his matching the racial
description of the suspect. The officers feel they
need a more precise description of the suspect
to justify a stop. In this outcome, crime control
has been compromised because the offender remains
at large. The mans rights have been protected,
however. Public perceptions of the police
will likely suffer, because they have failed to
apprehend the offender.
Police Do Not Take Action on Basis of Race and
Criminal Activity is Not Occuring: The officers
decide not to stop the man (who is not, in fact,
the correct suspect) because they lack a more
precise description of the suspect. In this
outcome, there is no impact on crime control, and
the mans rights have been protected. Public
perceptions of the police will likely be mixedsome
people will want the police to be more aggressive
in stopping people who even remotely match

the suspect description, while others will feel
the police have used appropriate restraint.
Finally, education and training programs should explore possible
perceptions of racial bias as it relates to the operation of the
police agency itself. If there is racial mistrust and tension among
police personnel, it is highly likely that some of that mistrust and
tension will show in their attitudes and conduct toward the public.
For instance, if racial bias is tolerated within the agency, some
officers might conclude it will be tolerated in police-citizen
interactions, as well. Alternatively, officers who feel aggrieved
by racial bias within the agency might take out their frustrations on
citizens. These outcomes are not inevitable, but a climate of
racial mistrust and tension within the agency, at a minimum, inhibits
efforts to discuss and address racial bias outside of it. Education
and training programs should address these issues with the utmost
of care. Feelings may run high, and there may be pending
employee grievances or lawsuits to complicate matters. However,
the sensitivity of the issue and possible legal complexities should
not deter police management from, at a minimum, acknowledging the
issue and stating a commitment to working through it
openly and productively.
Recommendation: Education and training programs relating to
racial bias in policing should explore the reasons it exists,
especially at the institutional, organizational and social levels.
Key Decision Points at Which Racial Bias in Policing
Can Occur
As mentioned earlier, racial bias in policing can take a number
of forms. The focus is usually on enforcement decisions officers
make at the incident level, namely, on decisions to watch,
stop, search, and arrest suspects. But it is equally, or even more,
crucial for education and training programs to explore racial
bias at the strategic or policy level.
Enforcement Decisions at the Incident Level
At the incident level, racial bias can play a part at several key
decision points for police officers, including

Education and Training

deciding who is worth surveilling for criminal
activitywho is worth paying close attention to (including which vehicle tags to run);

deciding whom to contact or detain to investigate
suspicions;

deciding what attitude to adopt during contacts and
stops (e.g., firm, friendly, confrontational);

deciding what actions to make suspects take during
stops (e.g., getting out of vehicles, emptying pockets,
keeping hands in sight, assuming a prone position);

deciding whether and how to explain to citizens the
reasons for contacts or stops;

deciding how long a stop will last (e.g., how long to
wait for records checks or canine units for searches);

deciding whether to search, or request consent to
search, people and vehicles, and how extensive and
intrusive the search will be;

deciding how dangerous suspects are, and what level
of force (if any) is necessary to control them;

deciding what enforcement action to take (e.g., no
action, verbal warning, citation or summons, custodial arrest); and

deciding what charges to file (e.g., statutes vs. ordinances,
single vs. multiple charges, felonies vs.
misdemeanors).
Police personnel should consider what factors they rely on to
make such decisions, and how suspects race may or may not
affect their decisions. Many police officers insist, in good faith,
that race does not affect their decisions. Indeed, there is evidence
to support police claims that suspects actions and attitudes are
the principal influences on officers enforcement decisions.4 But
4 See Geller, W., and M. Scott (1992), Deadly Force: What We KnowA
Practitioners Desk Reference on Police-Involved Shootings, Washington, D.C.:
Police Executive Research Forum, pp. 200219, for a discussion of research
findings related to racial bias in police arrest and use-of-force decisions. Also
see Alpert and Dunham (1997), Force Factor: Measuring Police Use of
Force Relative to Suspect Resistance, Washington, D.C.: Police
Executive Research Forum.

police personnel can be encouraged to go beyond this observation
to consider how suspects actions and attitudes toward police
might be affected by suspects general perceptions of police
racial bias, and by officers attitudes and behavior during
an encounter. There may be room to improve the overall relationship
between police and minoritieseven offenders and those who
are predisposed to dislike the policein order to minimize
perceptions of racial bias and, consequently, the potential
for conflict during contacts, stops and arrests.
Recommendation: Education and training programs relating to
racial bias in policing should identify the key decision points at
which racial bias can take effect, at the incident level.
Education and training programs should cover relevant laws
and agency policies that guide and constrain police enforcement
decisions where racial bias might come into play. This
might include reviews, clarification and discussion of

statutes and case law relating to search and seizure,
custodial interrogation, right to counsel, due process, and equal
protection;

laws and policies that specifically address how officers may
and may not use race as a factor in enforcement decisions
(see Chapter 4 for the proposed
PERF policy on this issue);

departmental policies governing police discretion,
and the factors officers may and may not take into
account in the exercise thereof;

laws and departmental policies relating to so-called
pretext stops, including whether policies are more
restrictive than case law, and whether police management
encourages or discourages such stops; and

departmental policies governing how officers should
address various types of incidents (e.g., drug offenses,
domestic violence and incidents involving
people with mental illnesses).

Enforcement Decisions at the Strategic Level
It is critical that education and training programs go beyond merely
looking at how police officers handle incidents to consider how
operational strategy can contribute to racially biased policing and
the perceptions thereof. This issue is especially important
to police executives, commanders and supervisorsthose who make
most decisions about which operational strategies to adopt.
The discussion of how police operational strategy might
contribute to racial bias in policing should begin by having police
personnel challenge some of the assumptions underlying
conventional police strategy, which emphasizes criminal and traffic
enforcement as the primary means to control crime and disorder.
The expectation with the conventional strategy is that numerous
stops, searches, citations, and arrests will yield reductions in crime,
disorder and accidents. Under certain conditions, and with adequate
community input and support, intensive criminal and traffic
enforcement may be justified and sensible. But oftentimes,
intensive criminal and traffic enforcement falls short of the
desired effects, and instead, only worsens the relationship between
police and the minority community.
Police personnel should recognize that proactive enforcement
strategies should be based on sound research, have the
support of the community, and ensure effective crime control
while maintaining democratic policing. Police personnel should
also be informed about what the research reveals about using
race to predict criminality. Many studies have demonstrated
that race is not a useful predictor of criminality, either as a sole
factor or in combination with other factors.5 When police use
race to predict criminality, their predictions are no more
accurate than could be expected if, for example, they stopped people
randomly. Police personnel should understand that not only
are there legal and moral concerns about targeting minorities
for suspicion of criminality, but also that doing so is not an
effective crime control strategy. Furthermore, false predictions
erode public trust in and support for the police.
5 See Randall Kennedy (1997), Race, Crime and the Law, New York: Pantheon
Books, chap. 4.

Recommendation: Police should review how operational strategy
can contribute to racially biased policing and the perception
thereof.
Steps to Reducing Misunderstanding, Conflict and
Complaints Due to Perceived Racial Bias
Education and training programs should next turn to ways to
minimize the likelihood that valid police actions will be
perceived as racially biased.
Improving Officers Abilities to Articulate Reasonable Suspicion
and Probable Cause
Police officers should be well trained to articulate, verbally and
in writing, what specific information they relied on to establish
reasonable suspicion and probable cause. There are usually
multiple facts and conclusions that contribute to
assessments of reasonable suspicion and probable cause, but
some police officers do not know how to properly articulate
them. When an officer cannot articulate specific facts and
conclusions, prosecutors, defense attorneys and judges are left to
speculate as to what the officer was thinking, leaving room for
them to conclude that the officer used improper factors such
as racial bias in making his or her decisions.
For example, an officer with poor skills in articulating reasonable
suspicion might say only that the presence of a Hispanic man
in a predominantly white neighborhood led him to
suspect criminal activity. The officer might fail to articulate
more specific conclusions about the mans behavior, appearance or
attitudeconclusions that contributed to the officers
belief that he was engaged in criminal activity. Good skills in
differentiating lawful from unlawful conduct must precede
skills in articulating suspicions; it may also be the case that
teaching officers good skills in articulating suspicions can help
improve their skills in differentiating lawful from unlawful
conduct.
Developing Officers Skills in Handling Conflict
Police officers should be properly trained to deal with people,
including suspects, in ways that minimize the likelihood for

misunderstanding, conflict, hostility, and violence. Many police
agencies have found training in what is known as tactical
communication or verbal judo to be valuable. Training of
this sort should emphasize the importance of providing citizens
with adequate explanations for why they have been
stopped. Depending on the circumstances, officers can explain
their actions either when they initiate the stop or after the stop
has been concluded (see Chapter 4 for policy recommendations
on this point). Training should also emphasize the benefits of
an apology, or at least an adequate explanation, offered to those
citizens stopped who prove to be innocent of any wrongdoing.
An apology does not suggest that a police officer was wrong for
making a stop, but merely that the officer regrets the
inconvenience and possible embarrassment caused to the citizen.
Recommendation: Education and training programs relating to
racial bias in policing should teach police ways to reduce
misunderstanding, conflict and complaints due to perceived racial bias.
Alternative Operational Strategies Less Likely To Be
Racially Biased: Community and Problem-Oriented
Policing
It is not enough to show police personnel how conventional
police strategies can be racially biased. They must be educated
and trained in effective alternative strategies that are less
racially biased than conventional ones. Community and problem-oriented
policing strategies hold just such potential.
Several principles of community and problem-oriented
policing are directly relevant to racial bias in policing. Among
them is the emphasis placed on having police personnel develop a
comprehensive knowledge of the area of the jurisdiction to
which they are assignedwhether a beat, a sector or a
district. Essential to this understanding is getting to know not
only the general demographics of the areaincluding what type
of people belong where, and whenbut also, to the extent possible,
getting to know the particular routines in an area, including
which individuals normally belong where, and when.
For example, knowing that the Hispanic man coming out of the
back door of a business in a predominantly black neighborhood

after closing time is the owner can prevent a misunderstanding, or worse.
Knowing many citizens by face and name improves officers
abilities to differentiate between suspicious and
nonsuspicious people on a basis other than race. Getting to know
the communitys law-abiding citizens helps police overcome
stereotypes based on characteristics such as race. For example,
the more young black males officers know by face and name,
the less likely they will be to view all young black males as
suspects or potential threats.
Actively soliciting community input about crime and disorder
problems, what priority each should have, and how they
might best be addressed can reveal racial biases that police alone
might not recognize. Educating the public about problems can
help police secure support and resources for addressing them.
Garnering community support, especially minority community
support, for police actions can go a long way toward reducing
perceptions of racial bias.
Breaking down the broad category of crime and disorder
into specific problems, and carefully analyzing those problems,
helps police avoid making such crude classifications as good
guys vs. bad guys and good neighborhoods vs. bad neighborhoods.
It helps police get beyond assumptions about the nature of
problems and how to resolve them. Tailoring police and
community responses to specific problems on the basis of careful
analysis gives decision-makers a better opportunity to consider
how various responses might be racially biased before
those responses occur.
Tactics in addition to, or other than, criminal law enforcement
might prove not only more effective in resolving problems, but
also less likely to contribute to racial animosity
between police and the community. This is especially important
in the context of some drug and gang problems, when police
enforcement strategies can disproportionately affect young
African-American and Latino males (See e.g. Walker, Spohn
and DeLone 2000; Walker and Myers 2000). Taking careful
measures of the impact responses have on community problems,
including the impact on the police-community relationship,
can help police refine their responses appropriately.

Educating and training police personnel in community and
problem-oriented policing strategies does not guarantee that
the strategies will be implemented or that, if they are
implemented, racial bias will be eliminated from policing. But these
strategies, where implemented with the full support of police
management, can foster mutual trust and respect between
police and communities, and can bring into the open the many
aspects of policing where racial bias can play a part.
Recommendation: Education and training programs relating to
racial bias in policing should present alternative operational
strategies, in particular, community and problem-oriented
policing strategies.
EDUCATING CITIZENS
Much can be gained by educating citizens about racial bias in
policing, and the perceptions thereof. Many of the issues
pertinent to police personnel are also pertinent to the public. As a
first step in any citizen education initiative, police leaders
should publicly acknowledge the potential for racial bias in
policing, and stress their agencys commitment to reducing it.
The challenges police face in carrying out their duties should also
be addressed: in particular, how public pressure for aggressive
law enforcement can contribute to racial bias in policing.
Education programs and materials should inform citizens
of what they are obliged to do upon lawful police request. They
might also instruct citizens about the proper way to conduct
themselves when detained by the police, so as to reduce the
likelihood that officers might misunderstand their actions and
fear for their own safety. Whereas police personnel are familiar
with the requirements of the law relating to stops and searches,
some citizens might not be. Police should assure the public
that quality policing does not require that constitutional rights
be sacrificed in the interests of public order. Finally, education
programs and materials should emphasize the need for positive
police-community interactions, and encourage citizens to
work with the police toward common goals.
Education programs and materials can be tailored for the
general public, community leaders, people detained by police,

and those who file complaints alleging they have been victims
of racially biased policing. Materials and information can be
disseminated through the mass media, community meetings,
citizen police academies, and personal contacts between police
and citizens. In Chapter 7, we discuss how police agencies
can more fully engage their communities in discussions about
racially biased policing, and work with them to develop
effective responses.
Recommendations: Police executives should publicly acknowledge
that the potential for racial bias exists in policing, and
commit themselves to reducing that potential.
We further recommend police agencies should inform the
public about their responsibilities and rights during an
encounter with the police. They should reinforce the idea that effective
crime control strategies need to be compatible with the
protection of human rights and civil liberties.

7 - Minority Community Outreach
INTRODUCTION
Trust is vital to the success of policing in a democratic society,
and community outreach is essential for gaining trust. Gaining
the trust of minority groups is particularly challenging in light
of the long history of strained, and sometimes volatile,
relationships between the police and minorities. However, doing
so is critically important in the wake of nationwide concern
about racial profiling. Both the incidents and the perceptions
of racially biased policing lead to mistrust of the police.
Relying as they do on resident input, support and compliance, the
police cannot function effectively in communities where tensions
are prevalent. Outreach to minority communities is an
important component of any departmental strategy to respond
to racially biased policing and the perceptions thereof.
Approximately a third of the police departments responding to
the PERF survey reported that they have projects or programs
to strengthen their relationships with minority
communities. While many of these programs focus only on
addressing minorities perceptions of the police, others
represent concerted efforts to engage minorities in dialogue
and decisions about department operations. The latter types of
programs provide the key to developing a respectful and
trusting relationship between the police and minorities,
and to developing police policies and practices that are not racially
biased.

Trust between the police and the community is built through
long-term engagement. The police gain respect by consistently
demonstrating respect for citizens. Giving up absolute control
and allowing citizens to participate in decision-making affecting
how they are policed ensures a shared responsibility between
the police and the community. Police department efforts
to provide significant means for community input into police
operational and policy decisions are the backbone of community
engagement.
In this chapter, we discuss the importance of effective
agency outreach to minority groups, identifying the
competencies required. We discuss ways for departments to reach
out to minority communities to address racially biased policing,
and ways to build and sustain, at a more general level,
mutually respectful and trusting relationships. We also
describe innovative agency outreach initiatives from around
the country.
NECESSARY POLICE COMPETENCIES FOR
MINORITY COMMUNITY OUTREACH
Below we list the competencies necessary for the police to
effectively interact with minority groups. Some items apply to
all department personnel (including administrative, records and
communications staff); others, primarily to line staff and commanders:

the ability to communicate with residents in their
primary language;

an understanding of cultural issues relating to policing
and public safety;

a respectful approach to relationships with residents;

the ability to be fair and provide equal treatment;

the willingness to examine assumptions about links
between race/ethnicity and crime in the jurisdiction,
in order to bring stereotypes to light;

interpersonal skills and a sincere interest in engaging
with the community;

the willingness to focus community outreach activities
on traditionally underserved populations; and

 a departmental approach to human resources that
conveys the same respect for diversity that the
department is trying to convey to the community at
large.
These foundational competencies are necessary for successful
community outreach. Outreach efforts that occur in the
absence of these competencies are likely to fail and/or generate
cynicism.
Recommendation: Police department personnel should strive to
achieve competence in the areas listed above.
EFFECTIVE WAYS FOR MINORITY COMMUNITIES
TO GET INVOLVED WITH THE POLICE
Relationships are two-way streets, and for police-minority
relationships to work, minority groups must do more than just
verbalize concerns. Minority community members can get involved by

engaging in dialogue about solutions, rather than
about blame;

encouraging one another to apply for employment
with the police department, and supporting those
who do through the process;

developing a broad understanding of professional
police practices (perhaps through contacts with
national and state police organizations), in order to
form an objective standard by which to judge police
actions; and

acknowledging police officers who promote positive
police-community relationships with awards or
other commendations.
POLICE ACTIONS THAT HARM RELATIONSHIPS
WITH MINORITY GROUPS
Below we list some actions to avoid if a police agency is to
maintain successful relationships with minority groups:


lecturing (educating, without a willingness to be educated);

withholding information rather than being candid
about, and taking responsibility for, incidents that
cause harm; and

becoming defensive (e.g., immediately justifying a
deadly use-of-force incident that draws community
ire by explaining police policies and procedures,
without acknowledging the unfortunate loss of life).
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT ON THE TOPIC OF
RACIALLY BIASED POLICING
Police executives should be willing to discuss racially biased
policing and the perceptions thereof within their jurisdictions.
We believe that constructive dialogue between the police and
citizens can lead to an agreement that racially biased policing
likely occurs to some unknown degree within the jurisdiction,
but perceptions may not always reflect the scope and nature of
the problem. With this understanding in place, police and citizens
can begin to collaborate to develop ways to address the
issues.
TASK FORCES
A theme throughout this report is that law enforcement should
collaborate with citizens. The process of developing remedies
in concert with concerned citizens is as important as the remedies
themselves. The collaborative process fosters citizens
trust in the police, brings a fresh perspective to the issues, and
increases the credibility of, and receptivity to, responses. To
these ends, we recommend that police departments form a task
force to address racially biased policing and the perceptions
thereof.
A task force should be considered advisory to the agency
executive and comprise 15 to 25 people representing both the
department and the community. In selecting community members,
emphasis should be given to those most concerned with
police racial bias. The task force should include representatives
from the jurisdictions various minority groups, as well as

representatives from civil rights groups. Police personnel
selected for the task force should represent the chief and all other
departmental levels, particularly patrol. If applicable, a
representative from the police union should also participate.
In designating the makeup of the task force, the agency executive
should keep in mind that he or she will hear from critics
within and outside the agency regarding the problem and
potential remedies. The choice is either to have them participate
in developing constructive solutions, or to wait and hear
their critiques after the work is done. We recommend the former.
The task force could approach their work using a collaborative
problem-solving model. They should start by defining
and analyzing the issues in the jurisdiction. They can discuss
perceived issues among themselves, as well as collect
information through community focus group discussions, surveys,
department data, and other means. Discussions and surveys,
in particular, not only define the issues, but also allow citizens
to vent their frustrations and be heard. Once the issues have
been defined, the stage has been set for the critically important
process of developing responses. Again, this should be a
collaborative process, with both citizens and police personnel
deciding what areas require action, and what those actions will be.
Lowell, Mass., provides an example of a promising police-
community initiative. There, one of the focus groups for the
PERF project has been transformed into a police-citizen task
force. Citizens and police officers had initially met to discuss
racially biased policing, particularly as it might occur during
vehicle stops. After some finger-pointing, raised voices, citizen
accusations, and defensiveness on both sides, the group started
to develop ways to resolve the particular problems they had
identified. On their own, without prompting from the facilitator,
they agreed that they needed to meet regularly to continue
the process of sharing, listening and resolving problems. The
chief has continued the group as the Race Relations Council.
They have met several times and have come up with new ideas
regarding police training and police-citizen communication.
The mayor reports that this council is the best thing that has
happened in Lowell in a long time.

Chicagos work also reflects police-citizen collaboration to
address police racial bias and the perceptions thereof. Chicagos
police superintendent sponsored a series of forums for police
and minority community residents. Community activists were
recruited to join the police department in looking for solutions
to racial tensions and addressing concerns about police racial
bias. Department staff of all ranks were also invited to
participate. Before the first forum convened, participants
were surveyed for their opinions about racially biased policing and the
departments strengths and weaknesses regarding minority
outreach, and for their ideas about how to improve police-minority
relations and resolve issues.
An independent facilitator (PERF Executive Director Chuck
Wexler) moderated the initial sessions. During this first forum,
community members shared their thoughts, experiences and
concerns in the morning, and police staff were asked to listen
and hold their responses until later in the day. Lunch was
structured as a mixer, with informal discussions. In the afternoon,
police staff shared their thoughts and reactions to the morning
session, and the citizens were instructed to listen and not
respond. During the final session of the day, all participants joined
in a discussion of the issues and ideas raised earlier. Subsequent,
ongoing discussions have identified specific actions to
be taken by both the police and community members to address
the issues raised.1
Recommendation: Police departments should organize police-
citizen task forces to identify how the jurisdiction can effectively
respond to racially biased policing and the perceptions thereof.
Effective outreach involves more than police-citizen engagement
on the topic of race. Police departments should have long-
term, sustained programs for reaching out to minority
communities.
1 Without accountability and short-term wins, this process runs the risk of
being reduced to empty promises, making participants feel it is just a half-
hearted attempt to appease the community.

CONTEMPORARY AND PROGRESSIVE APPROACHES
TO DEVELOPING STRONG RELATIONSHIPS
WITH MINORITY COMMUNITIES
PERF used the survey and follow-up interviews with police
departments across the country to identify innovative
approaches for engaging minority communities. These approaches
can be grouped into the following five categories:
 dialogue,
 feedback,
 services and visibility,
 immigrant outreach, and
 minority group participation.
Below we describe both contemporary and progressive approaches
that fall within those categories. Contemporary approaches
are conventionalknown to and used by many police
commanders. They are very viable methods for building strong
police-community relations. Progressive approaches arent as
well known, but also hold great promise for enhancing police-
community relations.
Dialogue
Increased dialogue between minority groups and police
personnel can build trust and respect, and identify areas where
action is needed. Dialogue, however, is limited in that it does
not necessarily lead to action. While it is necessary for
outreach, it is not sufficient alone.
Contemporary dialogue might occur in
 sessions of police chief advisory boards (either one
board with members from several minority communities,
or several boards, one for each community);
 chaplain or faith programs involving minority clergy;
 radio and TV shows with call-ins; and
 forums or meetings.

Progressive dialogue might occur in
 beat meetings that are integral to joint community-
police problem-solving;
 facilitated discussions (with a neutral, third-party
moderator), which increase police and resident accountability
for following up on agreed-upon actions; and
 study circles, which are structured to include three
steps: organization of the community, identification
of areas of mutual police-citizen concern and agreement, a
nd action taken by both the police and minority groups.
Feedback Solicitation
Soliciting feedback from minority citizens provides opportunities
for traditionally underrepresented voices to be heard, sending
the message that the police value minorities input.
Contemporary feedback solicitation might include
 an open-door policy on the part of the police chief, to
allow minority groups to discuss their concerns; and
 police minority-liaison positions with access to command
staff (such access ensures that community
feedback reaches those who can make changes in
department operations).
Progressive feedback solicitation might include
 focused sampling of minority citizens in satisfaction surveys; and
 provision of complaint forms or placement of report-
takers in nonpolice settings in predominantly minority communities.
Services and Visibility
Police officers participate in a wide variety of community
activities unrelated to traditional law enforcement to make police
accessible and approachable and create opportunities for positive

interactions between officers and community residents.
Many of these are focused on minority communities.
Contemporary services and visibility might include
 attending community festivals;
 providing crime prevention assistance, such as engraving
valuables, educating citizens about personal safety,
facilitating block and neighborhood meetings, and
supplying information about local crime patterns;
 sponsoring police athletic leagues;
 participating in mentoring programs; and
 engaging in joint police-community activities, such
as cleanup efforts.
Progressive services and visibility might include
 opening youth centers;
 developing prostitution-prevention programs;
 creating community gardens; and
 providing tutoring.
While progressive, these services and visibility initiatives
are not necessarily identified or developed in partnership
with residents.
Immigrant Outreach
While the national discussion on racial profiling has largely
focused on black and Hispanic citizens, other minority groups
are also at risk of racially biased policing or the perceptions
thereof. In particular, many American cities are experiencing
growth in new immigrant communities, communities with
unique issues regarding how to relate to the police. Immigrant
outreach efforts create means for communication between police
and new immigrants.
Contemporary immigrant outreach efforts might include
 hiring bilingual officers and/or providing language
training for officers working in immigrant communities; and

 staffing police minority-liaison positions with officers
of the same ethnic background as the residents
they serve.
Progressive immigrant outreach efforts might include
 inviting immigrant community representatives to
educate the police about the communitys customs,
cultures, language, and public safety issues; and
 educating immigrant community residents about
American police practices, local policies and how
to access police services (for example, some police
departments are sending officers to places where
new immigrants congregate, such as drivers education
classes, English-as-a-Second-Language classes
and citizenship classes, to provide information).
Minority Group Participation
Minority group participation ranges from limited, sometimes
passive, involvement in department-sponsored events to
active involvement in advising the department about
police operations. This latter type of participation results in shared
responsibility for public safety.
Contemporary minority group participation might include
 presenting information during police academy and
in-service training;
 getting involved in chaplain programs;
 going on police ride-alongs; and
 joining citizens police academies.
Progressive approaches create opportunities for minorities
to influence police operations, help develop policies affecting
police operations and/or oversee how policies are implemented
(as with citizen complaint review boards).
Progressive minority group participation might include
joining

use-of-force and complaint review boards;

hiring and promotion boards;

Minority Community Outreach

curriculum review boards;

policy review and policy development teams; and

police-citizen task forces to address racially biased
policing and the perceptions thereof.
Recommendation: Police departments should use a combination
of contemporary and progressive approaches to provide multiple
opportunities for minority group interactions with the police.
Below are examples of progressive approaches that police
departments responding to the PERF survey have taken to
develop stronger relationships with minority communities. They
are intended to provide inspiration, and can be tailored to a
jurisdictions individual needs.
Dialogue
Study Circles Promote Goal-Oriented Discussions About
Police-Community Relations
Supported by the Study Circles Resource Center, the Buffalo
(N.Y.) Police Department is engaging a diverse group of
community members to form study circles, which are small,
facilitated group sessions that use a structured dialogue process to
address issues of police-community relations. The purpose of
the dialogues is to identify areas for improvement about which
citizens and police both agree, and about which they are in
agreement regarding needed responses. (The study circle
process is designed to capitalize on areas of existing agreement,
not to achieve consensus where none currently exists.) Study
circles serve to break down barriers between participants,
enhancing relationships so that productive exchanges will
continue after the formal process ends.
Feedback Solicitation
Task Force Seeks and Acts on Community Input
After hearing that minorities were dissatisfied with the handling
of misconduct complaints, the Kalamazoo (Mich.) Department of
Public Safety set up a task force composed of residents
from all identified minority communities. Based on task force
recommendations regarding necessary and desired features of

a new complaint system, the department developed a new system
and established a citizen review board.
Community Police Council Brings Citizen Concerns to
Police Attention
The mayor of Albany, N.Y., formed a Community Police Council
for citizens to share information with the police. The council
includes minority and white residents representing
neighborhood associations and business improvement districts.
Council members identify community concerns about quality-
of-life issues and police conduct.
Services and Visibility
Police Department Provides Services to Recent Immigrants
The St. Paul (Minn.) Police Department is working to empower
recent immigrant familiesRussian, Vietnamese, Laotian, Cambodian,
Hmong, and Ethiopianliving in public housing. Services
include counseling, victim assistance, tutoring, advocacy
and referral, gang prevention training, crisis intervention,
translation, and after-school programs. A dedicated staff of
one sergeant, seven officers, three community liaison representatives/
interpreters, and six summer youth workers are engaged full
time in serving these immigrant communities.
Problem-Solving Results in Services for Youth
In Adams County, Colo., community policing has been instrumental
in enhancing the relationship between the police and
numerous minority communities. Through interactions with
citizens, officers determined that the lack of after-school
activities for Hmong youth was leading to community disorder.
The police department established and runs a youth center.
The center has promoted improved relationships between the
police and minority communities, and even rival gang members
are forming positive relationships with each other as a
result of their involvement with the center.
Problem-Solving Leads to Services for Migrant Workers
The Washington State Patrol engages in collaborative problem-
solving with community members to address issues troopers

have identified in areas throughout the state. For example,
troopers in eastern Washington farming communities identified
various traffic safety problems relating to Spanish-speaking migrant
workers. As a result, Spanish-speaking troopers have been
instructing workers to wear seat belts and providing information
on how to obtain drivers licenses. In addition, the troopers
have talked with farmers about training migrant employees
before allowing them to transport equipment and produce in
trucks.
Immigrant Outreach
Joint Effort Breaks Down Barriers Between Police and
New Immigrants
An El Cajon, Calif., police captain observed that the Kurdish
immigrant community was growing, and that the immigrants
were in increasing contact with local police. The captain
reached out to Kurdish religious and cultural leaders from the
Coptic Christian and Shiite and Sunni Moslem communities.
The police and Kurdish community leaders invited school district
leaders to join them in a series of meetings in which
participants could jointly identify issues and barriers, and develop
programs to address them. The police, school district leaders
and Kurdish community representatives are continuing to talk,
breaking down barriers to communication and enabling more
effective policing in the community.
Citizen Council and Police Provide Support to Immigrants
The Central Weed and Seed Citizen Advisory Council (CAC) in
Seattles East Precinct has identified East African immigrants
as a growing population there. The East African community is
facing numerous cultural and social challenges. CAC is trying
to bridge gaps and open discussions about safety, social, school,
and family assimilation issues. A Seattle police officer has been
assigned as the communitys liaison officer, and he will work
with residents to address such community issues as follows:
 the difficulties in locating translators;
 the need for crime prevention and gang awareness
training for parents;

 the need to translate city documents (e.g., crime
prevention, school and community police academy
materials);
 the lack of understanding of the citys process for
accessing assistance/resources; and
 the religious barriers to immigrants working with
police (e.g., women at home alone cant let male officers
into the residence).
Minority Group Participation
Community Oversight Creates Trust and Openness
The Phoenix Police Department includes residents on use-of-
force review boards and on hiring and promotion boards. In
addition, a use-of-force forum has allowed community members
to learn about officers decision-making processes during
critical incidents. The department has sought community input
in developing cultural awareness training for officers, and
has instructed community members about the police culture.
Phoenixs police chief visits with minorities in their homes to
listen to their concerns, and has advisory boards representing
African-Americans, gays and lesbians, senior citizens, Native
Americans, Hispanics, and Asians.
Police-Community Meetings Lead to Action
In Denver, representatives from locally based advocacy groups
(e.g., the NAACP and the American Civil Liberties Union) and
neighborhood organizations have joined with the police department
to hold a series of community meetings on racial profiling.
Community members and line officers have collaborated
to develop policies and procedures related to racial profiling, a
protocol for data collection, police training in cultural diversity,
police retraining in Fourth Amendment concepts and mandates,
and training for citizens regarding police contacts.
Facilitated Meetings Engage Diverse Groups in Policy Changes
In Spokane, Wash., an ongoing series of facilitated meetings
involves a wide range of community stakeholders, including
concerned citizens, police personnel, the NAACP, the U.S.

Attorneys Office, defense attorneys, the local Commission on
African-American Affairs, the Native Americans Project, the
Asian Community Coalition, the American Civil Liberties
Union, the Police Officers Guild, the Department of Justice
Community Relations Division, the city council, and the FBI.
The meetings focus on three main issues: educating the public
about police procedures, collecting data on the race of individuals
stopped, and improving community access to the civilian complaint
system. As of this writing, the group is in the
brainstorming phase; they expect policy changes to result from
the process.
CONCLUSION
Police departments should include minority community outreach in
their efforts to address racially biased policing and the
perceptions thereof. Improved relations between the police and
minorities will increase officers ability to provide high-quality
policing services to all the residents in their jurisdiction. The
ultimate results will be mutual trust and respect, and shared
responsibility for public safety.

8 -
Data Collection on Citizens
Race/Ethnicity To Address
Racially Biased Policing
and the Perceptions Thereof
INTRODUCTION
Since racial profiling has become a national issue, many
jurisdictions have started collecting data on the race/ethnicity of
citizens stopped and/or searched by police. This practice reflects
accountability, openness and sound management. It is
interesting, however, that data collection became known early
on as the way for police agencies to respond, with very little
attention given to other ways agencies might address both racially
biased policing and the perceptions thereof.
There are pros and cons to data collection; thus PERF neither
recommends nor opposes such efforts. Instead, we believe
that each agency should decide whether or not to collect data
based on those pros and cons, as well as on political, community,
organizational, and financial factors.
In this chapter, we discuss the advantages of data collection
for information development and management, accountability
and trust-building. However, we also note the limitations
of data collection, and attempt to reduce to a realistic level the
very high nationwide expectations regarding what data can tell
us. For those agencies that are required or choose to collect
data, we provide recommendations regarding what activities
to target for data collection, and what data elements to include.

Further, we outline the constraints associated with data
analysis and interpretation, to promote responsible use of results.
Our purpose is to ensure that agencies that collect data do so in
a way that increases the positive potential and minimizes the
negative. Particularly important is that data collection be
associated with sound analysis and interpretation; without strong
processes in place for analysis and interpretation, data
collection can be more harmful than beneficial.1
WHETHER OR NOT TO COLLECT DATA
Again, there are pros and cons to collecting data as a response
to racially biased policing and the perceptions thereof. Whether
the positives outweigh the negatives, or vice versa, depends on
the myriad factors within each individual jurisdiction.
Arguments in Favor of Data Collection
Data Collection Helps Agencies To Determine Whether
Racially Biased Policing Is a Problem in the Jurisdiction
Eighteen percent of the respondents to the PERF survey reported
that their agencies had initiated the collection of new data or the
analysis of existing data for the purpose of assessing the race/
ethnicity of citizens encountered, stopped and/or arrested, and
many more agencies appear to be contemplating this option. A
common motivation is the desire to determine the nature and
extent of racially biased policing. By collecting data, agencies can
advance the debate from stories and anecdotes to empirical
evidence, and implement targeted responses based on the results.
Departments can identify agency policies or practices that lead to
racially biased policing, and use the data to stimulate further
inquiry into whether an officers behavior is biased. Departments
can also evaluate their progress in reducing racially biased policing
over time. Collecting information on police racial bias reflects
solid management practices, serving as a department-level assessment
of a critical national problem.
1 This is reflected in the International Association of Chiefs of Police (2001)
statement on Traffic Stops and Data Collection: [T]he IACP will only support
data collection legislation that ensures that an impartial and scientifically
sound methodology will be used for evaluating collected data.

Data Collection Helps Agencies To Convey a Commitment to
Unbiased Policing
Data collection conveys important messages to both the community
and agency personnel: that biased policing will not be
tolerated, and that officers are accountable to the citizens they
serve. The initiation of data collection lets citizens know that
the police chief is committed to addressing community concerns.
It also may deter unnecessary and/or illegal stops of citizens
on the part of line personnel.
Data Collection Helps Agencies To Get Ahead of the Curve
Some chiefs who responded to our survey or spoke with staff
initiated data collection within their departments in anticipation
of mandates (e.g., state legislation) that they do so. These
chiefs wanted to develop protocols that might become the models
for their mandates, rather than have protocols imposed on
them by authorities who might not have a full understanding
of the issues and of agency procedures and information systems.
Data Collection Helps Agencies To Effectively Allocate and
Manage Department Resources
The information gathered during data collection can be beneficial
beyond the examination of racially biased policing. By learning
about the quality and quantity of the stops made by
personnel, an agency can better manage and allocate department
resources.
Arguments Against Data Collection2
Data Collection Does Not Yield Valid Information Regarding
the Nature and Extent of Racially Biased Policing
Social science is not capable of providing valid answers to every
question posed. Indeed, there are many chiefs who sincerely would
like to gauge whether or not their departments engage in racially
2 A number of the survey respondents reported they had chosen not
to collect data or analyze existing data because racially biased policing was not a
problem in their jurisdiction. While this may be true for some jurisdictions,
an agency should not assume that it is without problems just because, for
instance, it has few ethnic/racial minorities and/or has few citizen complaints

biased policing, but are concerned about whether cost-effective
social science methods can produce the information they seek.
Specifically, while agencies can have reasonable confidence in
the data they collect from their officers regarding whom they stop,
there are legitimate questions as to whether there are, at present,
cost-effective methods for interpreting these data to reach valid,
meaningful conclusions. As discussed more fully below, the
challenge is to develop benchmarks or other standards by which to
determine whether racially biased policing is indicated by, for
instance, the fact that 25 percent of an agencys traffic stops are of
Hispanics. In effect, the process of analysis and interpretation is
one of trying to understand the full context of a stop (e.g., drivers
demographic makeup, enforcement activity including the assignment
of field officers), and of identifying what factors within that
context affect the police decision to, for instance, stop and search
the citizen. This is a very challenging endeavor.
Data Will Be Used To Harm the Agency or Its Personnel
A related concern is that the data collecteddespite the ambiguity
surrounding their meaningwill be used to disparage or
otherwise harm the agency or its personnel. Police executives
have concerns that questionable data interpretations will be
used irresponsibly by agency critics, including the media, and/
Footnote, contd.
of biased policing. Regarding the nature of a jurisdictions population, some
emerging empirical evidence indicates that racially biased policing may be
most prevalent in areas where racial/ethnic minorities are few (see,
for example, Meehan and Ponder 2000). Regarding citizen complaints,
most studying or working in the law enforcement field are aware that the frequency of
citizen complaints may reflect the accessibility of, and citizen faith in, the
complaint system as much as the behavior of officers on the streets. In other
words, few or no complaints of racially biased policing may reflect either the
lack of the practice or citizen reluctance to report it.
We believe police executives should be cautious in assuming they have
no problems with racially biased policing and, instead, we set forth below
more viable reasons that might prompt a jurisdiction to invest in alternative
responses to data collection.
Also, the argument that data collection will have a negative effect
because asking citizens what their race is will add tension to encounters is
easily and appropriately handled by using an alternative method for
identifying a persons race (e.g., officers perception, drivers
license information).

or used in lawsuits against the agency.3 Some of the survey
respondents reported they were not collecting data under the
advice of agency counsel concerned that the data could be
misinterpreted in legal actions, at great costs to the agency. Similar
concerns pertain to agency personnel. Line officers have
expressed great concern that data will be used against them in
legal or disciplinary actions, despite legitimate questions as to
the datas validity. When information linking disparate impact
to a specific officer without explanation or interpretation is
made public there can be significant harm to the officer.
Data Collection May Impact Police Productivity, Morale and
Workload
Another concern is that officers resentful of the implications of
data collection, and concerned about the results of their own
data, will suffer from lowered morale and decrease the enforcement
activities associated with the data collection. For instance,
officers may stop fewer traffic violators, resulting in decreased
safety for drivers. Furthermore, data collection will require
additional staff time for data processing and analysis.
Police Resources Might Be More Effectively Used To Combat
Racially Biased Policing and the Perceptions Thereof
Data collection may require not only additional staff time, but
also other resources. For instance, survey respondents, when
asked what resources they would need for data collection and
analysis, indicated they might need new forms, computer hardware
and software, additional personnel, and/or training and
technical assistance. The agency executive, in discussions with
citizen leaders, might, in fact, determine that data collection is
an appropriate response, or may choose to target financial and
staff resources to engage in minority community outreach, enhance
supervision capabilities, improve citizen complaint processes,
upgrade academy or in-service training, acquire in-car
videos, and so forth.
3 There are an increasing number of reports of defense attorneys using such
data in court cases.

Summary
Police agencies can use data collection on the race/ethnicity of
citizens with whom police engage to explore the prevalence
and nature of racially biased policing, to show accountability
to the citizens they serve, and to convey concern about this
important national issue. If an agency undertakes data collection,
it should inform citizens and the media about what the
data can and cannot show.
The critical issue of racially biased policing and the perceptions
thereof merits some agency resources. Because it is a
critical human rights issue, agencies should expect to invest in
effective prevention or remedial measuresideally, with the
financial support of local, state and/or federal government.
Agency executives may responsibly choose to invest resources
in responses other than data collection. (However, while rejecting
a full-fledged data collection system, they might consider a
small-scale and/or periodic data collection effort as one
aspect of an overall assessment and response effort.)
Recommendation: Police executives, in collaboration with citizen
leaders should review the pros and cons of data collection
and decidein light of the agencys political, social, organizational,
and financial situationeither to initiate data collection
or to allocate available resources to other responses to racially
biased policing and the perceptions thereof.
DATA COLLECTION PROTOCOL
In the previous section, we outlined the pros and cons of collecting
data in response to concerns about police racial bias.
For those agencies that decide or are required to collect data,
we provide in this section recommendations for doing so. We
base our recommendations on a review of existing reports
most notably, the recently released Justice Department publication,
A Resource Guide on Racial Profiling Data Collection
Systems (Ramirez, McDevitt and Farrell 2000)the examination of
nearly 150 data collection protocols from police agencies
responding to our survey; and discussions of data collection
with social scientists, executives, command staff, supervisors,
and line officers in focus groups and other PERF forums for

debate. Below we provide guidance regarding the following
questions:
 On what law enforcement activities should agencies collect data?
 What information should agencies collect regarding
those activities?
 How should agencies analyze and interpret the data?
We also discuss how and why a department should use a
police-citizen task force to design the data collection protocol,
and provide a list of the initial steps for setting up a system.
Activities To Target for Data Collection
Figure 1 shows a series of concentric circles that represent the
types of activities police departments might target for data collection.

The smallest unit (and innermost circle) is traffic stops
that is, vehicle stops based only on traffic violations. The next
circle denotes all vehicle stopstraffic stops and other investigative
stops (including those for suspicious activity). The third
circle represents vehicle stops as well as pedestrian stops that
meet the legal definition of detention.4 The outermost circle
nonconsensual encountersincludes all detentions, plus all
police-initiated encounters (with either motorists or pedestrians)
that do not amount to detentions. In other words, the outer
circle includes cases in which an officer approaches and questions
someone outside of the realm of a consensual encounter,
but does not legally detain the person.
Below we discuss each of these target groups of activities.
Traffic Stops
Many agencies that are collecting data are focusing on traffic
stops only. This might be considered sufficient because much
of the discussion about racial profiling has focused on traffic
stops, and, by virtue of their frequency, traffic stops hold the
greatest potential for police racial bias, or perceptions of it, to
occur. Traffic stops also likely represent the greatest number of
pretext stops. Although focusing only on traffic stops means
data are not collected for other, less visible, high-officer-discretion
encounters, some social scientists argue that traffic stops
can be used as a sample of activity for diagnosing whether an
agency has a problem. Another advantage to collecting only
traffic stop data pertains to the challenges associated with data
analysis and interpretation. As discussed below, identifying
benchmarks (that is, developing hypothetical comparison
groups for purposes of analysis) for traffic stops is somewhat
easier than for other categories of activities (though still a great
challenge).
4 Detentions require reasonable suspicion, and they occur when a reasonable
person believes he or she is not free to go.

Data Collection on Citizens Race/Ethnicity
Vehicle Stops
Collecting data only for traffic stops excludes obtaining information
about general investigative stops of motorists.5 Since a
major purpose for collecting data is to try to assess whether
officers misuse their discretion when they target certain people
for interventions, police agencies should seek to collect data
on high-officer-discretion/low-visibility activities in which racial
bias is most likely to occuras with vehicle stops. The
disadvantages of extending data collection beyond traffic stops
to all vehicle stops are the additional logistics, staff time and
costs associated with doing so. In addition, extending data
collection to all vehicle stops increases the challenges associated
with identifying appropriate comparison populations for purposes
of analysis.6
Detentions
Collecting data on all detentionsincluding traffic, vehicle and
pedestrian stopsincreases the advantages and disadvantages
discussed above. By adding pedestrian stops, an agency is including
activities that also have great potential for police racial
bias, or the perceptions of it. For some agencies, pedestrian stops
are barely visiblegenerally beyond supervisors observation,
and resulting in no paperwork unless a stop produces evidence.
If racially biased policing is occurring, these stops provide the
opportunity to misuse discretion, at times resulting in grave
civil rights abuses of citizens on the street. Another advantage
of including pedestrian stops is that officers who do not conduct
5 Again, we are using the term traffic stops to denote stops made for violations
of motor vehicle laws. Vehicle stops include traffic stops, but also include
other types of motorist stopsmost notably, investigative stops (e.g., when a
driver matches a suspect description).
6 As discussed more fully below, a major factor in interpreting these data is
trying to determine whom the police would stop in an unbiased world. This
is challenging enough when one considers only traffic stops. It involves
determining who is at risk for a traffic stop based on driving behavior,
enforcement activity and so forth. By adding investigative stops, we have to
additionally estimate who is at risk for being pulled over for, for instance,
matching a suspect description.

vehicle stops will also be held accountable. Again, though,
this additional data collection adds logistical issues, time and
costs, and yet another challenge to benchmarking.7
Nonconsensual Encounters
By nonconsensual encounters, we refer to instances in which
an officer engages a citizen in a manner not invited by the citizen,
but that does not amount to a legal detention (i.e., a
reasonable person would believe that he or she was free to go).
Again, the advantages and disadvantages discussed above are
multiplied. Collecting data on these encounters brings police
activities with great potential for racial bias, or perceptions of
it, under review. However, adding this information again increases
the problems associated with logistics, the challenges
in defining the target activities (i.e., which encounters are
nonconsensual), and benchmarking.
Summary
Determining which data to collect involves balancing the need
for information on high-discretion/low-visibility stops against
considerations of time, officer safety, convenience, community
priorities and resources. In considering this balance, we
recommend that if agencies collect data, they collect data on all vehicle
stops. This includes all detentions and arrests of motorists,
including stops for traffic violations, criminal violations
and suspicious persons/activities. It does not include pedestrian stops or
nonconsensual encounters that do not amount to detentions. We
believe that, overall, by collecting data on vehicle stops,
departments may achieve the appropriate balance between producing
information and expending resources. However, since the factors
related to this balance will vary across agencies, we believe an
agency collecting data may responsibly choose to target only
traffic stops or, possibly, initiate its system by focusing only on traffic
stops, and then, over time, include vehicle stops. A department
7 In terms of benchmarking, the added challenge is that the relevant ideal
comparison group for purposes of analysis and interpretation comprises
those people at risk of being stopped in a vehicle or on foot in an unbiased
world. We discuss the issue of benchmarking more fully below.

certainly can consider data collection on pedestrian stops, as well
(that is, expand to detention data), depending on the particular
issues raised in its jurisdiction.
Recommendation: If agencies are mandated or choose to collect
data, they should consider targeting all vehicle stops.
For those activities targeted for data collection (e.g., vehicle
stops), the agency should gather information on all incidents,
regardless of disposition. This point is best conveyed through an
example: Some agencies have decided to collect data on only those
traffic stops that result in citations. This decision may be based
on the desire to simplify data collection (i.e., rely on existing forms,
such as citations), or the departments might argue that traffic stops
resulting in official sanctions are of more concern than those that
lead to no disposition. In fact, agencies should pay due attention
to stops that do not result in official sanctions because, while the
group of no disposition stops may include a number of fortunate
drivers who could have been issued tickets but were not, the group
could just as well include a number of drivers for which there
were no legally justifiable reasons for the stops.8
As a final point, departments should review the existing data
relevant to their many and varied activities (beyond those discussed
here)data that might provide a more comprehensive picture of how
their services and law enforcement activities
disparately impact different racial or ethnic communities. In other
words, even if a department collects data on all vehicle stops, it is
important to keep in mind that vehicle stops represent just one
aspect of their work in the community. Existing relevant information
departments might reviewif available by citizens race/ethnicity
could include data on victims served, complaints filed,
citizens present at police-community meetings, youth involvement in
police-sponsored activities, and residential search warrants
executed. Such information could provide a broader sense
of how the agency engages its diverse communities.
8 One department protocol we reviewed requires that all no disposition stops
pass through an extra level of review.

Data Elements To Include
Just as agencies need to balance the need for information against
limits on resources in determining which activities to collect
data on, the same considerations apply to selecting which data
elements to include. On the one hand, an agency might develop
a system that has so few incident data elements that it is
essentially worthless for assessing racially biased policing. On
the other hand, an agency might develop a system that is so
cumbersome that even the best officers think twice about engaging
in the targeted activities.
Recommendation: Agencies that choose or are mandated to collect
data should include the data elements and response options
listed below.
Table 1. Proposed Data Elements and Coding
1) Time/Date
2) Location: Beat, division, block, intersection, etc.
3) Age: <18, 1829; 3039; 4049; 50+
4) Gender: Male/Female
5) Race:
White
Black/African American
Asian/Pacific Islander
Native American/Eskimo/Aleut
Middle Eastern/East Indian
6) Hispanic/Latino: Yes/No
7) Does citizen live in metropolitan area defined by U.S. Census? Yes/No
8) Reason for Stop
Reactive Stop (e.g., call for service, special detail such as roadblock) vs. Self-
Initiated Stop (e.g., proactive vehicle or pedestrian stop)
Vehicle Code Violation:
Red Light/Stop Sign
Speed [____ mph over limit]
Lane violation
Commercial vehicle
Following too closely
Failure to signal
Other moving violation
Hazardous equipment
Seat belt
Other nonmoving violation

Penal Code Violation:
Nuisance (related to quality of life)
Vice
Property crime
Violent crime
Violation of local ordinance
BOLO/Person wanted
Suspicious circumstances
9) Disposition:
Arrest
Ticket/Citation
Verbal warning
Written warning
No action
10) Length of Stop: 015 min.; 1630 min.; 3160 min.; 61+
11) Were citizens characteristics observable before stop? Yes/No
12) Comment Section: [allows for explanations for variables, if needed]
13) Employee ID: [Or at least beat, division, and/or unit]
SEARCH VARIABLES
14) Was a search conducted? Yes/No
15) What was searched?
If just collecting on vehicle stops:
Vehicle
Personal effects
Driver
Passenger(s)
If collecting on both vehicle/pedestrian:
Person: pedestrian, driver, passenger
Vehicle
Building/Residence
Property/Personal effects
16) Authority to Search?
Consent
Reasonable suspicionweapon
Incident to arrest
Probable cause
Inventory
Plain view
Other
17) Search Results: Positive/Negative

18) What was recovered?
Currency
Weapon (or gun and other weapon)
Stolen property
Illegal drugs/Drug paraphernalia
Other
19) Optional: Additional details
Again, we base our recommendations on a review of
reports on the topic, an examination of data collection protocol,
and discussions with experts.9
The rationale for the inclusion of each element follows and,
where appropriate, the justification for the items or responses
we recommend within elements (e.g., age and race categories).
The key to selecting data elements is to measure not only whom
police are engaging, but also the circumstances and context of
the stop. In effect, we are trying to collect circumstantial data
to tell us the real reasons citizens are being stoppedwhich
should reflect the motivations of the officers and/or the impact
of agency policies and practices. The contextual data officers
collect about stops, along with the benchmarking information
as described below, will help determine whether and to
what extent race/ethnicity is a motivating factor.
Reasons To Include Specific Data Elements
The data elements of time, date and location allow for assessments
of racially biased policing by time and geography. Driving
behavior can be expected to vary greatly across these
variables. For instance, driverseven drivers with varying types
of behaviorscan be expected in specific areas on specific days
(e.g., college students driving to the football stadium on
weekends, factory workers traveling to and from work mornings and
evenings).
9 Agencies that cannot accommodate a system that includes all the variables
we propose might exclude the search variables, but should maintain the
initial element: Was a search conducted?

Police should collect data on perceived age and gender of
those stopped because these characteristics correlate with
allegations of greater police abuse of power (e.g., young black males
are presumed to be frequent targets of racial profiling) and
with driving behavior.
We suggest separate items for race and Hispanic/Latino so
that a jurisdiction can retain the option of comparing their stop
data with census data that also separate these variables. The
particular codes (e.g., white, black/African-American) are
consistent with the census, except for the addition of Middle
Eastern/East Indian. While agencies can customize these codes to
their jurisdictions population, we advise them to retain the
ability to recombine categories during analysis to match census
categories. In the course of customization, departments
should avoid producing too many different response categories,
as such coding can be more unwieldy than useful.
Vigorous debates among PERF project staff on the issue of
how to measure race made it clear that this task raises not just
social science questions, but political/moral ones as well. Most
of the protocols we reviewed suggested that race/ethnicity be
gauged by the officers perceptions, reflecting a strictly social
science perspective.10 This method of measurement reflects the
research question posed by these data collection systems. While
there are a number of reasons to adopt a data collection system
(see the pros set forth at the beginning of the chapter), the
major social science reason is to determine whether officers are
using race/ethnicity inappropriately in deciding with whom to
engage. To the extent that officers make stopping decisions based
on race, they do so based on their perceptions of race, not on
the basis of drivers license information that they have not yet
seen. That these perceptions of race are likely erroneous in some
unknown number of incidents does not negate the fact that the
perceptions are the valid measure of race in light of the research
question. For example, an officer who thought the person he stopped
was white may have in fact stopped a citizen
10 Asking people to self-report their race/ethnicity may be offensive and/or
otherwise create or escalate tension in an encounter.

whose drivers license indicates he is Hispanic. In terms of
trying to gauge whether or not the officer is biased, his or her
perception is key. (Of course, who is stopped is only one
variable to consider in this assessment of whether racially biased
policing occurs.)
While some staff, for the above-stated reasons, advocated
that race be measured through officers perceptions, others
advocated that officers glean the information from drivers licenses.
As its base, this latter stance reflects two key political/moral
arguments: that officers should not be put in the position of
making this sensitive distinction, and that other government
entities should share responsibility and accountability. Regarding
the latter, in the realm of shared responsibility, it would
require that states that have removed race/ethnicity information
from drivers licenses and other state identification cards
again reexamine this decision to facilitate and support officers
data collection. The argument becomes even more compelling
in states that require data collection on the part of agencies.11
This viewpoint is supported by an IACP resolution that urges
states to incorporate race and ethnicity as a data element and
print it on the drivers licenses to facilitate the capture and
accurate recording of this information.12
We recommend including data on where the citizen lives
(e.g., within or outside of city limits) to facilitate analysis. For
agencies that use census data for interpreting department data,
including residence will allow them to develop a subsample of
incidents involving only residents for the purpose of
benchmarking those data against residential census data. In
other words, with this information, an agency could compare
the demographics of city residents stopped (i.e., exclude
nonresidents stopped) against the census data demographics for
11 If information on race/ethnicity were available on drivers licenses, then
agency executives would at least have the option of choosing between the
various methods of measuring race/ethnicity.
12 IACP resolution, Incorporation of Racial Background as a Data Element
on Drivers Licenses, adopted at the 106th Annual Conference, Charlotte,
N.C., Nov. 3, 1999.

all city residents. The wording of this item on a departments
form (e.g., Does citizen live in the city? In the county?) should
reflect the jurisdictions relevant metropolitan area (e.g., city,
county) as defined by the census. To obtain this information,
the officer could use the citizens drivers license or inquire.
Critically important in data collection is information regarding
the reason for a stop. Ramirez, McDevitt and Farrell (2000)
refer to this as one of the most important pieces of information
that will be collected and stress the importance of developing
a single or several variables to measure discretion (p. 48).
The greatest potential for racially biased policingat least in
terms of whom police engage (as opposed to how they interact
with the person during engagement)occurs in high-discretion
stops. For instance, officers have and exercise great discretion
in deciding whether to pull someone over for failing to signal.
In contrast, officers have less discretion in responding to
someone who runs a red light at a major intersection. Thus, a
finding that a particular officer gives 80 percent of his or her failing
to signal citations to blacks can be viewed differently than a
finding that an officer gives 80 percent of his or her red-light
citations to blacks. The latter is less likely to indicate possible
biased policing than the former, which should prompt additional
review of the citations circumstances/context (e.g., the
racial composition of the area being policed).
The variable reactive/self-initiated is an important measure
of discretion. A reactive stop is one precipitated by a call for
police service or other external demand (e.g., supervisor direction,
direct citizen contact). Supervisor direction could include
an officers placement on a special detail (e.g., hot-spot
enforcement, drunken-driving roadblock, special gun initiative). A stop
an officer conducts solely on his or her own initiative (e.g., a
traffic stop while on patrol) would be coded self-initiated. With
this variable analyses can differentiate between the incidents
in which the officers select whom they will engage and those
in which they engage in response to calls for service or assignment.
The former is more relevant to an assessment of racially
biased policing.
The reason for the stop allows an officer to indicate whether
the stop is for a vehicle code, penal code or local ordinance

violation; a BOLO/person wanted; or suspicious circumstances.
The purpose of including subcategories within vehicle code
violations and penal code violations is, again, to measure
discretion. Thus, for instance, stops for red-light violations reflect less
discretion than those for lane-changing violations. Similarly,
detentions or arrests for nuisance crimes reflect far more discretion
than those for violent crimes. Asking for recorded speed
above the posted limit provides another measure of discretion,
as officers have more discretion in stopping someone going just
a few miles an hour over the speed limit, and less if someone is
speeding quite dangerously.
The codes we propose for various dispositions of stops allow for
an additional potential measure of equitable vs. disparate
treatment. Beyond data collection on whom police stop,
another important question is whether they treat those they
stop differently based on their race/ethnicity. To begin to
capture this information, we suggest arrest, ticket/citation, verbal
warning, written warning, or no action (or no disposition) for
the codes. No action would include releasing a person following
a determination that he or she was not, in fact, the person
being sought.13 It is interesting to note that we identified
several departments that changed their policies to discontinue
verbal warnings in traffic stops. This was done to deter
unnecessary stops (including, of course, those based on race) and to
facilitate use of existing forms for data collection (i.e., there
was an existing form for every other dispositioncitation,
arrest, written warning). For the same reasons, agencies should
consider discontinuing verbal warningsweighing the pros and
cons of exercising this option.
Length of stop data also provide a potential measure of
equitable vs. disparate treatment. With these data, an agency
can explore whether the length of stops varies by race/
ethnicity (controlling for relevant variables, such as the reason for the stop).
13 Remember, no action should not necessarily be presumed to reflect benign
law enforcement.

In our focus groups, many officers expressed great frustration
at accusations of racial bias, and lamented that they were
so accused even when it was clearly impossible for them to
discern driver characteristics before a stop. Thus, we include a
data element allowing officers to report this information, which
has significant relevance to an assessment of whether or not
stopping decisions are based on race/ethnicity.14 Specifically,
the officer would indicate whether or not the citizens
characteristics were observable before the stop.
A comment section would allow officers to note any other
circumstances or contextual information that they thought
relevant to their decision-making.
A controversial aspect of data collection concerns linking
data to individual officers. In some jurisdictions, executives have
implemented systems with the promise that only aggregate
information would be analyzed, with no data linked to individual
officers. This reflects officers concerns that they will be
disciplined or stigmatized based on data that may be invalid or
misleading; they fear that individual-level data could become
evidence in civil, criminal or disciplinary actions against them.
Related to these concerns, some chiefs decisions not to link
the stop data to officer identifiers have reflected their desire to
maintain the full trust of their personnel and thus increase the
likelihood of obtaining their support for data collection.
On the other hand, many officers and command staff in our
focus groups stated that if, indeed, racial profiling occurs, it
is not widespread, but rather committed by a small number of
officers. Whether it is, in fact, just a few or, instead, a large
number of officers, a data collection system that is implemented
with the true intent of assessing and responding to racially
biased policing should have the capacity to identify potentially
problematic officers. The word potentially reflects an important
point about how data should be used. These data cannot
14 An oft-stated concern is that some officers will understate the frequency with
which they can discern motorists characteristics. Departments could attempt
to identify those officers by comparing officers who have similar assignments
(e.g., night shift, day shift) with regard to their results on this element.

prove causationonly correlation. It is critically important for
command staff to understand that their data collection system
cannot rule out all competing hypotheses that might explain
why data for an officer indicate disproportionate stops (or
searches or arrests) of racial/ethnic minorities. The data should
be used only as one indicator of a potential problem, and prompt
further exploration. That is, the data should be just one aspect
of an early warning system for racially biased policing.
Policies and statutes that link individual officer results directly
to disciplinary measures are unfair and misguided.
Recommendation: Police departments should consider the pros
and cons of linking data to officer identity. If a department chooses
not to collect data with links to individual officers, the data should
be linked to units of the departmentsuch as assignment or beat.
Assessing racially biased vs. equitable policing requires
looking not only at whom police engage, but also at what happens
during the engagement. For instance, some studies on vehicle
stops have identified even greater racial disparities with
regard to who is searched than with who is stopped.15 Because
searches are high-discretion/low-visibility activities that have
great potential for police abuse or perceptions of abuse,
departments collecting data should include search data in
their collection system. Ramirez, McDevitt and Farrell (2000:51) provide
these arguments for including search data:
Although it may seem easier to omit search information from the
process, it serves two valuable functions. First, search information provides
local jurisdictions with a sense of the quantity
15 See, for example, Harris, D. (1999b), The Stories, the Statistics and the
Law: Why Driving While Black Matters, Minnesota Law Review 84(2):145;
San Diego Police Department (2000), Vehicle Stop Study, Mid-Year Report,
Sept. 21; State of New Jersey (1999), Interim Report of the State Police Review
Team Regarding Allegations of Racial Profiling, April 20; and Bureau
of Justice Statistics (2001), Contacts Between Police and the Public: Findings
From the 1999 National Survey, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice.

and quality of searches being conducted, the
characteristics of those searches and their productivity.
Productivity refers to the number of
searches that result in arrests or seizures, the
nature of those arrests and the quality of the seizures.
Such information allows local jurisdictions to appropriately allocate resources to
productive search techniques. Second, information about
searches allows departments to assess whether certain groups are disproportionally
targeted for searches.
The form should record whether or not a search (including
a frisk) was conducted, and solicit additional information
regarding searches. (Since searches are fairly rare, in most cases,
this section will be blank.) Responses for What was searched?
are vehicle, personal effects, driver, and/or passenger(s). For those
agencies that choose to collect data on both vehicle and pedestrian
stops, we propose responses of person [specifying pedestrian,
driver and/or passenger(s)], vehicle, building/residence,
and/or property/personal effects.
An item on authority to search will not only provide important
contextual information for analysis, but also will remind
officers of the legal limits on their ability to search. The
responses include consent, reasonable suspicionweapon,
incident to arrest, probable cause, inventory, and plain view.
Collecting data on search outcome (as either positive or
negative) and on what was recovered (i.e., currency, weapon, stolen
property, illegal drugs/drug paraphernalia, other) allows for an
agency assessment of search productivity. The results of these
analyses may become the content for training.16
16 For instance, empirical data have challenged many police officers belief
that searches of African-Americans are positive more often than searches
of whites. See, for example, Harris, D. (1999b), The Stories, the Statistics
and the Law: Why Driving While Black Matters.

DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION
In discussing the pros and cons of data collection, we have
conveyed many police executives concern about a data collection
systems ability to produce valid answers to even the most
sincere questions about the nature and extent of racially biased
policing. This reflects the concern about social science
methods ability to aid in assessing whether there is a causal
main effect between citizen race/ethnicity and police behavior.
To draw definitive conclusions regarding stop data that indicate
disproportionate engagement of racial/ethnic minorities,
we would need to be able to identify and disentangle the impact
of race from legitimate factors that might reasonably explain
individual and aggregated decisions to stop, search and
otherwise engage people. This is not possible. As stated in a
U.S. General Accounting Office report (2000), because of
methodological challenges, we cannot determine whether the rate
at which African-Americans or other minorities are stopped is
disproportionate to the rate at which they commit violations
that put them at risk of being stopped (p. 18).
In an attempt to rule out alternative factors, agencies strive to
develop comparison groups against which to evaluate their
vehicle stop data. Specifically, agencies try to develop comparison
groups that reflect the demographic makeup of groups at risk of
being stopped by police in an unbiased world. For example, a
department collecting data only on traffic stops would, ideally,
want to compare the demographics of those stopped with the demographics
of those at risk of a stop, taking into consideration
numerous factors, including, but not limited to, driving quantity,
driving behavior, vehicle condition, and police presence. In an
ideal world, we would have this information for each type of stop
(e.g., red-light violation, speeding violation).
Clearly, this information is not available. Thus we create
standards for these ideal groups. Hypothetically, if an agency
wanted to know if the number of recorded traffic stops of
African-Americans in a specific area was potentially too high, it
would want to know the probability of the average African-
American in that areas being stopped for a traffic violation
(based on such objective factors as driving quantity, driving
behavior, and enforcement level and type in the area).

Unfortunately, departments may have information regarding only the
percentage of African-Americans of driving age who live in the
area. This comparison group is clearly less useful than the kind
of at risk group we would like to have for analysis.
Below we describe the various standards that have been
used to analyze data collected to address racial profiling, and
the limitations of each. PERF project staff determined that there
are not as yet satisfactory best practices in the realm of data
interpretation and analysis, and thus do not make specific
recommendations regarding ideal comparison groups.However, due
to this deficiency in the fieldand with additional funding from
the Office of Community Oriented Policing ServicesPERF is
implementing a project that will produce such recommendations.
Specifically, PERF staff will join with experts around the country
to develop guidelines for departments in this area. Pending
the completion of this work, we share below some of the key
issues that departments should consider in developing comparison
groups that serve as standards for our ideal.
Standards departments have used can be categorized by
whether they are based on information that is external or
internal to the agency. External standards include those based on
existing data, such as census data, or on new data, such as that
provided by observing vehicles on the road. An internal-standard
system is analogous to an early warning system in that
officers, units and so forth are matched and compared with
one another. (For instance, vehicle stop data for officers assigned
to a particular area on a particular shift are compared.)
EXTERNAL STANDARDS: EXISTING DATA
Most jurisdictions that have begun to analyze their data have
relied on external standards developed from existing data. Below
we summarize some of the standards that have been used,
their positive and negative features and, where applicable,
suggestions for refinement.
Jurisdiction Residents, Based on Census Data
A number of departments around the nation have compared their
vehicle stop data against census data. That is, these jurisdictions
have compared the breakdown of people stopped, by race and

ethnicity, with the race and ethnicity of their residents. The
census data are valuable because they are easily accessible and can
be broken down by small geographic units within a jurisdiction.
The drawback of census data is that they do not necessarily
represent people at risk of law enforcement intervention. Instead,
they reveal only who lives in the jurisdiction.
To improve on these data and develop a better comparison
group, agencies should
 access the most recent census data;
 include residency (as defined by the census) as one
element on data collection forms;
 use the census data only for people of driving age;
 adjust the census data for vehicle ownership or driving behavior
by race/ethnicity, using census information or the National Personal Transportation
Survey,17 respectively; and
 use census tract information to conduct comparisons within the jurisdictions geographic units (if
possible), such as those that correspond with precincts or other service areas.18
People With Drivers Licenses
In analyzing North Carolina Highway Patrol data, Zingraff et
al.19 used information regarding drivers licenses issued in the
state. In most states, data on drivers license holders are available
to the police and can be broken down by specific geo
17 See www.bts.gov/ntda/npts, as reported by Harris (1999b). For instance, this
survey reported that African-Americans comprise 11.8 percent of all households,
but account for 35.1 percent of households without a vehicle (p. 7).
18 [This would involve, for instance, comparing the demographics of those
stopped within a particular precinct or beat with the demographics of those
who live there.
19 Zingraff et al. (2000), Evaluating North Carolina State Highway Patrol Data:
Citations, Warnings and Searches in 1998, report submitted to North Carolina
Department of Crime Control and Public Safety and North Carolina State
Highway Patrol, Nov. 1.

graphic units. This information is superior to unadjusted census
data because it moves us closer to assessing who is on the
road and, thus, at risk of being stopped. These data, however,
do not provide for a true comparison group in that they do not
provide for differential law enforcement deployment on the
roads (e.g., hot spot enforcement), do not provide for
variations in driving behavior in terms of either quantity or quality
(e.g., aggressive drivers are more likely to be stopped), and do
not provide any information for purposes of assessing who
might be at risk for an investigatory (as opposed to traffic) stop.
Information on drivers licenses held within geographic units
does not provide for the fact that people who live outside of the
area are driving on the roads20 (although collecting information
on citizen residenceas recommended earliercan mitigate this
concern). Further, this source does not provide us with
information for assessing the risk of pedestrians being stopped.
People Involved in Vehicle Accidents
Another group against which stop data demographics can be
compared are people who have been involved in vehicle accidents.
A major advantage of this comparison information over
census and drivers license data is that it provides a measure of
poor driving behavior. This information is also available within
the police department, and includes both residents and nonresidents
who are on the roads. A significant drawback is that
people who have vehicle accidents (that get reported to police)
do not accurately represent people who are at risk of being
stopped for traffic violations or investigatory reasons. For
instance, some people are involved in accidents through no fault
of their own, and some very poor drivers may never get into
accidents. Further, in some jurisdictions, race/ethnicity is not
included among information regarding accidents.
20 Zingraff et al. (2000) used residence information from a sample of citations
to develop measures of the extent to which drivers licensed in one area drove
in another.

People Arrested (Uniform Crime Reports Data)
Some jurisdictions have compared their stop data by race/ethnicity
with their Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) arrest data by
race/ethnicity. These are unacceptable comparison data for
several reasons. First, arrest data do not measure actual crimes.
These data are very much dictated by enforcement behavior
(for instance, arrest data may reflect a departments focus on
particular crimes or geographic areas). Second, if officers are
demonstrating bias in their stops, it is likely they are also
demonstrating bias in their arrests. Third, even if arrests were a
satisfactory indicator of criminal behavior, criminal behavior
is not satisfactory in indicating what puts a person at risk for
traffic and/or investigatory stops, which is what we are trying
to estimate. Agencies that can generate information on race of
known suspects can partially address the first caveat above
regarding enforcement behaviors influence on UCR databut
still should be quite cautious in using this measure to create a
comparison group for people stopped in their vehicles.
External Standards: New Data
Data collected through researchers observations of drivers have
produced additional external standards for some studies. For
instance, Lamberth21 conducted several types of observations
of drivers on the New Jersey Turnpike. In one procedure,
researchers counted cars on the road at various locations and
times, and tabulated race/ethnicity of drivers. In another, more
sophisticated, procedure, researchers conducted rolling surveys
in which they drove five miles over the speed limit and
separately tabulated the race/ethnicity of the drivers they passed
and of the drivers who passed them.
These observational data can provide valuable standards
in that they are better for estimating the race/ethnicity of people
21 Report of Dr. John Lamberth, plaintiffs expert, Revised Statistical
Analysis of the Incidence of Police Stops and Arrests of Black Drivers/Travelers on
the New Jersey Turnpike Between Exits or Interchanges 1 and 3 From the
Years 1988 Through 1991, State of New Jersery v. Pedro Soto, 734 A. 2d 350
(N.J. Super. Ct. Law. Div. 1996).

at risk for being stopped. One drawback is that they allow for
assessments only of certain types of traffic violations (e.g.,
speeding, red-light violations) that may not generalize to all traffic
violations. Also, it may be difficult for observers to accurately
discern race, particularly at night. Further, they do not provide
risk assessment data for vehicle or pedestrian stops that are not
based on traffic violations (e.g., for investigatory stops based
on suspicious activities). Most important, however, are the practical
drawbacks of using such measures. They have been used
primarily for data analysis for state highway patrols and, indeed,
are most conducive to assessments of a limited number
of high-volume roads. Applying these measures to urban areas
requires sophisticated sampling to select roads and time periods
for data collection, to ensure the data are representative.
Resources are required for both the design and the data collection
through observation. These drawbacks noted, its also important
to report that social scientists across the country are
striving to develop cost-effective methods for implementing
these techniques in urban and rural jurisdictions.
Internal Standards
A system based on internal standards involves analyzing stop
data to compare officers with other officers, units with other
units, geographic areas with other geographic areas, and so forth.
Critically important, these comparisons are made within
matched sets (of officers, units, etc.) to control for
circumstances and context. For example, officers working the same
shift in the same district could be compared with one another.
Districts with similar demographics, criminal activity and traffic
activity could be compared. Analyses could also compare
officers, units and areas over time to document trends and patterns.
These analyses identify outliers, that is, officers, units
or districts that seem to intervene with racial/ethnic minorities
at higher rates than their matched counterparts do. Identifying
these outliers would initiate a more comprehensive inquiry into
circumstances and context that could result in no action if an
officers actions are justified, or disciplinary measures (which
could include counseling and retraining) if the officers actions
are unjustified.

A major benefit of this type of system is that it can provide for
strong comparison groups for analyzing and interpreting data.
Yet systems involving internal comparisons
cannot, on their own, provide an assessment of racially biased
policing at the department level. That is, a system that,
in effect, compares the department with itself could not determine
that an entire department was engaged in racially
biased policing. This drawback, however, can easily be remedied
by combining internal and external standards into a
comprehensive analysis plan.
Independent Analysts
Data collection is both a social science and a political endeavor.
Thus, an agency must attend to both social science and political
objectives in developing an analysis plan. Above we set
forth some of the social science considerations; however, an
agency could use high-quality social science to conduct their
analysis, but lose in the political arena because the jurisdictions
citizens do not consider an internally conducted analysis to be
credible. Many agencies across the country have recognized
that conducting analysis wholly internal to the agency can make
the results appear suspect, and thus have obtained the assistance
of independent analysts.
Recommendation: Agencies should obtain independent researchers
assistance for analyzing their racial bias data.
The analyst(s) should be trained in social science methods
and have general knowledge of law enforcement, as well as
demonstrated knowledge of the specific issues associated with
analyzing police detention/stop data. Capable analysts are most
likely to be associated with a college/university or independent
research firm. If feasible, the researcher(s) should work in
conjunction with a police-citizen task force.
Police-Citizen Development and Implementation
Citizens and police department personnel of all ranks should be
represented in developing and implementing the data collection
and analysis system. The police-citizen task forces recommended

in Chapter 7 should help in deciding whether to adopt a system
and could be involved in design and implementation. Alternatively,
a subcommittee might take on the extensive tasks associated
with data collection and analysis, working with an
independent social science researcher and the departments
research and legal staff.
The police-citizen group should advise the agency executive,
and the executive should set clear parameters for the group
regarding the type of input being sought. (For instance, if the
executive has certain nonnegotiable ideas about the data collection,
he or she should share these early on in the process.)
The police-citizen group could potentially be charged with all
aspects of developing the data collection and analysis protocol,
including specifying the activities to collect data on, how
to collect the data, and what data elements and coding to use;
and maybe even developing/selecting a comparison group. Resources
for their decision-making on data collection and analysis should
include this chapter.
HOW TO GET STARTED
Having outlined some suggestions for a data collection protocol,
we set forth some of the early steps for getting started.
 Unless mandated, decide, with citizen input,
whether data collection should be one component
of the jurisdictions overall response to racially
biased policing and the perceptions thereof.
 Communicate with agency personnel as soon as a
decision is made to start collecting data. The
executive should provide a rationale for data collection
and address anticipated concerns.
 Set up a process for listening to personnels
concerns, and have personnel develop constructive ways
to address them.
 Develop a police-citizen group to serve in an advisory capacity.
 Develop the data collection and analysis protocol.
Ensure the interpretations will be responsible, based
on sound methodology and analysis.

 Field-test the data collection system for three to six
months, and use that test to make modifications
before implementing the system jurisdictionwide.
CONCLUSION
Data collection can be part of a police response to racially biased
policing and the perceptions of its practice. As we have reiterated
throughout this report, however, it should not be considered the
panacea nor the only way that an agency can be accountable on
and responsive to this critical issue. In developing a comprehensive
response, an agency executive should work with citizen leaders
to consider response protocols for accountability and
supervision; policies to reduce biased policing; recruitment and
hiring; training and education; community outreach; and data
collection. Agency executives working cooperatively with their
citizens will know best how to develop a multi-faceted response
tailored to the needs of the jurisdiction that reflects the
interdependence of the various solutions. They should consider,
for example, the need for policy adoption to be supported by strong
training; how recruitment can be facilitated by community outreach;
and the need for hiring objectives to be reinforced through
training and supervision. To help police and communities keep
abreast of the rapid advances being made in this area, PERF will
continue to develop the racially biased policing project on the
PERF website (www.policeforum.org), adding new ideas, articles,
model policies and protocols and other resources as they come to
our attention.
While this report does not provide all the answers to racially
biased policing problems, we hope that it has outlined
the relevant issues and provided sufficient guidance for police
and communities to work more productively together to address
this critical concern.

References
Albrecht, S., and M. Green (1977). Attitudes Toward the Police
and the Larger Attitude Complex. Criminology 15(1):6786.
Alpert, G., and R. Dunham (1997). The Force Factor: Measuring
Police Use of Force Relative to Suspect Resistance. Washington, D.C.:
Police Executive Research Forum.
Block, R. (1971). Fear of Crime and Fear of the Police. Social
Problems 19:91100.
Brinegar v. United States (1949) (338 U.S. 160).
Browning, S., F. Cullen, L. Cao, R. Kopache, and T. Stevenson
(1994). Race and Getting Hassled by the Police. Police Studies 17:111.
Bureau of Justice Statistics (2001). Contacts Between Police and
the Public: Findings From the 1999 National Survey. Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Department of Justice.
Carter, D., and A. Bannister (2001). Racial Profiling: A Case
Study of the Lansing, Michigan, Police Department. Paper
presented at the Annual Meeting of the Academy of Criminal Justice
Sciences, Washington, D.C., Apr. 4.
Carter, D., and A. Sapp (1991). Police Education and Minority
Recruitment: The Impact of a College Requirement. Washington, D.C.:
Police Executive Research Forum.
Cohen, J., J. Lennon, and R. Wasserman. (2000). Eliminating
Racial Profiling: A Third Way Approach. Washington, D.C.:
Progressive Policy Institute.
Cohn, E. (1996). The Citizen Police Academy: A Recipe for
Improving Police-Community Relations. Journal of Criminal Justice 24(3):265271.

146 Racially Biased Policing: A Principled Response
Cole, D. (1999). The Color of Justice: Courts Are Protecting,
Rather Than Helping To End, Racial Profiling by Police.
The Nation 269(2):1215.
Crew, J. (1999). Community Policing vs. Policing the Community.
California Association of Human Relations Organizations (February/March).
www.cahro.org/html/policingthecomm.html
Davis, R. (1999). Respectful and Effective Policing: Two Examples
in the South Bronx. New York: Vera Institute of Justice.
Decker, S. (1981). Citizen Attitudes Toward the Police: A Review of
Past Findings and Suggestions for Future Policy. Journal of Police
Science and Administration 9(1):8087.
Dunham, R., and G. Alpert (1988). Neighborhood Differences
in Attitudes Toward Policing: Evidence for a Mixed-Strategy Model
of Policing in a Multi-Ethnic Setting. Journal of
Criminal Law and Criminology 79(2):504523.
Flanagan, T., and M. Vaughn (1996). Public Opinion About
Police Abuse of Force. In W. Geller and H. Toch (eds.), Police
Violence. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.
Geller, W., and M. Scott (1992). Deadly Force: What We Know
A Practitioners Desk Reference on Police-Involved Shootings.
Washington, D.C.: Police Executive Research Forum.
Harris, D. (1999a). Driving While Black: Racial Profiling on Our
Nations Highways. Washington, D.C.: American Civil Liberties Union.
 (1999b). The Stories, the Statistics and the Law: Why
Driving While Black Matters. Minnesota Law Review
84(265):145.
 (1997). Driving While Black and All Other Offenses:
The Supreme Court and Pretextual Traffic Stops. Journal
of Criminal Law and Criminology 87:544582.
 (1996). Supermans X-Ray Vision and the Fourth
Amendment: The New Gun Detection Technology. Temple
Law Review 69(1):160.
 (1994). Factors for Reasonable Suspicion: When Black
and Poor Means Stopped and Frisked. Indiana Law Journal 69:659688.
Hooper, M. (1988). The Relationship of College Education to
Police Officer Job Performance. Ph.D. diss. Claremont, Calif.:
Claremont Graduate School.

International Association of Chiefs of Police (n.d.). Sample
Professional Traffic Stops Policy and Procedure.
www.theiacp.org
 (2001). Traffic Stops and Data Collection. Unpublished
Statement of the Board of Directors.
 (1999). Incorporation of Racial Background as a Data
Element on Drivers Licenses. Resolution adopted at the
106th Annual Conference, Charlotte, N.C., Nov. 3.
 (1999). Recommendations from the First IACP Forum
on Professional Traffic Stops. Apr. 6.
Kelling, G., and C. Coles (1996). Fixing Broken Windows:
Restoring Order and Reducing Crime in Our Communities. New
York: Free Press.
Kennedy, R. (1997). Race, Crime and the Law. New York:
Pantheon Books.
Knowles, J., and N. Persico (2001). Racial Bias in Motor
Vehicle Searches: Theory and Evidence. Journal of Political
Economy 109(1):203229.
Kocieniewski, D. (2000). New Jersey Argues That the U.S. Wrote
the Book on Race Profiling. New York Times, Nov. 29.
Lamberth, J. (1996). Revised Statistical Analysis of the
Incidence of Police Stops and Arrests of Black Drivers/Travelers
on the New Jersey Turnpike Between Exits or
Interchanges 1 and 3 From the Years 1988 Through 1991.
Plaintiffs experts report in State of New Jersey v. Pedro Soto
(734 A. 2d 350) (N.J. Super. Ct. Law Div.).
Lundman, R. (1994). Demeanor or Crime? The Midwest City
Police-Citizen Encounters Study. Criminology 32(4):631
656.
Maclin, T. (1998a). Race and the Fourth Amendment.
Vanderbilt Law Review 51(2):333393.
 (1998b). Terry v. Ohios Fourth Amendment Legacy:
Black Men and Police Discretion. St. Johns Law Review
72(3/4):12711321.
Madden, B. (1990). The Police and Higher Education: A Study
of the Relationship Between Higher Education and Police
Officer Performance. Masters thesis. Louisville, Ky.:
University of Louisville.

Matthews, R. (1992). Replacing Broken Windows: Crime,
Incivilities and Urban Change. In R. Matthews and J. Young (eds.),
Issues in Realist Criminology. London: Sage Publications.
Meehan, A., and M. Ponder (2000). Race and Place: The Ecology of
Racial Profiling African-American Motorists. Unpublished manuscript.
Rochester, Mich.: Oakland
University.
Meeks, K. (2000). Driving While Black: What To Do if You Are a
Victim of Racial Profiling. New York: Broadway Books.
Mertens, W., J. Guy and D. Jeon (1996). Memorandum in Support of
Plaintiffs Motion for Enforcement of Settlement
Agreement and for Further Relief. Wilkins v. Maryland State
Police (CCB-93-468).
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (2000).
Strengthening the Citizen and Law Enforcement Partnership
at the Traffic Stop: Professionalism Is a Two-Way Street. Building
Bridges to the CommunityOne Traffic Stop at a Time.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation.
Newport, F. (1999). Racial Profiling Is Seen as Widespread,
Particularly Among Young Black Men. Gallup News
Agency, Dec. 9. http://www.gallup.com/poll/releases/
pr991209.asp
Norris, C., N. Fielding, C. Kemp, and J. Fielding (1992). Black
and Blue: An Analysis of the Influence of Race on Being
Stopped by the Police. British Journal of Sociology
43(2):207224.
Peak, K., R. Glensor and R. Bradshaw (1992). Improving Citizen
Perceptions of the Police: Back to the Basics With a Community
Policing Strategy. Journal of Criminal Justice 20:2540.
Profiling Furor Prompts Traffic-Stop Data Collection (1999).
Law Enforcement News 25(519):5.
Racial Profiling: A Law Enforcement Nemesis (1999). Police
Magazine (November): 3839.
Ramirez, D., J. McDevitt and A. Farrell (2000). A Resource Guide
on Racial Profiling Data Collection Systems: Promising Practices
and Lessons Learned. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice.
Reaves, B., and A. Goldberg (1999). Law Enforcement Management and
Administrative Statistics, 1997: Data for Individual

State and Local Agencies With 100 or More Officers. Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice
Statistics.
Ricigliano, R., T. Johnson and A. Chasen (1999). Problems
Without a Process: Using an Action Dialogue To Manage
Racial Tensions. Harvard Negotiation Law Review 4:83114.
Russell, K. (1999). Driving While Black: Corollary Phenomena
and Collateral Consequences. Boston College Law Review 40(717):112.
 (1998). The Color of Crime: Racial Hoaxes, White Fear,
Black Protectionism, Police Harassment, and Other
Macroaggressions. New York: New York University Press.
Saad, L., and L. McAneney (1995). Black Americans See
Little Justice for Themselves. The Gallup Poll Monthly
(March):3235.
San Diego Police Department (2000). Vehicle Stop Study, Mid-
Year Report, Sept. 21.
Sauls, J. (1989). Traffic Stops, Police Power Under the Fourth
Amendment. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin (September):2631.
Sigelman, L., S. Welch, T. Bledsoe, and M. Combs (1997). Police
Brutality and Public Perceptions of Racial Discrimination: A Tale
of Two Beatings. Political Research Quarterly
50(4):777791.
Skolnick, J. (1966). Justice Without Trial. New York: John Wiley
and Sons.
Smith, D., C. Visher and L. Davidson (1984). Equity and
Discretionary Justice: The Influence of Race on Police Arrest
Decisions. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology
75(1):234249.
Son, I., M. Davis and D. Rome (1998). Race and Its Effect on
Police Officers Perceptions of Misconduct. Journal of Criminal
Justice 26(1):2128.
Spitzer, E. (1999). The New York City Police Departments Stop
and Frisk Practices. New York: Attorney General of New York.
State of Alabama v. White (1990) (496 U.S. 325).
State of New Jersey (1999). Interim Report of the State Police
Review Team Regarding Allegations of Racial Profiling,
Apr. 20.

State of New Jersey (1999). Final Report of the State Police
Review Team, July 2.
State of Wisconsin (2000). Governors Task Force on Racial
Profiling Report.
Thompson, A. (1999). Stopping the Usual Suspects: Race and
the Fourth Amendment. New York University Law School
74: 9561013.
Tuch, S., and R. Weutzerm (1997). The PoolsTrends, Racial
Differences in Attitudes Toward the Police. Public Opinion
Quarterly 61:642663.
United States v. Brignoni-Ponce (1975) (422 U.S. 873).
United States v. Montero Camargo (2000) (208 F. 3d 1122, 9th Cir.).
U.S. Department of Justice (2001). Principles for Promoting Police
Integrity: Examples of Promising Police Practices and
Policies. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice.
 (2000a). Conducting Complete Traffic Stops: A Community Crash
and Crime Reduction Effort. Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Department of Justice.
 (2000b). National Race Relations Symposium: Building
Peaceful Communities. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department
of Justice.
 (1999). Attorney Generals Conference: Strengthening
Police-Community RelationshipsSummary Report.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice.
U.S. General Accounting Office (2000). Racial Profiling: Limited
Data Available on Motorist Stops. Report submitted to
the Hon. James E. Clyburn, Chairman, Congressional Black
Caucus, March.
Walker, S. (forthcoming). Searching for the Denominator: Problems
With Police Traffic Stop Data and an Early Warning
System Solution. Journal of Research and Policy.
 (2001). Police Accountability: The Role of Citizen
Oversight. New York: Wadsworth Publishing Co.
 (2000) (with a response by R. Myers). Police Interactions
With Racial and Ethnic Minorities: Resolving the Contradictions
Between Allegations and Evidence. Washington,
D.C.: Police Executive Research Forum.
 (1995). Citizen Review Resource Manual. Washington,
D.C.: Police Executive Research Forum.

Walker, S., C. Spohn and M. DeLone (2000). The Color of Justice:
Race, Ethnicity and Crime in America. Second Edition.
New York: Wadsworth Publishing Co.
Weitzer, R. (2000a). Racialized Policing: Residents Perceptions
in Three Neighborhoods. Law and Society Review
34(1):129155.
 (2000b). White, Black or Blue Cops? Race and Assessments
of Police Officers. Journal of Criminal Justice
28:313324.
 (1999). Citizens Perceptions of Police Misconduct: Race
and Neighborhood Context. Justice Quarterly 16(4):819846.
Weitzer, R., and S. Tuch (1999). Race, Class and Perceptions of
Discrimination by the Police. Crime and Delinquency
45(4):494507.
Whren et al. v. United States (1996) (517 U.S. 806).
Wolfskill, J. (1989). Higher Education and Police Performance.
Ph.D. diss. Lawrence, Kan.: University of Kansas.
Worden, R., and R. Shepard (1996). Demeanor, Crime and Police
Behavior: A Reexamination of the Police Services Study
Data. Criminology 34(1):83105.
Zingraff, M., M. Mason, W. Smith, D. Tomaskovic-Devey, P.
Warren, H. McMurray, and R. Fenlon (2000). Evaluating
North Carolina State Highway Patrol Data: Citations, Warnings
and Searches in 1998. Report submitted to North Carolina
Department of Crime Control and Public Safety and
North Carolina State Highway, Nov. 1.

About the Authors
Lorie Fridell
Lorie Fridell is the Director of Research at PERF. Prior to joining
PERF in August 1999, Fridell was an Associate Professor of
Criminology and Criminal Justice at Florida State University.
She completed her Bachelors degree in psychology at Linfield
College in McMinnville, Oregon, and both her Masters and Ph.D.
in Social Ecology at the University of Southern California at
Irvine. Fridell has conducted research on such law enforcement
topics as deadly force, less than lethal force, complaints of
excessive force, felonious killings of police officers, and
community policing. In addition to articles and chapters on these topics,
she co-authored, with Tony Pate, a two-volume report entitled
Police Use of Force: Official Reports, Citizen Complaints and Legal
Consequences and co-authored with Geoff Alpert Police Vehicles
and Firearms: Instruments of Deadly Force.
Robert Lunney
Robert Lunney concluded a 44-year career in police and protective
services in March 1997, with all active service in Canada.
He is the former Chief of Peel Regional Police (1990 to1997),
Commissioner of Protection Parks and Culture, Winnipeg (1987
to1990), Chief of Police, City of Edmonton (1974 to1987) and a
retired Superintendent from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police
where he served for 21 years. He is a Past President of Canadian
Association of Chiefs of Police, a Life Member of the
International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) and a PERF
member since 1982. In 1995 he was decorated with the PERF
Leadership Award for progressive policing practices. Currently
he works as a consultant based in Toronto, Canada.

Drew Diamond
Drew Diamond is a Deputy Director of Research at PERF. Prior
to that he completed 22 years of service with the Tulsa Police
Department and served as Chief from October 1987 until his
retirement in November 1991. He was an employee of the FBI
until he entered the U.S. Army and became an Agent in the
Army Criminal Investigations Command. He is a graduate of
Northeastern Oklahoma State University, the 116th Session of
the FBI National Academy and the 12th Session of the FBI
National Executive Institute. Mr. Diamond has directed several
large community policing projects for PERF, including Weed
and Seed; Urban and Rural Neighborhood-Oriented Policing;
Community Policing in Public Housing; Drug-Impacted Small
Jurisdictions; Improving Police Response to People with Mental
Illness; and a project for the Department of Justice, Office of
Violence Against Women, to address domestic violence, sexual
assault and stalking from a community-policing perspective.
Bruce Kubu
Bruce Kubu is a Research Associate at PERF. He is responsible
for managing several research projects. His specific duties
include survey development, refinement, and administration; data
collection and analysis and report generation. Prior to joining
PERF in 1999, Mr. Kubu spent three years with the Washington/
Baltimore High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (W/B
HIDTA). His primary duties included functioning as a liaison
between W/B HIDTA and the criminal justice and treatment
administrators within the Washington/Baltimore corridor. He was also
responsible for managing data collection, data analysis and
report generation for the project. Mr. Kubu received his Masters
in criminology from the University of Maryland in May 1995.
Michael Scott
Michael Scott is an independent police research and management
consultant based in Savannah, Georgia. He was recently a Visiting
Fellow with the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community
Oriented Police Services. Scott was formerly the chief of police
of the Lauderhill, Fla. Police Department, having founded that
municipal police department in 1994. Prior to that he was the

About the Authors
Special Assistant to the Chief of Police of the St. Louis
Metropolitan Police Department where he guided the implementation of
problem-oriented policing. He has served as the Director of
Administration for the Fort Pierce, Fla. Police Department, a Senior
Researcher at the Police Executive Research Forum, the Legal
Assistant to the Police Commissioner of the New York City Police
Department, and a police officer in the Madison, Wisc. Police
Department. He has also been a research assistant to Professor
Herman Goldstein at the University of Wisconsin. Mr. Scott was
the 1996 recipient of the Police Executive Research Forums Gary
P. Hayes Award for leadership in improving police service. Mr.
Scott holds a J.D. from the Harvard Law School and a B.A. from
the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Among other publications,
he is one of the authors of the forthcoming Problem-Oriented
Guides for Police series, the author of Problem-Oriented Policing:
Reflections on the First 20 Years and Managing for Success: A
Police Chiefs Survival Guide, and co-author of Tackling Crime and
Other Public-Safety Problems: Case Studies in Problem Solving and
Deadly Force: What We Know. A Practitioners Desk Reference to
Police-Involved Shootings in the United States.
Colleen B. Laing
Ms. Laing is a consultant and researcher on criminal justice
and human services issues. She lives in Seattle, Washington,
working with regional and national clients on criminal justice,
human services, and workforce issues. Ms. Laing has been a
Fellow with the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services
(COPS Office) at the U.S. Department of Justice, a Research
Analyst and Program Manager with the Seattle Police
Department, a Researcher with the King County Community
Services Division, a Presidential Management Intern and Management
Analyst with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Administration for Children and Families, and a
legislative office staff member in the Washington State House
of Representatives and the U.S. House of Representatives. Ms.
Laing earned a Bachelor of Sciences degree from Santa Clara
University and holds a Masters degree in Public Administration,
having graduated with honors from the University of
Southern Californias Washington, D.C. Public Affairs Center.

About the Office of Community
Oriented Policing Services (COPS)
U.S. Department of Justice
The Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS)
was created in 1994 and has the unique mission to serve the
needs of state and local law enforcement. The COPS Office is
an innovative agency that has been the driving force in advancing
the concept of community policing through the creation of
locally driven problem-solving strategies and police-community
partnerships. COPS is responsible for one of the greatest
infusions of resources into state and local law enforcement in
our nations history.
Since 1994, COPS has invested $7.5 billion to add community
policing officers to the nations streets, enhance crime
fighting technology, support crime prevention initiatives, and
advance community policing nationwide. COPS funding has
furthered the advancement of community policing through
community policing innovation conferences, the development
of best practices, pilot community policing programs, and
applied research and evaluation initiatives. COPS has also
positioned itself to respond directly to emerging law enforcement
needs. Examples include working in partnership with
departments to enhance police integrity, promoting safe schools, and
combating the methamphetamine drug problem.
The COPS Office has made substantial investments in law
enforcement training. COPS created a national network of
training institutes that has revolutionized law enforcement
training, and also supports the advancement of community policing
strategies through the complimentary national training delivery

system provided by the Community Policing Consortium.
Furthermore, COPS has made a major investment in research
which makes possible the growing body of substantive knowledge
covering all aspects of community policing.
These substantial investments have produced a significant
community policing infrastructure across the country as
evidenced by the fact that more than two-thirds of the nations
law enforcement agencies have sought COPS grants and were
awarded funding. The COPS Office continues to respond
proactively by providing critical resources, training, and
technical assistance to help state and local law enforcement
implement innovative and effective community policing strategies.

About PERF
The Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) is a national
professional association of chief executives of large city, county
and state law enforcement agencies. PERFs objective is to
improve the delivery of police services and the effectiveness of
crime control through several means:

the exercise of strong national leadership,

the public debate of police and criminal issues,

the development of research and policy, and

the provision of vital management and leadership
services to police agencies.
PERF members are selected on the basis of their commitment
to PERFs objectives and principles. PERF operates under the
following tenets:

Research, experimentation and exchange of ideas
through public discussion and debate are paths for
the development of a comprehensive body of knowledge about policing.

Substantial and purposeful academic study is a prerequisite for acquiring, understanding and adding
to that body of knowledge.

Maintenance of the highest standards of ethics and
integrity is imperative in the improvement of policing.

The police must, within the limits of the law, be responsible and accountable to citizens as the ultimate
source of police authority.

The principles embodied in the Constitution are the
foundation of policing.

Related PERF Titles
And Justice for All: Understanding and Controlling Police Abuse
of Force
Citizen Involvement: How Community Factors Affect Progressive
Policing
Citizen Review Resource Manual
Deadly Force: What We KnowA Practitioners Desk Reference
on Police-Involved Shootings
Drug Enforcement in Minority Communities: The Minneapolis
Police Department, 1985-1990
Force Factor: Measuring Police Use of Force relative to Suspect
Resistance
Police Education and Minority Recruitment: The Impact of a
College Requirement
Police Interactions with Racial and Ethnic Minorities: Resolving
the Contradictions Between Allegations and Evidence
Policing a Multicultural Community
Why Police Organizations Change: A Study of Community-Oriented Policing
PERF also has many publications on community problem solving, evaluating police
agencies and practices and other materials used for promotion exams, training and university classes.
For a free catalog or more information, call toll-free to 1-888202-4563. PERFs online bookstore can be found at
www.policeforum.org on the Publications section of the Website.