Racially Biased Policing

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
vi Racially Biased Policing: A Principled Response
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 muchvalued 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. Attorney’s 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
viii Racially Biased Policing: A Principled Response

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 officers—of all ranks,

nationwide—are 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 Justice’s

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 professionals—in partnership with citizens—to seriously

consider the issues and develop approaches tailored to their

community’s 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 new—they 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

problem’s 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
x Racially Biased Policing: A Principled Response

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 policeminority 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
Foreword xi

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
xii Racially Biased Policing: A Principled Response
I Critical Issues in

Racially Biased Policing

INTRODUCTION

American policing is facing a tremendous challenge—a 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.
2 Racially Biased Policing: A Principled Response

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 people’s 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.
Critical Issues in Racially Biased Policing 3

• 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.
4 Racially Biased Policing: A Principled Response

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 narrowly—as law enforcement

activities (particularly vehicle stops) based solely on race. The
Critical Issues in Racially Biased Policing 5

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
6 Racially Biased Policing: A Principled Response

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-
Critical Issues in Racially Biased Policing 7

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
8 Racially Biased Policing: A Principled Response

in an unbiased way, and by hiring a workforce that reflects the

community’s 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 inservice 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.
Critical Issues in Racially Biased Policing 9

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 selfinterest 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 addressing—racially 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
10 Racially Biased Policing: A Principled Response

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 officers—accountable.

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.
Critical Issues in Racially Biased Policing 11

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.
12 Racially Biased Policing: A Principled Response
II 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 PERF’s 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.
14 Racially Biased Policing: A Principled Response

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 himor 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
Police and Citizen Perceptions 15

differing perceptions among citizens and police regarding racial profiling’s 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 bias—including, but not limited to, racial bias. The practitioners remarked,

for instance, that citizens might accuse officers of pulling them
16 Racially Biased Policing: A Principled Response

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.
Police and Citizen Perceptions 17

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 pilottested 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, sheriff’s 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.
18 Racially Biased Policing: A Principled Response Table 1. Number of Departments, Sampled by Type and Size Police Departments Sheriff’s Departments State Police Agencies TOTAL Number of Officers Pop. Sample Pop. Sample Pop. Sample Pop. Sample 1–49 8,968 904 (10.1%) 2,393 254 (10.6%) 0 0 11,361 1,158 (10.2%) 50–249 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 Sheriff’s Department handles state law enforcement activities. However, Hawaii does not have a state police agency, per se.
Police and Citizen Perceptions 19

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 sheriff’s 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 sheriff’s 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 sheriff’s departments were

significantly less likely to return surveys than police departments
20 Racially Biased Policing: A Principled Response Table 2. Number of Sworn Officers Employed by Responding Departments, and Populations Served by Those Agencies Number of Officers Population of Jurisdiction Population Sample Population Sample 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
Police and Citizen Perceptions 21

and state police agencies.4 The low response from sheriff’s 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) sheriff’s 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.
22 Racially Biased Policing: A Principled Response

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
Police and Citizen Perceptions 23

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

 Spearman’s rho value = 0.214 (p > 0.01)
24 Racially Biased Policing: A Principled Response

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

 Spearman’s rho value = 0.256 (p > 0.01)
Police and Citizen Perceptions 25

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.

Formal Internal Discussion

New Policies

Policy Modifications

Training Modifications

Data Collection

Community Outreach
26 Racially Biased Policing: A Principled Response

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.

Fig. 3. Departmental responses by department size (number of officers)

Formal Internal Discussion

New Policies

Policy Modifications

Training Modifications

Data Collection

Community Outreach
Police and Citizen Perceptions 27

CONCLUSIONS

Information generated in our citizen focus groups is consistent

with national surveys that indicate that many citizens—particularly racial and ethnic minorities—perceive 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 don’t 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.
28 Racially Biased Policing: A Principled Response

Appendix: PERF Survey on Issues

Related to “Racial Profiling”
Police and Citizen Perceptions 29

12

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, you'll 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

5721071283
30 Racially Biased Policing: A Principled Response

13

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, you'll 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

3001351159
Police and Citizen Perceptions 31

14

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," including your 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

Positive

Impact

B. Accusations against officers of racial stereotyping and/or biased policing (circle one answer)?

12 3 4 5

No Impact

Decreased No Impact Increased

12 3 4 5

C. Media coverage of your agency (circle one answer)?

D. The morale of your personnel (circle one answer)?

No Impact

12 3 4 5

E. Activity on the part of line personnel (e.g., vehicle stops, arrests) (circle one answer)?

No Impact

12 3 4 5

Decreased Increased

More

Negative Coverage No Change

More

Positive Coverage

12 3 4 5

Positive

Impact

Negative

Impact

4906145100
32 Racially Biased Policing: A Principled Response

15

PERF Survey on Issues Related

to "Racial Profiling"

Yes. Please attach a copy of your protocol, policy and/or data collection instrument.

No.

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.

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?

==>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:

4. Does your department have a written policy that specifies when race can be used as one 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.

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?

Who provides this training? Please be as specific as possible so we can contact the providers to

learn more about their curricula.

Yes.

No.

5488145106
Police and Citizen Perceptions 33

16

PERF Survey on Issues Related

to "Racial Profiling"

Please provide additional comments:

8. Describe, if applicable, any special department projects or programs that serve to strengthen the department's

 relationship with ethnic minority communities.

12. To what extent do you think "racial profiling/stereotyping" or racially biased policing is a problem in your

 jurisdiction? (circle one answer)

11. How would you characterize the current relationship between your department and your racial minority

 citizens/community? (circle one answer)

10. What resources do departments need to help them deal with either the incidence of racially biased policing or the

 community perception thereof?

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)?

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?

12 3 4 5

Very Negative Very Positive

Very Serious

Problem

12 3 4 5

Not a Problem

12 3 4 5

Very Serious

Not a Problem Problem

0047145102
34 Racially Biased Policing: A Principled Response

17

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
III 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 organization’s 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 community’s diverse needs and

interests are addressed openly and equitably, with respect

and dignity for all.
36 Racially Biased Policing: A Principled Response

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 chief’s 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 chief’s 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 subject’s 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 enforcement’s 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
Accountability and Supervision 37

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, problemsolving, 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 community’s customs

and conventions, although not all characteristics may be evenly
38 Racially Biased Policing: A Principled Response

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 officer’s

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 culture’s 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 executive’s leadership capacity.

Recommendation: The chief executive should assess the organizational culture—its strengths and vulnerabilities—identifying

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 agency’s 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.
Accountability and Supervision 39

The next most critical element is the means by which the

department’s 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 normalcy—for 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
40 Racially Biased Policing: A Principled Response

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 community’s social

environment and ensure that officers are educated about the

community’s racial and cultural diversity, and about diversity

beyond the local jurisdiction’s 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
Accountability and Supervision 41

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.
42 Racially Biased Policing: A Principled Response

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
Accountability and Supervision 43

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 officer’s

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 system’s 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 officer’s 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 agency’s particular conditions and needs.
44 Racially Biased Policing: A Principled Response

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 decentralization—dismantling 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 commandand-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

management’s 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.
Accountability and Supervision 45

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

agency’s ethical commitments. The frontline supervisors and

managers have responsibility for reinforcing the organizational

culture’s 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 probationer’s skills in communicating, manner of dealing with the
46 Racially Biased Policing: A Principled Response

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 supervisor’s 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.
Accountability and Supervision 47

Middle managers and supervisors must be alert to new laws

and court decisions affecting critical procedures of arrest, search

and seizure, and use of force—informing, 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

agency’s 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 complainant’s 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 com-
48 Racially Biased Policing: A Principled Response

plaints 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.
IVA 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.
50 Racially Biased Policing: A Principled Response

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

PERF’s national survey indicates that, as a result of recent highprofile 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 individual’s

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.
A Policy To Address Racially Biased Policing 51

has always been unconstitutional—that 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

department’s 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.”
52 Racially Biased Policing: A Principled Response

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.
A Policy To Address Racially Biased Policing 53

• 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 department’s 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 policy’s stated purpose

is “to reaffirm [the] department’s commitment to unbiased policing, to clarify the circumstances in which officers can con-
54 Racially Biased Policing: A Principled Response

sider 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.
A Policy To Address Racially Biased Policing 55

reasonable suspicion.8 We identified this need through our focus groups, in which it became very clear that practitioners at

all levels—line officers, command staff and executives—have

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 suspect’s description. Others—when provided with

hypothetical examples—clearly 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 in8

 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

court’s 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).
56 Racially Biased Policing: A Principled Response

stance, 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.
A Policy To Address Racially Biased Policing 57

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 complex—the 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 stu-
58 Racially Biased Policing: A Principled Response

dents 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 AfricanAmerican 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 person’s 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 out-
A Policy To Address Racially Biased Policing 59

side 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.)
60 Racially Biased Policing: A Principled Response

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

Amendment’s 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 officer’s 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 person’s race) is

prohibited by the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection clause.
A Policy To Address Racially Biased Policing 61

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.).
62 Racially Biased Policing: A Principled Response

• 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 opinions—some advocated this method of contact,

and others criticized it. The critics claimed that they need to

get a citizen’s 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.)
A Policy To Address Racially Biased Policing 63

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.
64 Racially Biased Policing: A Principled Response
Recruitment and Hiring V

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
66 Racially Biased Policing: A Principled Response

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 don’t 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 biases—against 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
Recruitment and Hiring 67

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;
68 Racially Biased Policing: A Principled Response

• 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

community’s 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
Recruitment and Hiring 69

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 don’t speak English.

It is well understood that much of racial bias and prejudice

stems from people’s 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 another’s 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.
70 Racially Biased Policing: A Principled Response

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 community’s

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 agency’s 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 agency’s current employees understand the

benefits of a diverse and representative workforce, and that the

agency’s 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.
Recruitment and Hiring 71

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.
72 Racially Biased Policing: A Principled Response

• 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
Recruitment and Hiring 73

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 agency’s general recruitment program.

MANAGING PERSONNEL SELECTION

Police executives should periodically audit their agency’s 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 ap-
74 Racially Biased Policing: A Principled Response

plicants 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.
Recruitment and Hiring 75

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 officer’s 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.
76 Racially Biased Policing: A Principled Response

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 hiring—they 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).
Recruitment and Hiring 77

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 peri-
78 Racially Biased Policing: A Principled Response

ods. 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 not—indeed, should

not—be 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 people—of all races

and cultures—who 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.
VI 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.
80 Racially Biased Policing: A Principled Response

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 leadership’s 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 81

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

management’s 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.
82 Racially Biased Policing: A Principled Response

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;
Education and Training 83

• 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
84 Racially Biased Policing: A Principled Response

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.
Education and Training 85

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 cause—while they might

have valuable things to say—are 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
86 Racially Biased Policing: A Principled Response

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 programs—especially in the

short term—will 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. Today’s police personnel should not be made to feel personally responsible for this,

but they need to know about it and recognize that larger societal

forces—beyond those of individual police officers—have been

responsible for some degree of racial bias in policing.

While most of today’s 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 America’s 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
Education and Training 87

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 citizen’s profiling.
88 Racially Biased Policing: A Principled Response

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.

Police Take Action

on Basis of Race Police Take No Action

Criminal Activity Is Occurring,

or Has Occurred “Correct”3 “Incorrect”

Criminal Activity Is Not Occurring “Incorrect” “Correct”

The following example illustrates what can happen when

police officers use a person’s 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 suspect’s race and the man’s

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 man’s 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 crime—based on knowledge we would not likely have, but for the fact that

we are dealing in “hypotheticals.”
Education and Training 89

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

man’s 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 man’s 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 man’s rights have been protected. Public perceptions of the police will likely be mixed—some

people will want the police to be more aggressive in stopping people who even remotely match
90 Racially Biased Policing: A Principled Response

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 91

• deciding who is worth surveilling for criminal

activity—who 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 Know—A

Practitioner’s Desk Reference on Police-Involved Shootings, Washington, D.C.:

Police Executive Research Forum, pp. 200–219, 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.
92 Racially Biased Policing: A Principled Response

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 minorities—even offenders and those who

are predisposed to dislike the police—in 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).
Education and Training 93

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 supervisors—those 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.
94 Racially Biased Policing: A Principled Response

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 man’s behavior, appearance or attitude—conclusions that contributed to the officer’s

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
Education and Training 95

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 assigned—whether a beat, a sector or a

district. Essential to this understanding is getting to know not

only the general demographics of the area—including what type

of people belong where, and when—but 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 neighbor-
96 Racially Biased Policing: A Principled Response

hood 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 community’s 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.
Education and Training 97

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 agency’s 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,
98 Racially Biased Policing: A Principled Response

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.
VII 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.
100 Racially Biased Policing: A Principled Response

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
Minority Community Outreach 101

• 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:
102 Racially Biased Policing: A Principled Response

• 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 jurisdiction’s various minority groups, as well as
Minority Community Outreach 103

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 policecommunity 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.”
104 Racially Biased Policing: A Principled Response

Chicago’s work also reflects police-citizen collaboration to

address police racial bias and the perceptions thereof. Chicago’s

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

department’s 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 policecitizen 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 longterm, 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 halfhearted attempt to appease the community.
Minority Community Outreach 105

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 conventional—known to and used by many police

commanders. They are very viable methods for building strong

police-community relations. Progressive approaches aren’t as

well known, but also hold great promise for enhancing policecommunity 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.
106 Racially Biased Policing: A Principled Response

Progressive dialogue might occur in

• beat meetings that are integral to joint communitypolice 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, and 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 reporttakers 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 posi-
Minority Community Outreach 107

tive 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
108 Racially Biased Policing: A Principled Response

• 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 community’s 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 driver’s 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 109

• 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

jurisdiction’s 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
110 Racially Biased Policing: A Principled Response

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 qualityof-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 families—Russian, Vietnamese, Laotian, Cambodian, Hmong, and Ethiopian—living 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 problemsolving with community members to address issues troopers
Minority Community Outreach 111

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 driver’s 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

Seattle’s 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 community’s 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;
112 Racially Biased Policing: A Principled Response

• the need to translate city documents (e.g., crime prevention, school and community police academy

materials);

• the lack of understanding of the city’s process for

accessing assistance/resources; and

• the religious barriers to immigrants’ working with

police (e.g., women at home alone can’t let male officers into the residence).

Minority Group Participation

Community Oversight Creates Trust and Openness

The Phoenix Police Department includes residents on use-offorce 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.

Phoenix’s 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.
Minority Community Outreach 113

Attorney’s 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 Officer’s 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.
114 Racially Biased Policing: A Principled Response
VIII 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.
116 Racially Biased Policing: A Principled Response

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 officer’s 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 on Citizens’ Race/Ethnicity 117

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
118 Racially Biased Policing: A Principled Response

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 agency’s 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 collected—despite the ambiguity surrounding their meaning—will 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/

of biased policing. Regarding the nature of a jurisdiction’s 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 person’s race (e.g., officer’s perception, driver’s license information).
Data Collection on Citizens’ Race/Ethnicity 119

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 data’s 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.
120 Racially Biased Policing: A Principled Response

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 measures—ideally, 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 decide—in light of the agency’s political, social, organizational, and financial situation—either 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
Data Collection on Citizens’ Race/Ethnicity 121

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 colFig. 1. Activities that could be targeted for data collection
122 Racially Biased Policing: A Principled Response

lection. The smallest unit (and innermost circle) is traffic stops—

that is, vehicle stops based only on traffic violations. The next

circle denotes all vehicle stops—traffic 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 encounters—includes 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 123

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 occur—as 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 detentions—including traffic, vehicle and

pedestrian stops—increases 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 visible—generally 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 con5

 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 stops—most 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.
124 Racially Biased Policing: A Principled Response

duct 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.
Data Collection on Citizens’ Race/Ethnicity 125

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 review—if 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.
126 Racially Biased Policing: A Principled Response

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, 18–29; 30–39; 40–49; 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. SelfInitiated 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
Data Collection on Citizens’ Race/Ethnicity 127

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: 0–15 min.; 16–30 min.; 31–60 min.; 61+

11) Were citizen’s 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 suspicion—weapon

Incident to arrest

Probable cause

Inventory

Plain view

Other

17) Search Results: Positive/Negative
128 Racially Biased Policing: A Principled Response

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 stopped—which

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, drivers—even drivers with varying types

of behaviors—can 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?
Data Collection on Citizens’ Race/Ethnicity 129

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 jurisdiction’s 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 officer’s 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 driver’s 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.
130 Racially Biased Policing: A Principled Response

whose driver’s 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 driver’s 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 driver’s 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 driver’s 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 driver’s 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.
Data Collection on Citizens’ Race/Ethnicity 131

all city residents. The wording of this item on a department’s

form (e.g., “Does citizen live in the city? In the county?”) should

reflect the jurisdiction’s relevant metropolitan area (e.g., city,

county) as defined by the census. To obtain this information,

the officer could use the citizen’s driver’s 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 policing—at 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 officer’s 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
132 Racially Biased Policing: A Principled Response

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 disposition—citation, arrest, written warning). For the same reasons, agencies should

consider discontinuing verbal warnings—weighing 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.
Data Collection on Citizens’ Race/Ethnicity 133

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 citizen’s 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.
134 Racially Biased Policing: A Principled Response

prove causation—only 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 department—such 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):1–45;

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.
Data Collection on Citizens’ Race/Ethnicity 135

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 suspicion—weapon, 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.”
136 Racially Biased Policing: A Principled Response

DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

In discussing the pros and cons of data collection, we have

conveyed many police executives’ concern about a data collection system’s 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 AfricanAmerican in that area’s being stopped for a traffic violation

(based on such objective factors as driving quantity, driving

behavior, and enforcement level and type in the area). Unfor-
Data Collection on Citizens’ Race/Ethnicity 137

tunately, 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 field—and with additional funding from

the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services—PERF 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
138 Racially Biased Policing: A Principled Response

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 jurisdiction’s geographic units (if

possible), such as those that correspond with precincts or other service areas.18

People With Driver’s Licenses

In analyzing North Carolina Highway Patrol data, Zingraff et

al.19 used information regarding driver’s licenses issued in the

state. In most states, data on driver’s license holders are available to the police and can be broken down by specific geo17 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.
Data Collection on Citizens’ Race/Ethnicity 139

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 driver’s 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 residence—as recommended earlier—can 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 driver’s 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.
140 Racially Biased Policing: A Principled Response

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 department’s 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 behavior’s influence on UCR data—but

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, plaintiff’s 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).
Data Collection on Citizens’ Race/Ethnicity 141

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, it’s 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

officer’s actions are justified, or disciplinary measures (which

could include counseling and retraining) if the officer’s actions

are unjustified.
142 Racially Biased Policing: A Principled Response

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 jurisdiction’s

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
Data Collection on Citizens’ Race/Ethnicity 143

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 department’s 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 jurisdiction’s 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 personnel’s 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.
144 Racially Biased Policing: A Principled Response

• 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):67–86.

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 19:91–100.

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 17:1–11.

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):265–271.
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):12–15.

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):80–87.

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):504–523.

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 Practitioner’s Desk Reference on Police-Involved Shootings.

Washington, D.C.: Police Executive Research Forum.

Harris, D. (1999a). Driving While Black: Racial Profiling on Our

Nation’s 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):1–45.

——— (1997). “‘Driving While Black’ and All Other Offenses:

The Supreme Court and Pretextual Traffic Stops.” Journal

of Criminal Law and Criminology 87:544–582.

——— (1996). “Superman’s X-Ray Vision and the Fourth

Amendment: The New Gun Detection Technology.” Temple

Law Review 69(1):1–60.

——— (1994). “Factors for Reasonable Suspicion: When Black

and Poor Means Stopped and Frisked.” Indiana Law Journal 69:659–688.

Hooper, M. (1988). “The Relationship of College Education to

Police Officer Job Performance.” Ph.D. diss. Claremont, Ca-
References 147

lif.: 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 Driver’s 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):203–229.

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.”

Plaintiff’s expert’s 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):333–393.

——— (1998b). “Terry v. Ohio’s Fourth Amendment Legacy:

Black Men and Police Discretion.” St. John’s Law Review

72(3/4):1271–1321.

Madden, B. (1990). “The Police and Higher Education: A Study

of the Relationship Between Higher Education and Police

Officer Performance.” Master’s thesis. Louisville, Ky.: University of Louisville.
148 Racially Biased Policing: A Principled Response

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 Community...One 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):207–224.

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 20:25–40.

“Profiling Furor Prompts Traffic-Stop Data Collection” (1999).

Law Enforcement News 25(519):5.

“Racial Profiling: A Law Enforcement Nemesis” (1999). Police

Magazine (November): 38–39.

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
References 149

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 4:83–114.

Russell, K. (1999). “‘Driving While Black’: Corollary Phenomena and Collateral Consequences.” Boston College Law Review 40(717):1–12.

——— (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):32–35.

San Diego Police Department (2000). “Vehicle Stop Study, MidYear Report,” Sept. 21.

Sauls, J. (1989). “Traffic Stops, Police Power Under the Fourth

Amendment.” FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin (September):26–31.

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):777–791.

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):234–249.

Son, I., M. Davis and D. Rome (1998). “Race and Its Effect on

Police Officers’ Perceptions of Misconduct.” Journal of Criminal Justice 26(1):21–28.

Spitzer, E. (1999). The New York City Police Department’s ‘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.
150 Racially Biased Policing: A Principled Response

State of New Jersey (1999). “Final Report of the State Police

Review Team,” July 2.

State of Wisconsin (2000). Governor’s Task Force on Racial Profiling Report.

Thompson, A. (1999). “Stopping the Usual Suspects: Race and

the Fourth Amendment.” New York University Law School

74: 956–1013.

Tuch, S., and R. Weutzerm (1997). “The Pools—Trends, Racial

Differences in Attitudes Toward the Police.” Public Opinion

Quarterly 61:642–663.

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 General’s Conference: Strengthening

Police-Community Relationships—Summary 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.
References 151

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):129–155.

——— (2000b). “White, Black or Blue Cops? Race and Assessments of Police Officers.” Journal of Criminal Justice

28:313–324.

——— (1999). “Citizens’ Perceptions of Police Misconduct: Race

and Neighborhood Context.” Justice Quarterly 16(4):819–846.

Weitzer, R., and S. Tuch (1999). “Race, Class and Perceptions of

Discrimination by the Police.” Crime and Delinquency

45(4):494–507.

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):83–105.

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.
152 Racially Biased Policing: A Principled Response
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.
154 Racially Biased Policing: A Principled Response

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 155

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 Forum’s 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 Chief’s 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 Practitioner’s 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 California’s Washington, D.C. Public Affairs Center.
156 Racially Biased Policing: A Principled Response
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 nation’s history.

Since 1994, COPS has invested $7.5 billion to add community policing officers to the nation’s 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 deliv-
158 Racially Biased Policing: A Principled Response

ery 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 nation’s

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. PERF’s 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 PERF’s 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.
160 Racially Biased Policing: A Principled Response
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 Know—A Practitioner’s 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 1-888-

202-4563. PERF’s online bookstore can be found at

www.policeforum.org on the Publications section of the Website.
162 Racially Biased Policing: A Principled Response