Clinton, CT 2022

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

This assessment analyzes policing data, along with demographic and crime data, to identify which policing practices have patterns of racial disparities, and what factors may be contributing to those disparities.

Clinton Police Department (CPD) joined CPE’s National Justice Database project in July 2020. CPD shared data with CPE in order to receive analyses intended to support community and law enforcement collaboration on data-informed efforts to enhance equity in public safety.

This assessment analyzes vehicle stop data from January 16, 2018 to December 26, 2020 and calls for service and officer activity data from 2018 – 2020. Data on use of force incidents and pedestrian stops were provided by CPD. However, racial disparities in use of force and pedestrian stops could not be reliably assessed because there were fewer than 10 incidents and stops recorded for Black, Latinx and Native people during the assessment period, which is below CPE’s minimum sample size requirements for performing complex statistical methods.

Some key findings from the assessment are displayed below. These findings are described and explained in detail in the tabbed sections found at the top of this page. When viewing specific findings in each tab, readers can click the captions to filter results and scroll through supporting analyses to learn how we arrived at a finding.

DEPARTMENTAL CONTEXT

The population of Clinton, Connecticut is 88% White, 9.3% Latinx, 1.1% Multiple Racial Groups, 1% Asian, 0.6% Other, 0.4% Black, and less than 0.05% Native. The total population of Clinton, Connecticut is 12,976.

RESIDENT DEMOGRAPHICS

details

Visit the Departmental Context section for more details

VEHICLE STOPS

The total number of vehicle stops recorded each year varied from a high of 1,970 in 2019 to a low of 809 in 2020.

VEHICLE STOPS PER YEAR

details

Once stopped, Black drivers were searched 2.6 times as often as White drivers.

SEARCH RATES AT VEHICLE STOPS

details

Once stopped, Latinx drivers were searched 2.1 times as often as White drivers.

SEARCH RATES AT VEHICLE STOPS

details

Latinx drivers who were searched possessed contraband such as weapons, drugs, or stolen goods less frequently than White drivers.

CONTRABAND FOUND AND NOT FOUND IN VEHICLE STOP SEARCHES

details

Black drivers who were searched were roughly equally as likely as White drivers to possess contraband such as weapons, drugs, or stolen goods.

CONTRABAND FOUND AND NOT FOUND IN VEHICLE STOP SEARCHES

details

35% of stops of Black drivers were recorded as Equipment / License / Registration Stops, compared to 19% of stops of White drivers.

PROPORTION OF VEHICLE STOPS OF EACH RACIAL GROUP THAT ARE MADE FOR EACH STOP REASON

details

26% of stops of Latinx drivers were recorded as Equipment / License / Registration Stops, compared to 19% of stops of White drivers.

PROPORTION OF VEHICLE STOPS OF EACH RACIAL GROUP THAT ARE MADE FOR EACH STOP REASON

details

76% of stops of White drivers were recorded as Moving Violations, compared to 56% of stops of Black drivers.

PROPORTION OF VEHICLE STOPS OF EACH RACIAL GROUP THAT ARE MADE FOR EACH STOP REASON

details

Once stopped, Black drivers were arrested 2.3 times as often as White drivers. They were also released with a warning or no action taken 12 percentage points less often than White drivers who were stopped. Once stopped, Latinx drivers were arrested 1.7 times as often as White drivers. They were also released with a warning or no action taken 14 percentage points less often than White drivers who were stopped.

PROPORTION OF VEHICLE STOPS OF EACH RACIAL GROUP THAT ENDED IN EACH OUTCOME

details

Visit the Vehicle Stops section for more details

CALLS FOR SERVICE AND OFFICER ACTIVITY

Police recorded 38,302 total events in 2018 - 2020, including Officer-Initiated Activities and police responses to Calls for Service. 5.3% of these events involved Bodily Harm, Property Harm, or Threats. All Other Events involved no report of Bodily Harm, Property Harm, or Threats.

PERCENTAGE OF CALLS FOR SERVICE AND OFFICER ACTIVITY BY EVENT TYPE

details

There were 242 recorded mental health events, which represent some incidents that may be better addressed using appropriate non-police responders or co-response models.

details

Officers engaged in 242 events that were recorded as involving individuals experiencing mental health crises.

Center for Policing Equity | Data provided by Clinton PD 2018 – 2020

Visit the Calls for Service and Officer Activity section for more details

NEXT STEPS

Measure and monitor

Collecting and analyzing data can help you shed light on current problems and measure future progress.

Investigate to learn more

Learn as much as possible about the situations when a disparity occurs or is most severe, in order to understand how to address it.

Identify risk factors and develop targeted interventions

You can then address risk factors by improving written policies and partnering with the community to develop targeted interventions.

Share results

Visit the Justice Navigator homepage to learn more about how to share results and take action.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Funding for this platform was provided by Google.org, Players Coalition, Joyce Foundation, Silicon Valley Community Foundation, and Lyda Hill Philanthropies. Funding for development of the National Justice Database infrastructure and the original analytic plan upon which these analyses are based was provided by the National Science Foundation, under awards led by Principal Investigators Phillip Atiba Goff, Jack Glaser, Amanda Geller, Steven Raphael, and Amelia Haviland.

Suggested citation: Center for Policing Equity (2022). Clinton Police Department. Justice Navigator, justicenavigator.org.

Export and Print Full Report

DEPARTMENTAL CONTEXT

Findings should be interpreted alongside context about the demographics of local residents, the demographics of sworn officers, and the department’s work toward racial equity.

This section contains information on officer demographics and departmental initiatives related to equitable policing practices that was input directly by the department through a survey. Clinton Police Department submitted its responses to the context survey on August 4, 2022.

RESIDENT DEMOGRAPHICS

These city demographics were taken from the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey 2018 five-year estimates. The “Other” category, if applicable, matches the Census Bureau’s definition of “Other” racial group. See the Data Notes tab for information on how CPE defines racial groups.

OFFICER DEMOGRAPHICS

These demographics were provided by the department as of August 4, 2022.

ABOUT THIS ASSESSMENT

Clinton Police Department (CPD) joined CPE’s National Justice Database project in July 2020. CPD shared data with CPE in order to receive analyses intended to support community and law enforcement collaboration on data-informed efforts to enhance equity in public safety. This assessment analyzes vehicle stop data from January 16, 2018 to December 26, 2020 and calls for service and officer activity data from 2018 – 2020.

DEPARTMENT SUMMARY OF ITS KEY INITIATIVES

CPD has recently updated its policies on stops, use of force, racial profiling, and data collection. In addition, CPD has implemented new training programs and programs to reduce use of force or promote equity or community trust.

DEPARTMENT SUMMARY OF ITS RACIAL EQUITY INITIATIVES

On April 01, 2016, Vincent DeMaio was hired as the Chief of Police for the Clinton Police Department. Immediately, Chief DeMaio began initiatives to transform the internal police culture of the department and to improve the professionalism and quality of police services provided to the community. In collaboration with all department members, Chief DeMaio established the Clinton Police Department’s corner stone values of Service, Honor, Integrity, and Professionalism, and he established the department’s cardinal rules of conduct: Treat everyone with professionalism, courtesy, and respect; Always be truthful and sincere; and Always put forth your honest best efforts in the performance of your duties.

In November of 2018, Chief DeMaio modernized the management model for the department. He delineated two functional divisions of the department’s staffing model: Operations and Administrative Services. He promoted two Captains to act as division commanders of each, which would allow for streamlining of service delivery, improved oversight, checks and balances, and professional development of staff. The Clinton Police Department collaborates with local charities, the Clinton Public Schools system and other government agencies to expand the community policing platform and operational capabilities. This has developed strong bonds with the town’s residents through the department’s involvement in a number of outreach programs that are funded with the assistance of local charities and private donations, and are designed to proactively reduce crime, improve public safety, and positively impact quality of life in Clinton and the surrounding communities. Some of these programs are: DARE, Police Youth Group, Child Safety Seats, NARCAN, Rape and Aggression Defense (R.A.D.), Citizens Police Academy, Empower Card, Project Lifesaver, Bike Safety and Exchange Day, Prescription Drug Disposal, and the Clinton Community Assistance Team. In 2018, Chief DeMaio was awarded the “United States Attorney’s Office Community Policing Award” by then United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut, John H. Durham, Esq.

In December 2020, the Clinton Police Department entered the self-assessment phase of the Advanced Law Enforcement Accreditation through the Commission of Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies (CALEA). CALEA accreditation will provide for improved service delivery, management and oversight, community relations, and critical incident preparedness. In accordance with the CALEA process, the Clinton Police Department has updated its use of force policy to reflect requirements to address de-escalation in the use of force continuum, a duty to intervene, and a duty of all personnel to report excessive use of force. Additionally, the department has updated its policy against bias-based profiling to improve the collection of relevant data, identify supervisor oversight responsibilities, and to require annual training. The department tracks and records all use-of-force by its personnel to include non-compliant handcuffing of persons, detained or arrested in the field. As a result of the department’s commitment to building community trust and embodying the department’s core values and cardinal rules throughout service delivery to the public, it has dramatically reduced use of force incidents. In 2019 and 2020, the Clinton Police Department had no reportable use of force incidents under the state of Connecticut’s stringent statutory use of force reporting requirements.

DEPARTMENT SUMMARY OF ITS COMMUNITY OUTREACH INITIATIVES

The Clinton Police Department (CPD) utilizes a progressive strategy, built on community engagement and service-based programs, designed to educate and prevent people from becoming victims of crime or making poor decisions that could result in behaviors or activities that put them at risk of committing crimes. CPD utilizes several methods to reach out and inform the community of various programs, initiatives, and other notable events. These methods include media releases through social media, traditional print, and broadcast media; in-person presentations to community group; and a monthly radio show and partnerships with numerous charities in the Shoreline community.

In an effort to enhance the Clinton Police Department’s relationship with its community youth, they developed their first Police Youth Group in 2017. The initial intent of the program was to mentor at-risk youth and build relationships through non-traditional activities, such as trips to the amusement park or to a ballgame. The program also imparted a sense of social responsibility onto the participants by having them perform charity work, serve food at the Community Food Panty, host food drives at a local supermarket, and conduct beach clean ups. The group had eight participants. After the first year of the program, it was decided that the department did not want the group to have a stigma or be seen as the cop’s group for “bad” kids, so the program was opened to all students at the high school. The program now enjoys thirty participants a year and has a wait list. CPD also partners with our youth group “REACT,” which is comprised of middle and high school students, for National Drug Take Back Day each May.

CPD also hosts a long-running and highly attended adult Citizen Police Academy. The informative ten-week academy exposes participants to all facets of police department operations, training, administration, as well as its part in the overall criminal justice system, with presentations from prosecutors and judges. Participants who graduate the program often volunteer for our community-oriented service programs after graduation, leaving with an understanding of the strong commitment the department’s personnel feel towards the community they serve.

CPD believes that its mission and the missions of many local charities complement each other, and they form long-standing relationships with charities that help fund many non-traditional, proactive programs. The department hosts regular annual events with community charities and civic groups. Some of these include the “Shoreline Law Enforcement Diaper Drive” in cooperation with Bare Necessities, a local non-profit which acts as a diaper bank for the greater New Haven Area; a “Bike Safety Day and Exchange” in cooperation with Clinton Families, Helping Families; and “The Bike Guy,” in which anyone can come and exchange a bicycle for a properly sized one or they can just take one if they need it. All of the donated bicycles are safety-checked and adjusted to the rider prior to release. The department’s bicycle officers also provide a bicycle safety course to young riders and bike safety equipment is provided free of charge to all participants. The program, now in its third year, has already shown great results in reaching out and building relationships with those in the community facing economic challenges that might not otherwise engage with us.

It is the firm belief of the Clinton Police Department that it will always be more effective by preventing a crime from occurring, compared to any response that it could bring to a reported crime. Through transparency, accountability, and continually building bonds of trust with the community it serves, the department is beginning to foster an environment where all citizens become engaged in the process of public safety.

USE OF FORCE

Use of force occurs when an officer uses or threatens to use their body or an object against a person or in a way that could cause pain, injury, or death.

Data on use of force incidents were provided by the Clinton Police Department. However, racial disparities in use of force could not be reliably assessed because there were fewer than 10 incidents recorded against Black, Latinx, and Native people during the assessment period. This is below CPE’s minimum sample size requirements for performing complex statistical analyses, a data threshold we maintain to avoid drawing broad conclusions about racial equity based on a handful of incidents. Learn about CPE’s methodology for Justice Navigator Assessments.

VEHICLE STOPS

Vehicle stops refer to when an officer stopped a member of the public who was driving.

For details on how we define vehicle stops, see “More information” under the first chart in this section.

VEHICLE STOPS BY RACIAL GROUP

COMPARING SEARCH RATES AT VEHICLE STOPS

More information

What does this show?

This visualization shows, out of the same number of stopped drivers, how many drivers in each racial group were then searched.

How was this calculated?

We first divided the number of stops that involved a search for each racial group by the number of stops of that racial group. We then multiplied that number by 100 to get the per 100 stops rate.

See the Data Notes tab for information on how we define racial groups.

Data required for this analysis:

CONTRABAND FOUND AND NOT FOUND IN VEHICLE STOP SEARCHES

More information

What does this show?

One common explanation for why members of some racial groups are stopped or searched at different rates is that they may be more likely to have contraband. To assess this, we looked at whether searches of drivers of different racial groups resulted in contraband being found at different rates. For each racial group, we separated all searches into the percentage that resulted in contraband found and the percentage that resulted in no contraband found.

The darker portion of each bar (on the bottom) shows the percentage of all searches of drivers of that racial group that ended with contraband found, while the lighter portion of the bar (at the top) shows the percentage where no contraband was found. Hovering over a bar shows the number of searches that makes up that percentage. Each bar at the top shows the total number of searches recorded for that racial group.

It is important to compare this chart to the percentage of vehicle stops of each racial group, above, to identify which groups may be experiencing a high volume of stops that may be driving high totals of contraband found.

How was this calculated?

We took the total recorded searches of drivers of each racial group and calculated the percentage that did and did not reveal contraband. Police are typically required to search people they arrest and vehicles they impound or tow. When the search reason is provided in the LEA’s data, these searches are excluded from this analysis because they are not necessarily based on an officer’s discretionary evaluation of whether they expect to find contraband.

See the Data Notes tab for information on how we define racial groups.

Data required for this analysis:

VEHICLE STOP REASONS BY RACIAL GROUP

VEHICLE STOP OUTCOMES BY RACIAL GROUP

VEHICLE STOPS BY WORK UNIT AND RACIAL GROUP

Among all work units:

More information

What does this show?

“Work unit” describes the work groups within a department. It can refer to the assignment of the officer making the stop (e.g. Detective Unit, Narcotics, Traffic, etc.), or the geographic areas where stops are made (i.e. precincts, districts, zones, etc.).

Each colored bar shows the percentage of stops recorded by each work unit of drivers of each racial group. The Multiple Work Units category, if used, represents stops involving officers from two or more work units. Hovering over a bar shows the number of stops that make up that percentage. The grey bars on the right show the total number of stops recorded by each work unit. Any work unit that records a large number of stops or records large racial disparities will influence overall racial disparities in vehicle searches. If disparities are present among most work units, or are severe in some work units, the different racial makeup of various neighborhoods is likely not the whole explanation for the observed disparity.

How was this calculated?

We took the total recorded stops and first separated them by the work unit that made the stop. We then calculated what percentage was recorded for drivers of each racial group.

The “Other Work Units” category, if used, combines the work units recording less than 2% of stops. See the Data Notes tab for information on how we define racial groups.

Data required for this analysis:

PEDESTRIAN STOPS

Pedestrian stops refer to when an officer stopped a member of the public who was walking on foot.

Data on pedestrian stops were provided by the Clinton Police Department. However, racial disparities in pedestrian stops could not be reliably assessed because there were fewer than 10 stops recorded for Black, Latinx, and Native people during the assessment period. This is below CPE’s minimum sample size requirements for performing complex statistical analyses, a data threshold we maintain to avoid drawing broad conclusions about racial equity based on a handful of stops. Learn about CPE’s methodology for Justice Navigator Assessments.

Calls for Service and Officer Activity

This section analyzes recorded police activity and Calls for Service to understand community requests for public safety services and identify areas where police activity may not be aligned with Calls for Service.

Insights on the type and volume of Calls for Service initiated by community members help identify the scope of community needs and the extent to which police are being asked to perform activities that should or could be handled by non-police responders. Mismatches between Calls for Service and deployment can shed light on potential inefficiencies that may be contributing to inequitable policing.

We include data on all community requests for service (“Calls for Service”) as well as all other recorded police activity, including activities that are officer-initiated. We request data only for events involving police, and not those solely addressed by fire or emergency medical responders. Police activity may also be influenced by community requests for public safety services that are not captured in the Calls for Service data, such as public safety concerns communicated to officers in community forums or council meetings. Calls for Service data also do not capture public safety concerns that community members did not call 911 or seek police services to address, making them an incomplete measure of community members’ public safety priorities. For more details on the types of events included in these analyses, see “More information” under the first chart in this section.

We were unable to conduct some analyses that compare Officer-Initiated Activity to Calls for Service because CPD data did not distinguish officer-initiated events from events initiated by a Call for Service. Mapping Calls for Service against Officer-Initiated Activity can reveal areas where officers are disproportionately initiating police activity, as well as what types of enforcement police are initiating that the community has not asked for.

CALLS FOR SERVICE AND OFFICER ACTIVITY BY EVENT TYPE

Police recorded 38,302 total events in 2018 – 2020, including Officer-Initiated Activities and police responses to Calls for Service.

For more detail on how events were categorized, see the More Information drop down.

More information

What does this show?

The pie chart above shows two categories of events: those involving Bodily Harm, Property Harm, or Threats, and those involving All Other Event types. The percentages are based on the number of events police recorded in each category, rather than the amount of time officers spent on each event type.

“Bodily Harm, Property Harm and Threats” includes all events involving either Bodily Harm (such as assault, robbery, or kidnapping), Property Harm (such as theft, burglary, arson, or vandalism), or Threats (such as harassment, shots heard, or extortion), regardless of whether the police engagement was Officer-Initiated or requested by the community via a Call for Service.

“All Other Events” includes all events officers engaged in that did not involve Bodily Harm, Property Harm, or Threats, regardless of whether it was Officer-Initiated or requested by the community via a Call for Service.

Calls for Service are reported by community members via 911 calls, non-emergency calls to the department, direct contact with officers, or 311 calls that were routed to the police for response.

Officer-Initiated Activity includes events that officers initiated based on their own observations or assignment, rather than in response to Calls for Service. This includes officers being assigned to particular activities, such as a patrol or school resource assignment, and any requests for assistance from other officers or from outside agencies.

How did we calculate this?

First, we categorized all recorded events into one of the two categories: those involving Bodily Harm, Property Harm, or Threats, and those involving All Other Event types. We then calculated the percentage of all events officers recorded for each category by dividing the number of events in each category by the total number of events in both categories combined.

Data required for this analysis:

COMMUNITY CALLS FOR SERVICE

90% of recorded Calls for Service that officers responded to did not involve reports of Bodily Harm, Property Harm, or Threats. These include requests related to public assistance, nuisances, and medical/fire assistance. Some of these calls may not require an armed response or may be better addressed via community centered response models.

More information

What does this show?

This figure only includes events that were requested by community members via 911 calls, non-emergency calls to the department, direct contact with officers, or 311 calls that were routed to the police for response. It does not include any events categorized as Officer-Initiated Activity.

This figure is meant to highlight the reasons for which community members are most often calling the police. This can help evaluate how often a police response is necessary, and whether there are sufficient Calls for Service that may not require a police response to warrant considering the use of alternative response models.

How did we calculate this?

First, we excluded all events categorized as Officer-Initiated Activity. If the data provided by the police do not indicate which events were Officer-Initiated, we categorized event type descriptions involving warrants, alarms or non-dispatched calls as Officer-Initiated, and then grouped all other event types as Calls for Service. Non-dispatched calls include requests for assistance from other officers or outside law enforcement agencies, activities that appear to be officer assignments (such as “directed patrol” or “walking the beat”), and other activities police typically have some discretion over (such as “traffic stop,” “subject stop,” “area check,” or “follow up”).

Then we categorized the Calls for Service based on the caller’s complaint type and calculated the percentage of calls in each category.

Data required for this analysis:

OFFICER ENGAGEMENT IN MENTAL HEALTH CRISES

Officers engaged in 242 events that were recorded as involving individuals experiencing mental health crises.

Center for Policing Equity | Data provided by Clinton PD 2018 – 2020

Officers and 911 dispatchers are not often equipped to recognize or assist people experiencing mental health crises, so analyses of recorded “mental health” calls may underestimate the full extent of opportunities to reduce police involvement in behavioral health incidents. Relying on police to respond to calls related to mental health issues can unnecessarily escalate a mental health emergency to an incident ending in incarceration, use of force or death. Community-based systems of crisis response are preferred for these call types because they help connect people with appropriate care that may prevent future crises.

These 242 recorded events represent some incidents that may be better addressed using appropriate non-police responders or co-response models.

More information

What does this show?

This figure shows the number of times officers recorded being involved in or responding to reports of people who were perceived as experiencing mental health crises. This figure only represents incidents that police or dispatchers coded with labels that clearly indicate a mental health-related event. Therefore, these findings likely underestimate the full extent of police involvement in managing the types of health and social issues that are routinely handled by existing unarmed community-based response programs around the country.

These community-based first response models, such as CAHOOTS (Eugene, Oregon), STAR (Denver, Colorado), BHEARD (New York City), and Portland Street Response, have generated early evidence showing that unarmed crisis services can effectively divert people experiencing mental health emergencies away from arrest and hospitalization, decrease the repeated use of crisis services, and improve the health of people who need emergency mental health care.

How did we calculate this?

To calculate this, we counted the number of events – both Officer-Initiated Activities and Calls for Service – in which the event reason included terms such as “mental health,” “emotionally disturbed,” “suicide,” or “behavioral health.” This figure may undercount the number of behavior health-related calls that officers responded to, as we did not include incidents police or dispatchers coded with labels such as “citizen assist,” “welfare check,” or “disturbance.” Such labels sometimes do – and sometimes do not – indicate a mental health-related event.

Cited work

Laniyonu, A., & Goff, P. A. (2021). Measuring disparities in police use of force and injury among persons with serious mental illness. BMC Psychiatry, 21(1), p. 500. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-021-03510-w.
Roth, A. (2021, May 25). The truth about deinstitutionalization. The Atlantic. https://theatlantic.com/health/archive/2021/05/truth-about-deinstitutionalization/618986/.
Shah, P. V. (2019). A Use of Deadly Force: People with Mental Health Conditions and Encounters with Law Enforcement. Harvard Human Rights Journal, 32, pp. 209–211. https://harvardhrj.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/14/2019/07/Shah_A-Use-of-Deadly-Force.pdf.
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2014). Crisis Services: Effectiveness, CostEffectiveness, and Funding Strategies. https://store.samhsa.gov/sites/default/files/d7/priv/sma14-4848.pdf.
Vera Institute of Justice. (2022). 911 Analysis: How Civilian Crisis Responders Can Divert Behavioral Health Calls from Police. https://www.vera.org/downloads/publications/911-analysis-civilian-crisis-responders.pdf.

Data required for this analysis:

PUBLIC ORDER CONCERNS, NUISANCES, AND SUSPICIOUS BEHAVIOR

The neighborhood where officers recorded the most enforcement of Public Order Concerns, Nuisances, and Suspicious Behavior per capita had 499 such events, while all other neighborhoods combined had an average of 250 such events. The events mapped in this figure include both Officer-Initiated Activity and Calls for Service.

These event types generally include minor violations such as truancy, homelessness, drug use, missing persons, suspicious persons, and noise complaints, many of which would benefit from interventions by trained social workers or mental health professionals rather than police.

For further details, see the More Information drop-down below.

More information

What does this show?

This figure shows where in the jurisdiction events involving Public Order Concerns, Nuisances, and Suspicious Behavior– both Officer-Initiated Activity and community-requested via Calls for Service – are most highly concentrated per capita. Neighborhoods shaded in the darkest colors had the highest concentrations of these events.

Areas shaded in the lightest or second-lightest colors represent Census tracts with relatively low or average concentrations of these events, respectively. Areas shaded in the darker third, fourth and fifth colors have high enough concentrations that they are respectively considered low-level, moderate or high statistical outliers relative to other tracts in the jurisdiction. Not all jurisdictions will include tracts shaded in each of these five colors. For example, a city with no high outliers would not have tracts in the fifth (darkest) color; a city with no moderate outliers would not have tracts in the fourth color, and so on.

How did we calculate this?

To represent neighborhoods, we use Census tracts, which are small geographic areas of approximately 4,000 residents each, defined by the Census Bureau.

We calculated the number of events involving Public Order Concerns, Nuisances, and Suspicious Behavior recorded in each neighborhood per 1,000 residents. We then sort these into 5 categories of neighborhoods so that the 20% of neighborhoods with the fewest events are in the first category, the 20% of neighborhoods with the most events are in the last category, etc. Finally, we map these neighborhoods, with darker colors indicating neighborhoods with more of these events. Both Officer-Initiated Activity and Calls for Service are included in this calculation.

Data required for this analysis:

DENSITY OF OFFICER INITIATED ACTIVITIES RELATIVE TO CALLS FOR SERVICE

This analysis examines which neighborhoods had higher levels of Officer-Initiated Activity relative to the number of Calls for Service.

The neighborhood with the highest ratio had 875 recorded Officer-Initiated Activities for every 1,000 Calls for Service.
All other neighborhoods combined had an average of 715 Officer-Initiated Activities for every 1,000 Calls for Service.

More information

What does this show?

This figure shows where in the jurisdiction there might be a mismatch between how much the community is asking police to do and how much the police are actually doing. The neighborhoods with the highest ratio have more Officer-Initiated Activity – which is not requested by the community – relative to the number of Calls for Service.

Areas shaded in the lightest or second-lightest colors represent Census tracts with relatively low or average ratios of Officer-Initiated Activities to Calls for Service, respectively. Areas shaded in the darker third, fourth and fifth colors have high enough ratios that they are respectively considered low-level, moderate or high statistical outliers relative to other tracts in the jurisdiction. Not all jurisdictions will include tracts shaded in each of these five colors. For example, a city with no high outliers would not have tracts in the fifth (darkest) color; a city with no moderate outliers would not have tracts in the fourth color, and so on.

How did we calculate this?

To represent neighborhoods, we use Census tracts, which are small geographic areas of approximately 4,000 residents each, defined by the Census Bureau.

First, we calculated the number of recorded events that were Officer-Initiated Activities and the number that were police responses to Calls for Service. If the data provided by the police had an indicator of which events were Officer-Initiated, we used that. If the data do not indicate which events were Officer-Initiated, we categorized event type descriptions involving warrants, alarms or non-dispatched calls as Officer-Initiated, and then grouped all other event types as Calls for Service. Non-dispatched calls include requests for assistance from other officers or outside law enforcement agencies, activities that appear to be officer assignments (such as “directed patrol” or “walking the beat”), and other activities police typically have some discretion over (such as “traffic stop,” “subject stop,” “area check,” or “follow up”).

Next, we calculate the number of Officer-Initiated Activities per 1,000 Calls for Service by dividing the number of Officer-Initiated Activities by the number of calls and multiplying by 100. We sort these into 5 categories of neighborhoods so that the 20% of neighborhoods with the lowest ratio of Officer-Initiated Activities to Calls for Service are in the first category, the 20% of neighborhoods with the highest ratio are in the last category, etc. Finally, we map these neighborhoods, with darker colors indicating neighborhoods with higher levels of Officer-Initiated Activity relative to the number of Calls for Service.

Data required for this analysis:

Data Notes

This section contains information on how CPE defines and categorizes the data collected from departments.

DEFINING RACIAL GROUPS AND STANDARD CATEGORIES

Defining racial groups:

CPE uses “racial group” to refer to groups described in departmental records by racial category (e.g., Hispanic or Latino, Asian, Black, Native, White). When we compare departmental records of incidents to local demographic data, these racial groups are mapped onto Census data for the following groups: Hispanic (referred to as “Latinx” in this assessment), non-Hispanic Asian, non-Hispanic Black, non-Hispanic Native American, and non-Hispanic White. The “Other” category, if used, combines racial groups making up less than 2% of incidents (except when referring to the resident population, in which case it matches the Census Bureau’s definition of “Other” racial group).

Our use of “racial” as a shorthand for these groups does not represent a claim that any person belongs to any monolithic “race,” or indeed that the category of “race” has any objective or biological meaning, apart from its social and political context. We acknowledge the historic and deliberate use of racial categories in crime statistics to link criminality to Black people, a bias that continues to affect marginalized communities and people in the criminal justice system today. We also recognize that the terms we use to describe racial groups are not universally accepted or preferred by members of the groups they describe. We aim to use terms which are inclusive, widely understood, and unlikely to offend.

Standardizing categories:

Each law enforcement agency collects stop, search, use of force, and racial data in its own way. In order to interpret data consistently across departments, we sort the data received from departments into standardized categories. The following tables show the categories used by the department and how we translate them into CPE categories. The “LEA-Provided Value” column contains the categories that the department provided to CPE, and the “CPE Standardized” column shows the corresponding category CPE used in this assessment.

For more information about why certain results were not displayed, a detailed list of data requirements for each analysis is available under “More information,” beneath the relevant chart.

VEHICLE STOP CATEGORIES

CALLS FOR SERVICE AND OFFICER ACTIVITY

SHARE YOUR RESULTS

Making your assessment public will show that your department is transparent, inclusive, trustworthy, and committed.

MAKING RESULTS PUBLIC

To make this assessment available to more people in your department privately, or to share it with the general public, contact your Implementation Specialist.

Why you should make your assessment public

Members of the community are more likely to report crime, act as witnesses, and comply with laws when they trust police and view police practices as legitimate.

1 A public assessment helps the people who are most affected by the findings understand them firsthand, rather than relying on secondhand information.

Department command staff, officers, community members, state and local policymakers, and others will share the same set of facts as you, which will lead to more active community partnership. This transparency will help enhance fairness, reduce mistrust, and support healing in communities that have experienced pain for far too long.

2 A department that is open about its findings shows its willingness to be held accountable for positive change.

It demonstrates leadership and initiative by seeking to understand the causes and drivers of disparities, enacting reforms, and prioritizing the community as a key part of those reforms.

3 Publicly sharing these findings invites new alliances and collaborations by making departmental policies and reform efforts more widely known.

It also provides an opportunity to serve as an example for other departments in advancing the field of policing at a critical moment

Preparing to make your assessment public

We offer comprehensive guidance on sharing assessment findings on the Justice Navigator homepage. First, you'll need to educate partners about key takeaways and strategies.

1 Departmental command staff and line officers

Whether reforms are successful or not depends, to a great extent, on whether they are accepted and faithfully executed by the officers who make up the department. Department leaders should develop a detailed plan to inform officers of the assessment findings and manage questions and feedback about the recommendations.

2 Community members

It is equally important to engage with the community to help ensure that the findings are correctly interpreted and to be transparent with the community about the steps the department is taking to improve equitable policing.

3 State and local policymakers

Educating policymakers and cultivating their support for the reforms can strengthen the department’s leadership and may be helpful in securing any additional resources required to put the recommendations into effect

How to plan a rollout and make your assessment public

When you are ready to make your assessment public, contact your Implementation Specialist. You should also prepare a public rollout plan to maximize impact and build support.

1 Issue a press release

The release should describe the department’s partnership with CPE, summarize key findings from the assessment, and outline actions the department plans to take to respond to the findings and CPE’s recommended next steps. It should be distributed widely to state and local media as part of a broader media engagement strategy.

2 Host multiple public release events with diverse community organizations.

These events are an opportunity to share key findings and to collect input from the community. In the spirit of meaningful engagement, these events should aim to be an exchange, seeking insights and perspectives about the findings and recommendations from the community.

3 Create and distribute summaries of findings

Customize the summaries with relevant content for key audiences, such as line command staff/line officers, the community, and policymakers. The Summary portion of this assessment is a starting place for identifying high-level findings that can be supplemented with more detail, context, or other data, as appropriate for the audience. Examples of summaries might include anything from brief videos to written one-pagers, depending on how the department tends to communicate with their constituents, and should always be distributed through email and/or social media with a link to the assessment. Be prepared to directly address questions and comments about findings, current departmental practices, and reform agendas

After your assessment is public

Our Compstat for Justice program is designed for departments seeking long-term and effective assistance in constraining risks and enhancing relationships with the public.