INVESTIGATE RESULTS
To understand how to address disparities, first learn about when they occur and when they’re most severe.
Our guiding questions below help you identify key information that can be used to understand the types of situations that lead to increased police contact. You can collect this information using our worksheet.
Who is experiencing racial disparities?
Use your Justice Navigator assessment to identify:
1
Which racial groups are stopped, searched, arrested, or subjected to force at disproportionate rates?
2
Do people in those groups experience disparities in all or some of the policing outcomes examined (pedestrian stops, vehicle stops, searches, enforcement outcomes, and use of force incidents)?
3
What level of racial disparities in pedestrian stops and use of force remain after accounting for community-level factors like crime, poverty, and neighborhood demographics?
What to do next
Partner with community members to regulate and redesign public safety services. The knowledge of people who experience burdensome policing should be the foundation for understanding identified racial disparities in your community. When inviting community members to share knowledge about their experiences, it is important to identify and acknowledge the historical legacy of harmful policing that Black and Native people, and other marginalized groups, have endured in your community and in this country more broadly.
As a first step toward sustained partnership, invite a diverse array of community members and leaders to participate in surveys or professionally-mediated focus groups. Ask them to describe their relationship with police, the major challenges to police-community trust, their experiences with burdensome police contact, and what police could do differently to serve their needs. But meaningful partnership with the community cannot not be limited to a discussion—plan to incorporate feedback and share concrete next steps with them.
Are there common characteristics of stops that appear unproductive?
Use your Justice Navigator assessment to identify:
1
Which racial groups are searched more frequently during pedestrian and vehicle stops?
When the searches of those groups are less likely to result in the discovery of contraband, this may indicate they are being searched unproductively. Unproductive searches can indicate that officers’ suspicion of illegal activity or weapons possession is less likely to be accurate for members of this group, or that officers more frequently decide to search members of this group at a lower level of suspicion.
When search outcomes are relatively similar across racial groups, it suggests that significant racial disparities in stop and search rates can not be justified by differences in the outcomes of those searches.
2
Which recorded stop reasons may be associated with racial disparities in vehicle searches?
Pay attention to stop reasons more often recorded in stops of groups experiencing racial disparities, as well as stop reasons more often recorded overall. Stops that are not based on any risk to public safety or evidence of criminal activity are less likely to be efficient or productive uses of investigative resources.
The most common reason for contact with the police in the United States is being the driver in a traffic stop, and Black drivers are more likely to be stopped by police. Black drivers may also be more likely to be stopped for reasons that tend to be less related to public safety –such as equipment stops and license or registration checks– which unnecessarily increases their likelihood of being searched, experiencing police use of force, and being killed by police.
What to do next
1
Require officers to give a brief narrative explanation of the basis for every stop they make. Require supervisors to review those reports to ensure that they are supported by reasonable suspicion and consistent with department policy.
2
Ask supervisors to review any relevant data in spreadsheets, or forms with brief narrative descriptions of the reason for the stop, to identify common patterns or factors (such as work units, geographic areas, officers, or stop reason).
3
Jurisdictions should invest in evidence-informed practices that reduce the footprint of policing on traffic safety to address persistent racial disparities in traffic enforcement that pose an ongoing public safety risk to Black drivers.
Which types of force are most commonly used?
Use your Justice Navigator assessment to identify:
1
Are disparities consistent among uses of all or most types of force?
If so, departments should explore broad interventions that reduce the use of all types of force, such as changes to departmental policy and organizational culture.
2
Are certain types of force potentially contributing to racial disparities?
If the results show that use of force is more racially disparate in incidents involving a particular force type, departments should investigate their policies and practices relating to that force type (the following section has guidance on strengthening use of force policies). Justice Navigator results also identify the force types that officers most commonly use, which can also be a starting place for decreasing overall disparities in use of force.
What to do next
1
Review the policies and training on force types most associated with disparities. Look for any policy provisions that contain vague, ambiguous, or overly general language.
2
Review force types that are of most concern to the community. Identify policies that do not reflect the values of the department and the communities it serves.
3
Periodically audit use of force reports. This will help to identify any patterns or common features associated with use of a force type, such as officers, units, or geographic location. For example, audits may show that a force type is used more by specialized units than regular patrol.
Do officer- or unit-level differences appear to contribute to observed disparities?
Use your Justice Navigator assessment to identify:
1
Are disparities consistent among many officers or most work units?
If so, departments should explore department-wide interventions that address issues such as culture, departmental strategy, or policy.
2
Are disparities more severe within a specific work unit or units?
If so, a department should also investigate potential unit-level factors that may contribute to observed disparities (such as unit culture, deployment decisions, neighborhood demographics, and supervisor behavior).
3
Do officer-level differences appear to contribute to racial disparities in pedestrian stops?
If so, departments should investigate ways to improve department accountability mechanisms (including early intervention systems, misconduct investigation procedures, and disciplinary policies).
4
Are there certain call types or officer-initiated activities that may be driving deployment patterns, either across the department or within specific work unit assignments, in a way that may contribute to observed disparities?
If so, departments should work with community members and policymakers to reevaluate their deployment decisions and enforcement priorities and identify opportunities to more equitably and efficiently meet community needs.
What to do next
1
Ask officers and community members to point out relevant community context for unit-level disparities in stop or use of force rates, such as geographic factors. If, for example, officers note that a large number of use of force incidents occur in or near an encampment of people experiencing homelessness, a department could work with city officials to develop strategies to increase social services and decrease police contact in that area. One way to gather this information is through a community conditions report, where officers note conditions in the neighborhood that require intervention by other agencies but which may ultimately drive police presence (for example, a missing stop sign).
2
Conduct confidential officer focus groups, advisory groups, and surveys to assess whether officers feel reluctant to report misconduct and whether officers believe aggressive enforcement action is necessary for them to advance within the department. A voluntary advisory group should be made up of a diverse array of officers, meet regularly, and have an environment for candid speaking (for example, this can be fostered by not using titles). Surveys, meanwhile, are most effective if participants understand that their identities will be concealed, and that they will be able to complete the survey quickly and during dedicated work time.
Are there any deployment patterns or enforcement priorities that may contribute to observed disparities?
Use your Justice Navigator assessment to identify:
1
What types of activities do officers initiate, and how does this align with what the community is requesting via calls for service?
If the vast majority of recorded police activity is made up of events involving no reports of bodily harm, property harm, or threats, then there may be a sufficient portion of police activity that does not require an armed response to warrant the use of appropriate non-police responders or co-response models. If most police activity is initiated by officers based on their own observations or assignment, rather than in response to calls for service, departments should investigate whether a portion of deployment and enforcement priorities may be unnecessary or better addressed by other community resources.
If the types of activities that officers record initiating themselves are generally not aligned with the types of enforcement requested via calls for service, departments should note which event categories have the largest differences between recorded officer-initiated activity and calls for service, and work with community members to reevaluate deployment and enforcement priorities in response to community needs.
2
Do certain areas of the jurisdiction have higher levels of officer-initiated activity relative to the number of calls for service?
When certain areas have greater ratios of officer-initiated activity to calls for service, it suggests residents of those areas may be experiencing particularly burdensome and unnecessary policing, which can contribute to biased enforcement. Outsized proportions of officer-initiated activity relative to calls for service may also suggest that community members call the police less frequently due to a lack of trust or perceived legitimacy. Community members may also make requests for public safety services that are not captured in calls for service data, such as those expressed in community forums. Further investigations of dispatch data should include qualitative analyses of community and officer input for additional context in interpreting these findings.
3
Are there certain types of calls for service or officer-initiated activities that may be disproportionately contributing to inequitable deployment patterns or enforcement priorities?
When officers enforce more public order concern, nuisance, and suspicious behavior offenses in neighborhoods with a higher proportion of Black residents or higher poverty levels, it suggests that residents of these areas are subject to a disparate burden of policing. These types of offenses 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. Policies that criminalize behavior driven by poverty, such as panhandling or loitering, may drive higher rates of police contact in these neighborhoods, which poses a risk factor for disparities.
Despite being no more likely than anyone else to act violently, officers are more likely to use force on people with mental illness than people without mental illness. Community-based systems of crisis response are the best option for mental health health emergencies because they prevent unnecessary police contact that can drive disparities in use of force, and help connect people with appropriate care that may prevent future crises. However, if they are unavailable, then crisis co-response models that include police can be used as a harm reduction measure.
What to do next
1
Periodically analyze computer aided dispatch (CAD) records to identify whether certain types of events, such as mental health crises or public order concerns, may be driving deployment patterns that pose organizational risk factors for inequitable policing outcomes. Take note of any call types that may not require an armed response, or that may be better addressed by using appropriate non-police responders or co-response models.
A comprehensive assessment of calls for service and officer-initiated activity would require data on the outcomes of each event, such as whether it resulted in an arrest, citation, warning, or use of force incident. In most jurisdictions, this type of analysis is not currently possible because events recorded in CAD systems are not linkable to incidents in datasets on stops and use of force, where those outcomes are recorded. CPE guidance for collecting CAD data is forthcoming.
2
Investigate deployment patterns and enforcement priorities that disproportionately impact marginalized communities. Aim to identify whether deployment and enforcement are based on complaints of the members of those marginalized communities or external sources (for example, a landlord that does not live in the community). Further, investigate whether deployment may be influenced by trends in recorded crime or other events, and whether such trends align with environmental factors, such as broken street lights or vacant lots, that research has shown can be associated with types of crime.
Our analyses of CAD data offer a starting point for examining deployment patterns, but they should not be considered a sufficient substitute for a complete workload analysis, where calls for service are compared against officer-initiated activities and measured against response times and final outcomes.
From there, you can also look at deployment of patrol districts to assess whether deployment should be based more on districting or calls for service. Then you can work with community groups to identify alternatives to any department practices and strategies with a disproportionate impact on particular racial groups, as well as address local risk factors for crime with place-based solutions (for example, addressing poverty and poor infrastructure). To achieve this, consider requiring that the department consult with community groups to identify effective alternative practices to strategies with disproportionate impacts.
3
Investigate whether staffing or scheduling practices contribute to officer cognitive depletion. Research has found that factors such as fatigue, hunger, and stress can cause cognitive depletion—or exhaustion of mental bandwidth that can lead people to rely on racial biases or stereotypes in decision-making.
- Analyze officer timesheets from the department, as well as any part-time or outside employment, to identify patterns of shift length, shift variability, and overtime.
- Conduct confidential focus groups and anonymous surveys about officer fatigue and stress.
- Review department policies and practices and consider shortening the length of shifts and setting a maximum daily shift length, increasing the regularity and predictability of shift work, and restricting overtime to avoid cognitive depletion.
