West Hollywood, CA 2023

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

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

Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (LASD) West Hollywood Station joined CPE’s National Justice Database project in June 2021. LASD shared data with CPE in order to receive analyses intended to support community and law enforcement collaboration on data-informed efforts to advance equitable outcomes in policing and public safety. This assessment analyzes use of force data from 2017 – 2021, traffic and non-traffic stop data from July 1, 2018 – December 31, 2021, and calls for service and officer-initiated activity data from 2017 – 2021.

This assessment uses data provided by the LASD because the City of West Hollywood contracts with the LASD for policing services. The City of West Hollywood also contracts with a private security agency, Block by Block, that provides unarmed bicycle and foot patrols throughout the City’s commercial districts. Data on stops and other activities conducted by this agency were not provided for inclusion in this assessment. The LASD West Hollywood Station serves the City of West Hollywood and the unincorporated Universal CityWalk. Read more about the LASD West Hollywood Station and City of West Hollywood on the Departmental Context tab of this assessment.

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.

USE OF FORCE

How did deputies use force?

According to Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department West Hollywood Station data:

28% of all uses of force deputies recorded between 2017 and 2021 were against Black people, who made up 3.6% of the population of West Hollywood, California.

What should be investigated further?

Racial disparities in recorded uses of force are apparent across most types of force. The 2 most common force types recorded overall were “Holds” and “Takedown.”

How can departments reduce disparities in use of force?

Improve use of force reporting requirements

Explore Related Insights

Force Types by Racial Group

Improve Use of Force Reporting Requirements

Improve Use of Force Policies

Visit the Departmental Context section for more details

TRAFFIC STOPS

Which people did deputies stop and search?

According to Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department West Hollywood Station data:

51% of all people stopped between 2018 and 2021 were White.

20% of all people stopped between 2018 and 2021 were Latinx.

Which people did deputies search at stops?

At traffic stops, deputies searched Black people 5 times as often as White people.

Deputies searched 122 Black people who did not have any contraband, compared to 71 White people.

How can departments reduce disparities in traffic stops?

Improve use of force reporting requirements

Partner with community groups to consider more effective responses to traffic safety

Explore Related Insights

Search Outcomes at Traffic Stops

Investigate Stop Reasons

Explore More Effective Responses to Traffic Safety

Visit the Traffic Stops section for full analysis

NON-TRAFFIC STOPS

Which people did deputies stop?

According to Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department West Hollywood Station data:

33% of all people stopped between 2018 and 2021 were Black.

The population of West Hollywood, California is 3.6% Black.

How can departments reduce disparities in non-traffic stops?

Improve use of force reporting requirements

Reinforce policy through changes to organizational culture

Explore Related Insights

Stop Outcomes By Race

Investigate Stop Reasons

Explore More Effective Responses to Traffic Safety

Visit the Non-Traffic Stops section for full analysis

CALLS FOR SERVICE AND OFFICER ACTIVITY

How did deputies spend their time?

Deputies recorded 104,498 total events in 2017 – 2021, including Officer-Initiated Activities and police responses to Calls for Service.

13% of these events involved Bodily Harm, Property Harm, or Threats.

All Other Events involved no report of Bodily Harm, Property Harm, or Threats.

What should be investigated further?

Deputies recorded 104,498 total events in 2017 – 2021, including Officer-Initiated Activities and police responses to Calls for Service.

13% of these events involved Bodily Harm, Property Harm, or Threats.

How can public safety resources be better aligned with community needs?

Investigate how non-police services can respond to Calls for Service

Explore CPE’s resources on redesigning public safety

Explore Related Insights

Calls for Service by Call Reason

Investigate Non-Police Response Models

Redesigning Public Safety

Visit the Calls for Service and Officer Activity section for full analysis

NEXT STEPS TO REDUCE DISPARITIES

How can public safety resources be better aligned with community needs?

Investigate how non-police services can respond to Calls for Service

Partner with community groups to consider more effective responses to traffic safety

Reinforce policy through changes to organizational culture

Investigate how non-police services can respond to Calls for Service

Visit the companion site for full guidance on how to take action

OUR METHODOLOGY

CPE’s approach to assessing racial disparities in policing uses population benchmarking combined with other strategies that allow us to perform standardized analyses across law enforcement agencies. Population benchmarking cannot account for out-of-town visitors to the City of West Hollywood, but it can provide meaningful information about the experiences of people interacting with the LASD deputies, even if some or many of the people who are stopped or subjected to force may have come from out of town. Visit the Justice Navigator homepage to learn more about the methodologies we use.

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 (2023). West Hollywood, CA. 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 deputies, and the department’s work toward racial equity.

This section contains information on deputy demographics and departmental initiatives related to equitable policing practices that was input by the department through a survey. Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (LASD) West Hollywood Station submitted its responses to the context survey on January 19, 2023.

RESIDENT DEMOGRAPHICS

The resident population of West Hollywood, California is 76% White, 11% Latinx, 5.2% Asian, 4.1% Multiple Racial Groups, 3.6% Black, 0.4% Other, 0.1% Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, and less than 0.05% Native. The total resident population of West Hollywood, California is 36,384.

CPE’s approach to assessing racial disparities in policing uses population benchmarking in combination with other strategies that allow us to perform standardized analyses across law enforcement agencies. Population benchmarking cannot account for out-of-town visitors—though it is not known whether any disparity observed would appear larger or smaller if the non-resident population were fully accounted for. However, it can provide meaningful information about the experiences of people interacting with LASD deputies, even if some or many of the people who are stopped or subjected to force may have come from out of town.

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. Because West Hollywood is a tourist destination, Census data on its total resident population are unlikely to reflect the total number of people within the City’s limits at any given time.

DEPUTY DEMOGRAPHICS

These demographics were provided by the station as of January 19, 2023.

LASD’s contract with the City of West Hollywood assigns 59 deputies to staff the LASD West Hollywood Station, reported in the above chart as the total number of authorized/funded deputies. LASD rotates in 74 additional deputies from surrounding areas to patrol West Hollywood on an as-needed basis (for example, on Halloween night), making up the total of 133 current sworn deputies reported on the above chart.

ABOUT THIS ASSESSMENT

Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department West Hollywood Station joined CPE’s National Justice Database project in June 2021. LASD shared data with CPE in order to receive analyses intended to support community and law enforcement collaboration on data-informed efforts to equitable outcomes in policing and public safety. This assessment analyzes use of force data from 2017 – 2021, traffic and non-traffic stop data from July 1, 2018 – December 31, 2021, and calls for service and officer-initiated activity data from 2017 – 2021.

This assessment uses data provided by LASD because the City of West Hollywood contracts with LASD for policing services. The City of West Hollywood also contracts with Block by Block, a private security agency that provides unarmed bicycle and foot patrols throughout the City’s commercial districts. Data on stops and other activities conducted by this agency were not provided. The LASD West Hollywood Station serves the City of West Hollywood and the unincorporated Universal CityWalk.

DEPARTMENT SUMMARY OF ITS KEY INITIATIVES

LASD has recently updated its policies on data collection and racial profiling, in addition to implementing new training programs. LASD’s West Hollywood Station also utilizes several co-response teams and diversion strategies to address events involving individuals experiencing mental health crises, homelessness, and/or substance use issues. For more information on the Station’s co-response teams, see the Department Summary of its Community Outreach Initiatives section below.

DEPARTMENT SUMMARY OF ITS RACIAL EQUITY INITIATIVES

In 2015, the California State Legislature passed, and the Governor signed, Assembly Bill 953, the Racial and Identity Profiling Act. The law requires California law enforcement agencies to collect data and report that data annually to the California Department of Justice. Some of the data to be collected is perceptions about race, gender, sexual orientation, and others. The collection of this information is used to better understand law enforcement interactions with the Communities they serve.

As a result of this legislation, the Sheriff’s Department designed and built a system to capture this information which is called the Sheriff’s Automated Contact Reporting system. This new system allows deputies to collect this statutorily required information using the Mobile Digital Computers in their patrol vehicles or using a desktop computer.

DEPARTMENT SUMMARY OF ITS COMMUNITY OUTREACH INITIATIVES

West Hollywood is a small city (1.9 square miles and approximately 36,000 residents). It’s also an outsized economic and cultural center, a regional entertainment destination, and a hub of global tourism. West Hollywood is one of the densest of Los Angeles County’s 88 cities and its main roadway corridors –Sunset Boulevard and Santa Monica Boulevard– each host daily pass-through traffic that equals or exceeds the City’s total residential population. The City supports millions of visitors each year and on any given weekend evening, its population swells by countless thousands of people –a significant portion of whom are part of the LGBTQ+ community– who visit the City for its bars, restaurants, and nightlife venues. For these reasons, the LASD and City strive to meet the community’s unique public safety needs by investing in the following strategic partnerships and initiatives:

Teams

The Community Impact Team (CIT) includes the Community Oriented Policing and Problem Solving (COPPS) Team and the Entertainment Policing Team (EPT). The CIT collectively manages community concerns and promotes crime prevention through a variety of intervention and enforcement techniques. Team members work with Residents, Businesses, and City staff to address the quality of life concerns.

The Entertainment Policing Team continues its work on Sunset Boulevard, Santa Monica Boulevard, and Robertson Boulevard. Entertainment Policing deputies primarily focus on “entertainment” and “alcohol” related law enforcement issues in the city. On a nightly basis, they actively patrol over ninety bars, nightclubs, and hotels. While patrolling the different venues, the team members make contact with the management of the different establishments to maintain a cooperative working relationship and to stay informed on individual business concerns and events.

As part of their regular duties, EPT handles crowd control issues and Alcoholic Beverage Control enforcement. Personnel also works closely with the Sunset Strip Business Association (SSBA), their related security detail, SSBA members, and City Code Compliance officers through specialized operations. The deputies also enforce the codes concerning loud music/party and other quality of life issues. Another aspect of their duties includes assisting the West Hollywood Detective Bureau by documenting and monitoring members of gangs, people on probation, and people on parole in the City’s limits. The Team has received numerous commendations from community members, the station Captain, and the City.

The COPPS Team remains committed to collaborating with City officials, residents, and businesses to solve community concerns. Team members also worked with several Neighborhood Watch groups addressing residents’ concerns, including criminal transient issues. Team members not only make arrests for violations of law, but also provide information and assistance regarding shelters, medical attention, jobs, and substance use disorder education. In addition, the COPPS team conducts numerous park patrols and works closely with local businesses to address their concerns.

A new program was created to help address the issue of people experiencing homelessness in the Community. The program is called CARE Outreach (Contact, Assist, Resources, and Enforcement). The CIT Team has operations where the Teams go around the City and contact people experiencing homelessness. The Teams offer resources and access to housing. If the person does not accept the offer, other information is provided to the person if they change their mind. The last resort is enforcement.

Tarzana Treatment Center Partnership

The City and Station have entered into a partnership with Tarzana Treatment Center to provide substance use disorder treatment. When the CIT Team conducts a CARE Outreach Operation and ends up arresting someone who is experiencing substance use disorder, the next day, a counselor from the Tarzana Treatment Center comes to the station to interview the individual to determine interest and eligibility to enter a rehabilitation program. This provides an opportunity and second chance for people in the community suffering with substance use disorder to receive help.

Community Academy

The West Hollywood Sheriff’s Station facilitated a Community Academy at the City’s West Hollywood Park Aquatic and Recreation Center intended to provide members of the public insight into their Department’s policies/processes and Station operations to address and prevent crime. This was a six-week course that required participants to attend once a week for three hours.

Mental Evaluation Team

The Mental Evaluation Team (MET) includes a specialized Deputy and an LA County Department of Mental Health clinician and is part of the County of Los Angeles’ future plans to reduce the jail population. MET diverts clients away from jail in the field and at booking counters Countywide which supports the County’s roadmap for change with emphasis on: “Care First, Jails Last.” As such, in its 2020 report, the Alternatives to Incarceration (ATI) Workgroup recommended the County “substantially increase the number of co-response teams” (Recommendation #45). In its early report, the ATI Workgroup deferred to the Civilian Oversight Commission study with regard to the actual minimum number needed (60 teams). The vast majority of individuals encountered by MET are diverted away from the criminal justice system.

MET is uniquely involved in proactively seeking to divert even more people away from jail with its newest initiative: “Intake Booking Diversion” (IBD) program. Whenever a person is arrested and taken to a Sheriff’s Station jail, and it is discovered the person suffers from mental illness, the MET Triage Desk must be notified. MET will then send a team (if available) to evaluate the individual for suitability of discontinuing the booking and instead allowing MET to transport the individual to a mental health and/or substance use treatment facility. MET has partnered with the Centers for Court Innovation who won a federal grant to act as the third-party researcher to evaluate the effectiveness of the new MET IBD program for possible replication elsewhere, potentially even nationwide, by other police agencies.

The West Hollywood MET team has forged effective partnerships with several of the City’s contracted social services providers and the homeless services navigators at Cedars Sinai to strengthen the safety net for those West Hollywood community members who are experiencing mental health challenges, homelessness, or who are at risk for homelessness. The specially trained deputy sheriff and the DMH-licensed mental health clinician are trained to evaluate, and if necessary, authorized to initiate acute psychiatric holds, in accordance with the Welfare and Institutions Code, section 5150 or 5585. The MET unit provides housed and unhoused community members with mental health support, crisis intervention, and appropriate psychiatric placement, substance use treatment, and mental health linkages through the new initiative Outpatient Outreach Treatment (OTT) program when needed.

In the last two years, the City of West Hollywood has benefitted from this locally serving MET unit, which allowed for rapid response to community members in crisis. Compared to the regional-serving County-operated MET units’ average response time of 20 minutes, the West Hollywood MET unit averaged a response time of 13 minutes. Additionally, when the MET unit arrived on scene and patrol deputies had rendered the situation safe, the MET unit relieved an average of 3 Deputies and 1 Sergeant who could then return to the field and be available to respond to other incidents in West Hollywood. This local availability and rapid response led to measurable, positive impacts for the community. The contracted West Hollywood MET Team responded to 109 calls during January through November 2022 and evaluated 100 people experiencing a mental health crisis. Of these 100 individuals, 34 adults were involuntarily hospitalized by MET to receive mental health treatment. The MET unit prevented the use of force in 4 interactions and reduced the use of force in 4 interactions between Sheriff’s Deputies and community members; MET’s interventions prevented civilian and deputy injuries in which each incident could have led to trauma, civil claims, lawsuits, disability leave and loss of administrative time. Fourteen West Hollywood constituents living with severe and persistent mental health illness were referred to a specialized County-funded intensive case management program 3 (Risk Assessment and Management Program) and 12 (OTT) to meet their underlying mental health needs and reduce the recurrence of chronic calls for use of 911-level services.

The West Hollywood Sheriff’s Station now has access to the services of “VMET”. VMET is a new program of the Veterans Administration at the Federal Enclave and serves veterans who may be experiencing mental health issues. West Hollywood veterans are eligible to receive assistance from VMET and to be connected with the specialized services they need and deserve. VMET will coordinate with the Station’s personnel, especially the MET team, to assist with veteran residents in need and hopefully help them find long term housing and care. The City’s Strategic Initiatives and Social Services staff will work in partnership with MET, and now also VMET, as needed.

Youth Activities League

The Station also has a youth outreach program. The Youth Activities League (YAL) is a program between the Sheriff’s Station and the City. This program offers youth an opportunity to do activities, field trips, and other trips. YAL provides a safe space for youth with a constructive program.

Volunteers in Police Service

There are 22 volunteers who serve the West Hollywood Station. Station volunteers assist with Front Desk reception, clerical duties, traffic control and handicap placard violation citations.

Sheriff Reserve Deputies

West Hollywood Sheriff’s Station has an active Reserve Deputy program. Reserve Deputies work security at City Council meetings, in the Detective Bureau and Narcotics Bureaus, as well as regular patrol operations. It is an opportunity for community members to participate in the safety of their community.

LGBTQ+ Training

The Sheriff’s Department has recently launched a new LGBTQ+ Training program for the entire Department. The training is approved by the California State Peace Officers Standards and Training (POST) Commission. POST sets all the standards for Peace Officers in the State of California. West Hollywood Station received the inaugural class for this new training program and will continue this training program.

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 presented in this section reflect use of force incidents recorded by LASD West Hollywood deputies. Each law enforcement agency’s policy manual requires that officers record use of force, and defines the behaviors that count as “force” which must be reported. The way the policy defines officers’ obligation to report use of force has an impact on the number of incidents recorded, which provides important context for interpreting these analyses. Departments with more comprehensive reporting requirements may have more recorded incidents than departments with vague or incomplete requirements. For LASD West Hollywood Station’s definition of reportable force, see “What counts as force for these analyses?” at the bottom of this page.

USES OF FORCE BY RACIAL GROUP

COMPARING USE OF FORCE INCIDENT RATES

Use of Force Incident Rates After Accounting for Neighborhood Crime Rates, Poverty Levels, and Share of Black Residents

The LASD West Hollywood Station provided data on use of force incidents. However, there were too few Census tracts in this jurisdiction to conduct this analysis, which requires data from at least 15 tracts to reliably assess racial disparities in police behavior at the neighborhood level. For details on data required for CPE’s regression analysis, see “More information” below.

More information

What does this show?

This infographic displays findings from CPE’s regression analysis, a statistical technique that allows CPE to investigate differences in use of force rates by race, taking into account other socioeconomic factors that may affect policing strategies and deployment. Specifically, this regression tests how much more or less likely each racial group is than White people to have force used on them in a neighborhood with an average poverty rate, crime rate, and percentage of Black residents – three factors commonly associated with increased police contact. The results of this analysis show the size of racial disparities in use of force that remain even when the influence of poverty levels, crime rates, and the percentage of Black residents across neighborhoods are removed from the equation.

We take into account the share of Black residents, crime rates, and poverty levels in a neighborhood because these factors affect the likelihood that a person of any racial group in a neighborhood will have police contact. This relationship between police presence and the percent of Black residents in a neighborhood is, in part, a result of systemic racism and structural disadvantage (for example, a lack of community services can lead to more calls for police service). But police-driven factors, such as departmental policy or officer behavior, also contribute to increased police activity in neighborhoods with more Black residents, crime, and poverty.

How was this calculated?

To represent neighborhoods, we use Census tracts — small geographic areas of approximately 4,000 residents — as defined by the Census Bureau. We use publicly available Census data to measure the percentage of Black residents in each neighborhood.

To measure serious crime rates, we count crimes in each neighborhood that are recorded by the department. Specifically, we count reports of Part 1 offenses. The FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting Statistics defines Part 1 offenses as: murder and non-negligent homicide, rape , robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, motor vehicle theft, larceny, and arson. Racial groups that made up less than 2% of all use of force incidents, or which had fewer than 40 total incidents, were excluded from this analysis (see the Data Notes tab for information on how we define racial groups).

Data required for this analysis:

Incident unique identifier
Date of incident
Person's racial group
Location of incident (i.e. street address, including zipcode or latitude/longitude)
Crime unique identifier
Crime date of incident
Crime offense (NIBRS/UCR) classification or description
Crime location (i.e. street address, including zipcode or latitude/longitude)

FORCE TYPES USED, BY RACIAL GROUPS

USE OF FORCE INCIDENTS BY WORK UNIT AND RACIAL GROUP

Incident Totals For Each Work Unit, Separated by Racial Group

Data on deputy work units were provided by the LASD West Hollywood Station. However, data were not collected with enough detail to identify deputies’ work unit assignments at the time each incident in the dataset was recorded. For details on data required for this analysis, see “More information” below.

More information

What does this show?

“Work unit” describes the work groups in a department. It can refer to the assignment of the officer who applied force (e.g. Detective Unit, Narcotics, Traffic, etc.), or the geographic areas where incidents occurred (e.g. precincts, districts, zones, etc.).

Each colored bar shows the percentage of use of force incidents recorded by each work unit of people of each racial group. The Multiple Work Units category, if used, represents incidents involving officers from two or more work units. Hovering over a colored bar shows the number of incidents that make up that percentage. The grey bars on the right show the total number of incidents recorded by each work unit. Any work unit that records a large number of use of force incidents or records large racial disparities will influence overall racial disparities in use of force. If disparities are present among most or all 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 incidents of force and first separated them by the work unit that recorded the incident. We then calculated what percentage of incidents was recorded for people of each racial group.

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

Data required for this analysis:

WHAT COUNTS AS FORCE FOR THESE ANALYSES?

We reviewed LASD’s policies that defined the behaviors deputies were required to report as force during the assessment timeframe. Understanding what types of incidents were required to be recorded, as well as gaps in what was required to be recorded, can help determine whether any incidents might have been missing from the provided dataset and reveal opportunities for improving data collection policies and practices.

We encourage departments to adopt use of force policies that clearly define what counts as reportable “force” and explicitly include every type of behavior that officers are required to report as a use of force incident. A comprehensive use of force reporting policy would require officers to record every incident in which they use their body, a tool, or a weapon to overcome resistance, secure compliance, or in any way that could cause pain, injury or death, regardless of the officer’s motivation or whether any injury or complaint results. Our policy recommendations for comprehensive use of force reporting provide further details on how to effectively collect use of force data.

Departmental definition of force

The department has shared Chapter 10–Force Policy, from the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department Manual of Policies and Procedures, in effect at the end of the assessment period.

The definitions section, 3-10/004.00, defines “force” as follows:

“Force is defined as any physical effort used to control or restrain another, or to overcome the resistance of another.”

Section 3-10/004.00 provides that deputies’ use of force must be reported in the following circumstances:

“Reportable use of force for on-duty personnel is defined as any physical effort to overcome a suspect’s physical resistance, or any use of force which results in a suspect’s physical injury or complaint of pain attributable to an identifiable injury. All force used off-duty while taking law enforcement action is reportable.”

Use of force reporting requirements are elaborated in section 3-10/100.00 – Use of Force Reporting – Department Member Responsibilities.

“In all cases in which members use reportable force, they shall make a verbal notification to their immediate supervisor (with a minimum rank of sergeant) as soon as safely possible. Unless otherwise specifically directed by the watch commander/supervising lieutenant, the member shall complete a written first report of the force incident prior to the member going off duty.”

TRAFFIC STOPS

This section examines traffic stops, which are stops for which the recorded reason was “traffic violation.”

Note: The racial categorization scheme mandated by California law requires law enforcement agencies to record stops of “Middle Eastern or South Asian” people separately from stops of “Asians” (that is, East Asians), and does not distinguish Middle Eastern from South Asian people. Because South Asians cannot be distinguished from non-Asian Middle Easterners in this dataset, stops of “Middle Eastern or South Asian” people are not counted as stops of “Asians” in the analyses on this page.

TRAFFIC STOPS BY RACIAL GROUP

COMPARING SEARCH RATES AT TRAFFIC STOPS

According to Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department West Hollywood Station data, once vehicles were stopped:

Deputies searched Black people 5 times as often as White people.
Deputies searched Latinx people 3 times as often as White people.
Deputies searched Middle Eastern or South Asian people at about the same rate as White people.
Deputies searched Asian people 0.7 times as often as White people.

More information

What does this show?

This visualization shows, out of the same number of stopped people, how many people 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 1,000 to get the per 1,000 stops rate.

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:

COMPARING SEARCH OUTCOMES AT TRAFFIC STOPS

One common explanation for racial disparities in stops and searches is that members of some racial groups may be more likely to have contraband. To assess this, this analysis examines how often deputies recorded finding contraband such as weapons, drugs, or stolen goods in searches of people in each racial group.

When searches of people experiencing disparities are less likely to result in the discovery of contraband, this may indicate they are being searched unproductively. Unproductive searches can indicate that deputies’ suspicion of illegal activity or weapons possession is less likely to be accurate for members of this group, or that deputies 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 cannot be justified by differences in the outcomes of those 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 people 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 people 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 traffic 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 people 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:

Incident unique identifier
Date of incident
Racial group of person stopped
Search(es) conducted
Reason for search
Contraband found in each search

TRAFFIC STOP REASONS BY RACIAL GROUP

TRAFFIC STOP OUTCOMES BY RACIAL GROUP

TRAFFIC STOPS BY WORK UNIT AND RACIAL GROUP

Traffic Stop Totals by Work Unit, Separated by Racial Group

Data on deputy work units were provided by the LASD West Hollywood Station. However, data were not collected with enough detail to identify deputies’ work unit assignments at the time each stop in the dataset was recorded. For details on data required for this analysis, see “More information” below.

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 people 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 people 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:

NON-TRAFFIC STOPS

This section examines non-traffic stops, which are stops for which the recorded reason was anything other than “traffic violation.”

NON-TRAFFIC STOPS BY RACIAL GROUP

COMPARING NON-TRAFFIC STOP RATES

Non-Traffic Stop Rates After Accounting for Neighborhood Crime Rates, Poverty Levels, and Share of Black Residents

The LASD West Hollywood Station provided data on non-traffic stops. However, there were too few Census tracts in this jurisdiction to conduct this analysis, which requires data from at least 15 tracts to reliably assess racial disparities in police behavior at the neighborhood level. For details on data required for CPE’s regression analysis, see “More information” below.

More information

What does this show?

This infographic displays findings from CPE’s regression analysis, a statistical technique that allows CPE to investigate differences in non-traffic stop rates by race, taking into account other socioeconomic factors that may affect policing strategies and deployment. Specifically, this regression tests how much more or less likely each racial group is than White people to be stopped in a neighborhood with an average poverty rate, crime rate, and percentage of Black residents – three factors commonly associated with increased rates of police contact. The results of this analysis show the size of racial disparities in non-traffic stops that remain even when the influence of poverty levels, crime rates, and the percentage of Black residents across neighborhoods are removed from the equation.

We take into account the share of Black residents in a neighborhood because this factor affects the likelihood that a person of any racial group in a neighborhood will have police contact. This relationship between police presence and the percent of Black residents in a neighborhood is, in part, a result of systemic racism and structural disadvantage (for example, a lack of community services can lead to more calls for police service). But police-driven factors, such as departmental policy or officer behavior, also contribute to increased police activity in neighborhoods with more Black residents. Our model cannot precisely distinguish the extent to which this increased police activity is due to reasons within a department’s control, or reasons outside a department’s control. By accounting for the neighborhood share of Black residents, the results of this analysis therefore may under-estimate the extent to which departmental factors contribute to observed disparities between Black and White people.

How was this calculated?

To measure serious crime rates, we count crimes in each neighborhood that are recorded by the department. Specifically, we count reports of Part 1 offenses. The FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting Statistics defines Part 1 offenses as: murder and non-negligent homicide, rape (legacy and revised), robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, motor vehicle theft, larceny theft, and arson. Racial groups which made up less than 2% of all incidents, or which had fewer than 40 total incidents, were excluded from this analysis (see the Data Notes tab for information on how we define racial groups).

Data required for this analysis:

Incident unique identifier
Date of incident
Racial group of person stopped
Location of incident (i.e. street address, including zipcode or latitude/longitude)
Crime unique identifier
Crime date of incident
Crime offense (NIBRS/UCR) classification or description
Crime location (i.e. street address, including zipcode or latitude/longitude)

COMPARING SEARCH RATES AT NON-TRAFFIC STOPS

Once people were stopped:

More information

What does this show?

This visualization shows, out of the same number of stopped people, how many people 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 1,000 to get the per 1,000 stops rate.

Police are typically required to search people they arrest. 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:

COMPARING SEARCH OUTCOMES AT NON-TRAFFIC STOPS

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 people in 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.

It is important to compare this chart to the stop rates for people, above, to identify which groups may be experiencing a stop rate that may be driving high totals of contraband found.

How was this calculated?

We took the total recorded searches of people of each racial group and calculated the percentage that did and did not reveal contraband. Police are typically required to search people they arrest. 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:

NON-TRAFFIC STOP REASONS BY RACIAL GROUP

NON-TRAFFIC STOP OUTCOMES BY RACIAL GROUP

NON-TRAFFIC STOPS BY WORK UNIT AND RACIAL GROUP

Non-Traffic Stop Totals by Work Unit, Separated by Racial Group

Data on deputy work units were provided by the LASD West Hollywood Station. However, data were not collected with enough detail to identify deputies’ work unit assignments at the time each stop in the dataset was recorded. For details on data required for this analysis, see “More information” below.

More information

What does this show?

Hovering over a colored 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 non-traffic stops. 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 people 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:

COMPOSITION OF DEPUTY NON-TRAFFIC STOPS RELATIVE TO EACH DEPUTY'S PATROL AREA

Proportion of Deputies Who Stop Certain Racial Groups at Higher or Lower Rates than Expected by Population in their Patrol Area

Data on non-traffic stops were provided by the LASD West Hollywood Station. However, deputies did not record location data with enough detail to geocode more than 15% of stops in the data. This analysis requires location data for at least 85% of stops in order to reliably assess the racial makeup of each deputy’s stops at the neighborhood level. Learn more about CPE’s data quality standards and how departments can collect data required to receive a complete set of Justice Navigator analyses.

More information

What does this show?

This chart compares the stop patterns of officers making non-traffic stops against the demographics of the areas they most commonly patrol and identifies the number of officers whose stop patterns are either reflective of their communities, or out of sync with their communities. It is a measure of disparity in enforcement, and does not necessarily reflect officer bias. For each officer, we calculate a “parity score” which compares the racial distribution of that officer’s stops to the racial demographics of the neighborhood in which the officer usually works. Then we group those scores into categories describing the rate at which the officer stops a given racial group (proportionate to neighborhood racial demographics, or higher, much higher, lower, or much lower). Hovering over a bar shows the percent of officers in each category.

“Very low” scores mean that officers made stops of a racial group much less frequently than the population size of residents of the same racial group in each officer’s patrol area would predict, while “low” scores indicate officers made stops less frequently than that group’s share of the local resident population would predict. “Proportionate” scores mean that officers made stops of a racial group at a rate approximately equal to the population size of residents of the same racial group in each officer’s patrol area; “high” scores mean that officers made stops more frequently than the population size of residents would predict; and “very high” scores indicate that officers made stops much more frequently than local demographics would predict.

How was this calculated?

The parity scores are created by first mapping the Census tracts. (Census tracts are small geographic areas of approximately 4,000 residents, as defined by the Census Bureau, where a given officer most frequently makes non-traffic stops that represent their patrol area.) The racial makeup of an officer’s stops within those tracts is compared to the racial makeup of the resident population in the tracts. The difference between the percentage of people an officer stops and that racial group’s share of the local population is the officer’s parity score for that group. Parity scores are calculated with anonymized data that ensures the identities of officers are not known to the researchers. See the Data Notes tab for information on how we define racial groups.

Data required for this analysis:

Incident unique identifier
Date of incident
Racial group of person stopped
Location of incident (e.g. street address or latitude/longitude)
Officer unique identifier or alternatively, officer race/ethnicity, gender, and date of birth or date of hire

CALLS FOR SERVICE AND OFFICER-INITIATED 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.

We include data on all Calls for Service (events reported via 911 calls, non-emergency calls to the station, direct contact with deputies, or 311 calls that were routed to the police for a response) as well as all other recorded police activity, including Officer-Initiated Activities (events that deputies initiated based on their own observations or assignment, rather than in response to Calls for Service). We request data only for events involving police, and not those solely addressed by fire or emergency medical responders. This data comes from Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) systems, a central recording platform used by dispatchers to record Calls for Service and by deputies to record their self-initiated activity, such as vehicle and non-traffic stops. In most jurisdictions, events recorded in CAD systems are not linkable to incidents recorded in police datasets on stops or use of force.

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. It is important to note that Officer-Initiated 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.

We were unable to conduct some analyses that compare Officer-Initiated Activity to Calls for Service because LASD data did not explicitly distinguish events initiated by deputies from events initiated by a Call for Service. When data provided by the department do not distinguish between Officer-Initiated Activities and police responses to Calls for Service, our analyses will primarily examine events by event type. 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 directly asked for via a Call for Service.

For more details on the types of events included in these analyses, see “More information” under the first chart in this section.

CALLS FOR SERVICE AND OFFICER-INITIATED ACTIVITIES BY EVENT TYPE

Deputies recorded 104,498 total events between 2017 – 2021, 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 event was Officer-Initiated or initiated by the community via a Call for Service. “Bodily Harm” is meant to capture events involving Bodily Harm crimes where a police response is required. This is not meant to include events involving accidental injuries where emergency medical services are the necessary responder, such as auto accidents not involving serious or violent crime.

“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 via a Call for Service.

Calls for Service are reported 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), any requests for assistance from other officers or from outside agencies, and other activities police typically have some discretion over (such as vehicle and non-traffic stops).

How did we calculate this?

This data comes from Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) systems, a central recording platform for all Officer-Initiated Activity and responses to Calls for Service. CAD is used by dispatchers to record Calls For Service and by officers to record their self-initiated activity, such as vehicle and non-traffic stops.

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.

Event categories are based on the initial call reason (provided to the dispatcher) or activity description (provided by the officer). Visit the Data Notes tab for details on the exact call types included and how they were categorized.

Data required for this analysis:

CALLS FOR SERVICE

This figure is meant to highlight the reasons for which community members are most often calling emergency services. Of the 104,498 events included in the previous figure, 88,844 were police responses to Calls for Service rather than Officer-Initiated Activities.

84% of recorded Calls for Service that deputies 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. The LASD West Hollywood Station has a number of alternative or co-response teams that may have been used to address some of the Calls for Service included in this analysis. However, CPE did not collect data on the responding deputies’ teams or work unit assignments at the time each event in the dataset occurred.

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

More information

What does this show?

This figure only includes Calls for Service (events that were requested 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 emergency services. 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:

POLICE INTERVENTIONS IN MENTAL HEALTH CRISES

Deputies recorded 641 events that were recorded as involving individuals experiencing mental health crises.

Center for Policing Equity | Data provided by Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department West Hollywood Station 2017 – 2021

Deputies recorded 641 events as involving individuals experiencing mental health crises.

Deputies and 911 dispatchers are often not equipped to recognize or assist people experiencing mental health crises, so analyses of recorded “mental health” events may underestimate the full extent of opportunities to reduce police interventions in behavioral health incidents.

The LASD West Hollywood Station has a Mental Evaluation Team that may have been used to address some of the events included in this analysis. However, CPE did not collect data on the responding deputies’ teams or work unit assignments at the time each event in the dataset occurred.

Community-based systems of crisis response are preferred for these event types because they help connect people with appropriate care that may prevent future crises. Relying on police to address incidents related to mental health issues can unnecessarily escalate a mental health emergency to an incident ending in incarceration, use of force, or death.

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 interventions in the types of health and social issues that are routinely handled by existing unarmed community-based response programs around the country. The events in this figure include both Officer-Initiated Activities and police responses to Calls for Service.

Community-based 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 such crisis services in the future, 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 a recorded event reason included terms such as “mental health,” “emotionally disturbed,” “suicide,” or “behavioral health.” This figure may undercount the number of police interventions in behavioral health-related incidents, 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.

Data required for this analysis:

PUBLIC ORDER CONCERNS, NUISANCES, AND SUSPICIOUS BEHAVIOR

The census tract where deputies recorded the most enforcement events involving “Public Order Concerns,” “Nuisances,” or “Suspicious Behavior” per capita had 1,205 such events, while all other census tracts combined had an average of 556 such events. The events mapped in this figure include both Officer-Initiated Activities and police responses to Calls for Service.

These types of events generally reflect police involvement in situations that do not require an armed response and may instead benefit from interventions by trained social workers or mental health professionals, such as events involving unhoused individuals, truancy, drug use, missing persons, suspicious persons, or noise complaints.

The LASD West Hollywood Station has a number of alternative or co-response teams that may have been used to address some of the events included in this analysis. However, CPE did not collect data on the responding deputies’ teams or work unit assignments at the time each event in the dataset occurred.

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

More information

What does this show?

This figure shows whether police recorded more enforcement of Public Order Concern, Nuisance, and Suspicious Behavior violations per capita in areas with a higher proportion of Black residents. The events in this figure include both Officer-Initiated Activities and police responses to Calls for Service.

Each bar (“quintile”) in the figure represents 20% of census tracts in the city, ordered from those with the lowest percentage of Black residents on the left to those with the highest percentage of Black residents on the right. For example, for a city with 100 census tracts, the leftmost quintile would represent the 20 tracts with the lowest percentage of Black residents, the rightmost quintile would represent the 20 tracts with the highest percentage of Black residents, and the remaining 60 tracts would be divided evenly across the three middle quintiles in order relative to their percentages of Black residents.

We take into account the share of Black residents in an area because this factor affects the likelihood that a person of any racial group in an area will have police contact. This relationship between police presence and the percentage of Black residents in an area is, in part, a result of systemic racism and structural disadvantage. For example, disinvestment in disproportionately Black communities often means police are called in to deal with issues, like infrastructure failure, that could otherwise be resolved through effective resourcing. But police-driven factors, such as departmental policy or officer behavior, also contribute to increased police activity in areas with more Black residents.

How did we calculate this?

We use publicly available Census data to measure the percentage of Black residents in each census tract — small geographic areas of approximately 4,000 residents — as defined by the Census Bureau.

We ordered the census tracts from lowest to highest based on the percentage of residents in each tract who were Black. We then calculated the number of events involving Public Order Concerns, Nuisances, and Suspicious Behavior recorded in each tract per 1,000 residents. We compare the number of events to the percentage of Black residents in each tract to see if tracts with higher percentages of Black residents also have more of these events.

Data required for this analysis:

DENSITY OF OFFICER-INITIATED ACTIVITIES RELATIVE TO CALLS FOR SERVICE

This figure shows where in the jurisdiction there might be a mismatch between direct community requests for police presence and deployment directed by the department. The census tracts shaded in the deepest colors have the highest ratios of Officer-Initiated Activities relative to Calls for Service. Areas with outsized proportions of Officer-Initiated Activities relative to Calls for Service may be overpoliced relative to what the community is requesting, which can contribute to unnecessary or biased enforcement.

More information

What does this show?

This figure shows where in the jurisdiction there might be a mismatch between direct community requests for police presence and deployment directed by the department. 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 considered respectively low-, moderate-, and high-level 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?

First, we calculated the number of recorded events that were Officer-Initiated Activities and the number that were police responses to Calls for Service using the department’s indication of which events were Officer-Initiated. If the data provided by the police had an indicator of which events were Officer-Initiated, we used that. If the data do not explicitly 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 for Service and multiplying by 1,000. We sort these into five categories of census tracts — small geographic areas of approximately 4,000 residents, as defined by the Census Bureau — so that the 20% of tracts with the lowest ratio of Officer-Initiated Activities to Calls for Service are in the first category, the 20% of tracts with the highest ratio are in the last category, and the remaining 60% are divided evenly across the middle three categories in order relative to their ratios. Finally, we map these census tracts, with darker colors indicating tracts 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.