FEBRUARY 2008 HOT TOPICS

Taking a Closer Look at NYPD Pedestrian Stops for Racial Bias

The New York City Police Department (NYPD) stopped a half-million pedestrians because of suspected criminal involvement in 2006. Raw statistics for these encounters suggest large racial disparities, but do the data also indicate racial bias? Answering that question requires going beyond the raw statistics and carefully analyzing the data.

The NYPD specifically asked the RAND Corporation's Center on Quality Policing to conduct such an analysis of the data and address whether the racial distribution of the stops suggests racial bias, whether certain officers seem to be disproportionately stopping nonwhites, and whether there are racial differences after the stops in the rates of frisk, search, recovery of contraband, use of force, and arrest.

The study found that the raw statistics, while easy to compute, distort the picture of race and policing in New York. Comparing the racial distribution of stops to three commonly used benchmarks—the racial distribution of New York residents, NYPD arrestees, and reported crime suspect descriptions—does not yield robust findings; rather, it generates very different results based on the same raw data.

Our analyses based on using more precise benchmarks to address concerns about biased officers and bias in stop outcomes do not eliminate the observed racial disparities in the raw statistics. However, they do indicate that the disparities are much smaller. For example, we flagged 15 officers that disproportionately stopped nonwhites, a relatively small fraction of the officers but still a critical issue for NYPD to scrutinize. We also found that some legitimate factors explain much of the difference in frisk rates between black and white suspects. Some of those factors include police policies and practices that can legitimately differ by time, place, and reason for the stop.

Any racial disparities in the data are cause for concern. However, accurately measuring the magnitude of the problem can help police management, elected officials, and community members decide between the need for incremental changes in policy, reporting, and oversight or the need to make sweeping organizational changes. Our findings do not absolve the NYPD of the need to monitor the issue, but they also imply that a large-scale restructuring of NYPD policies and procedures is unwarranted.

The study offers a number of recommendations to improve interactions between police and pedestrians during stops and to improve the accuracy of data collected during pedestrian stops.

READ THE RESEARCH BRIEF: What Does NYPD's Pedestrian Stop Data Actually Show?

Recidivism Rates: How Do Deportable and Nondeportable Immigrants Compare?

One of the concerns motivating the recent crackdown on illegal immigration in some jurisdictions in the nation is a fear that immigrants—particularly illegal immigrants—increase crime in the community. One way to study this concern is to analyze how likely deportable immigrants are compared to legal immigrants to be rearrested after release from a local jail.

A RAND Corporation study examined this question, looking at nearly 1,300 male immigrants (517 deportable and 780 nondeportable) released from the Los Angeles County Jail system over a 30-day period (from August to September 2002); the study followed them for a year to see whether there were differences in rearrest for new crimes between the two groups. “Deportable” immigrants were defined as either immigrants who entered the United States illegally or those who entered legally but whose legal permission to remain in the country lapsed without renewal or was revoked for some reason.

The study found that a higher percentage of deportable versus nondeportable immigrants (those who were legal or naturalized) were rearrested at least once during the following year—43 percent compared to 35 percent, respectively. But when researchers looked more closely at the two groups, they found that the difference in rearrest was actually the result of other factors well known to be related to recidivism—factors such as age, criminal history, and reason for the jail stay.

The results lend no support to the assertion that deportable aliens are a unique threat to public safety and undermine one common justification offered for the current crackdown on deportable aliens. More research is needed to determine whether these results can be replicated generally and with subtypes of deportable aliens.

READ MORE: Are Deportable Aliens a Unique Threat to Public Safety?

The RAND Safety and Justice Program conducts research, analysis, and demonstrations that help policymakers, government agencies, and communities improve public safety. To access our research, please visit our website at www.rand.org/ise/safety/.

The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit research organization providing objective analysis and effective solutions that address the challenges facing the public and private sectors around the world.

Learn More »

Copyright © 2008 RAND Corporation. 1776 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401-3208. RAND® is a registered trademark.

The RAND Safety and Justice Congressional Newsletter is distributed on an opt-in basis only by visiting us at www.rand.org. We respect your privacy. If you do not wish to receive this periodic newsletter, please email ocr@rand.org or call (703) 413-1100 x5395.

This newsletter is also available on the RAND Congressional web site at http://www.rand.org/congress/newsletters/safety_justice/2008/02/.