+ If You See Something And Say Something, CA's "Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board" Recommends Police Question YOU About Your Possible Racial/Ethnic Biases, Possibly Have YOU Apologize And Perform Community Service For Group Working With Persons Of Color Or Possibly Undergo Court Ordered "Cultural Sensitivity Training"
LBReport.com

News

If You See Something And Say Something, CA's "Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board" Recommends Police Question YOU About Your Possible Racial/Ethnic Biases, Possibly Have YOU Apologize And Perform Community Service For Group Working With Persons Of Color Or Possibly Undergo Court Ordered "Cultural Sensitivity Training"

Cites Police Racial/Ethnic Disparities In Police Stops/Arrests And "Bias By Proxy"



If LBREPORT.com didn't tell you,
who would?
No one in LBREPORT.com's ownership, reporting or editorial decision-making has ties to development interests, advocacy groups or other special interests; or is seeking or receiving benefits of City development-related decisions; or holds a City Hall appointive position; or has contributed sums to political campaigns for Long Beach incumbents or challengers. LBREPORT.com isn't part of an out of town corporate cluster and no one its ownership, editorial or publishing decisionmaking has been part of the governing board of any City government body or other entity on whose policies we report.

LBREPORT.com is reader and advertiser supported. Support independent news in LB similar to the way people support NPR and PBS stations. We're not non-profit so it's not tax deductible but $49.95 (less than an annual dollar a week) helps keep us online.

(Jan. 5, 2021) -- A statewide advisory Board created by a 2015 Sacramento bill (AB 953, enactment vote below) has issued its fourth annual "Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report (2021) at this link. It goes beyond data on police stops, searches and arrests to recommend questioning members of the public who call in to report crimes to examikne whether the the caller may be motivated by some type of explicit or implicit bias (creating "bias by proxy"), as part of "restorative justice" may seek an apology by the caller or community service at an organization working with people of color, or court-ordered "cultural sensitivity training" (and putting the latter into state legislation.

It also urges police agencies not to publish mug shots of arrestees (on grounds they allegedly contribute to racial bias), urges dispatchers to introduce "friction" into the system by causing officers or community members to pause before reporting suspicious activity or initiating a stop, discusses how that approach can help curb racial profiling and recommends police agencies monitor agency-issued cell phones and computers to ensure employees don't use those devices to exchange racist or other offensive content.

The report precedes these recommendations and its data on police stops and arrests with accusatory history of American law enforcement spanning over 150 years from slavery to foreign involvements and says recent domestic incidents have sparked calls for justice sought by groups including Black Lives Matters. In a section titled "Law Enforcement's Role In History," the report states in pertinent part:

...Author Alex S. Vitale posits that part of our misunderstanding about the nature of policing is that we cannot turn police officers into friendly community outreach workers when police have the legal capacity to use violence in situations where the average citizen would be arrested...

Given the nature of policing in the United States, it is not much of a leap to understand why many individuals have a fear of police, and, as such, this fear should be a part of the discussion about policing in this country. This fear is experienced, spoken about, and passed on from generation to generation, and it is very real, especially for Black, Indigenous, and other people of color. Some of this fear stems from the history of policing in this country, and in particular, Slave Patrols, which were in effect from 1704 in some southern states until the end of the Civil War... Throughout American history, law enforcement has also been deployed in other contexts to enforce unjust laws and policies, including the forcible removal of Indigenous communities from their native lands, the arrest of suffragettes working for women’s right to vote, Japanese internment, the criminalization of the LGBTQ community, and the targeting of immigrants by local and federal authorities.

In addition, there are numerous examples of law enforcement officers meeting peaceful protestors with force and aggression. [To support this statement it cites in a footnote an NPR interview with a Princeton University professor.]

The use of law enforcement to suppress the rights of marginalized and disempowered groups is a thread that has unfortunately continued for centuries in America, and it is often felt most significantly by heavily-policed communities. Both these images of police misconduct and the history of law enforcement’s role in American society from its inception remain in the forefront of the public’s mind.

Today’s law enforcement personnel did not create these historical fears in our communities, yet the fear exists. In order to repair and heal those wounds, police must acknowledge and work within the context of that negative history and systemic violence that has and continues to be directed at marginalized communities. Our police and our communities can, however, change that fear with every interaction. Respect and dignity among individuals should prevail even if someone is taken into custody.

The Board’s hope is that fear, panic, dread, anxiety, and distrust will not continue to be the first emotions that arise when an individual sees someone in a police uniform. We raise this dark history because systemic change is not solely about reactive policy change; it also requires a long-term commitment to reconsider the way things have been done and develop new models to move forward.

[Scroll down for further.]




e


[Report text, continued]

The Call for Justice

The year 2020 has been unprecedented in so many respects, but in particular with respect to widespread frustration against law enforcement. In March, Breonna Taylor was killed in her Louisville, Kentucky apartment as she lay asleep in bed when officers entered her home in a botched "No Knock" search warrant. The month of May brought the horrific death, captured on video, of George Floyd in Minneapolis, Minnesota. In June, Rayshard Brooks was killed by police in Atlanta, Georgia, and in August, Jacob Blake was shot multiple times in the back and partially paralyzed in Kenosha, Wisconsin. These acts of violence all resulted in protests, curfews, backlash, and calls from the community for justice.

This year we have seen unprecedented numbers of people marching across the globe in support of Black Lives Matter. Law enforcement agencies, academics, governmental entities, community members, and advocates have begun to examine their own biases and how to implement reforms, fund community-based solutions, and engage in other actions that will result in a more inclusive society. Local, state, and federal governments have made commitments to listen -- but it will take bold action at all levels of government to change the core problems that lead to systemic injustice.

Sponsor

Sponsor

Regarding calls by the public reporting alleged criminal activity, the report says it involve "bias by proxy" and recommends questioning callers to determine if their perception reflects biases and raises the prospect of an apology by the caller or court ordered "cultural sensitivity training.":

[Report text] [T]he Report discusses a research-based approach referred to as "adding friction" or causing officers or community members to pause before reporting suspicious activity or initiating a stop -- and discusses how that approach can help curb racial profiling...

The Board believes a restorative justice approach is essential to address bias-based calls and cases when someone files a suspected false police report. Restorative justice "is a theory of justice that emphasizes repairing the harm caused by criminal behavior. It is best accomplished through cooperative processes that allow all willing stakeholders to meet, although other approaches are available when that is impossible. This can lead to transformation of people, relationships and communities."

The Board acknowledges that when biased calls are made to law enforcement, it deeply impacts the relationship within the community and with the police. As such, a restorative justice approach that focuses on the harm caused by the criminal behavior and repairing the harm through community collaboration is needed to address the underlying causes of bias-based behaviors.

...A restorative justice approach that addresses bias-based calls can be a tool to educate the bias-based caller and to reconcile their actions by acknowledging the harm done to the affected community or individual. The approaches can be as simple as an apology or required community service at an organization working with people of color, or as in depth as a court-ordered cultural sensitivity training.

One tactic departments could employ is for dispatchers to code a suspected bias-based call as a "restorative justice" matter. When officers are dispatched, they could enter the situation with the mindset that the alleged suspect may be the victim of a bias-based call.

Shift supervisors should also be dispatched in these situations and help close out the call -- to let the bias-based caller know that no suspicious or criminal activity was found and to educate the caller on what is or is not an appropriate basis for calling 911.

...A restorative justice process provides a unique opportunity for the community to come together and have a conversation about the impact of explicit or implicit bias and incidents that reinforce hate.

Sponsor

Sponsor

Best Practices for Responding to Bias-Based Calls

The Board continues to review evidence-based best practices and policies in responding to bias-based calls. The San Francisco Police Department is one of the few law enforcement agencies within the state of California that directly addresses bias by proxy in its policies. Within the policy, the agency defines it as: [W]hen individuals call the police and make false or ill-informed claims of misconduct about persons they dislike or are biased against based on explicit racial and identity profiling or implicit bias. When the police act on a request for service rooted in implicit, explicit or unlawful bias, they risk perpetuating the caller’s bias. Members should use their critical decision-making skills drawing upon their training to assess whether there is criminal conduct.

The policy goes on to reiterate that officers should be cognizant of "racial and identity profiling, implicit bias, and bias by proxy” while carrying out their duties.

The Board recommends that the legislature: (1) require law enforcement agencies to adopt a policy addressing bias by proxy and (2) mandate a specific course on bias by proxy for both dispatchers and officers as part of their basic training and continuing education. Specifically, for bias by proxy, the policy should include:

  • How officers can identify a bias-based call for service;
  • How sworn personnel and dispatchers should interact with the community member who has made a bias-based call for service;
  • How an officer should interact with a community member who is the subject of a bias-based call;
  • How the shift supervisor should interact with the caller;
  • Required training for officers and dispatchers that covers responding to bias-based calls for service; and Guidelines for how to implement a restorative justice approach to address bias-based incidents in their communities...
  • Sponsor


    Among data findings in its report]:

    • Individuals perceived to be Hispanic (38.9%), White (33.1%), or Black (15.9%) comprised the majority of stopped individuals

    • The most commonly reported reason for a stop across all racial/ethnic groups was a traffic violation (85.0%) followed by reasonable suspicion that the person was engaged in criminal activity (12.1%).

    • Officers searched, detained on the curb or in a patrol car, handcuffed, and removed from vehicles more Black individuals than White individuals, despite stopping more than double the number of White individuals (1,322,201) than Black individuals (635,092). To provide context for the racial distribution of stopped individuals, the Board compared the stop data distribution to residential population data from the United States Census Bureau from 2018, the most recent available year at the time of the analysis. Black individuals represented a higher proportion of stopped individuals than their relative proportion of the population in the ACS dataset.

    • Black and Hispanic individuals were more likely to have force used against them compared to White individuals, while Asian and other individuals were less likely. Specifically, compared to White individuals, the odds of having force used during a stop were 1.45 times and 1.18 times greater for Black and Hispanic individuals, respectively than White individuals. The odds of force being used during stops of Asian or Other individuals were 0.83 and 0.93 times lower, respectively, compared to White individuals.

    • Search discovery rate analyses showed that individuals perceived as Black, Hispanic, and Native American had higher search rates despite having lower rates of discovering contraband compared to individuals perceived as White.

    • Stopped individuals perceived to be Black had the highest proportion of any racial/ethnic group stopped based on the officer’s knowledge that the person was on probation, parole or other supervised status (1.2%) while Middle Eastern/South Asian individuals (0.1%) had the lowest proportion. The proportion of stopped individuals whom officers reported they searched based solely upon a search condition of supervision varied between racial/ethnic groups, from a low of 0.2% of Middle Eastern/South Asian individuals to a high of 3.4% of Black individuals. The discovery rates for these condition-of-supervision searches were lower for all racial/ethnic groups of color than they were for White individuals.

    Among the Board's recommendations:

    • [Report text] Explicitly racist or bigoted social media posting among law enforcement appears to be a widespread problem nationwide, as brought to light by advocates, including The Plain View Project. The Plain View Project, formed in 2016, examined the Facebook accounts of 2,900 officers from eight departments across the country and an additional 600 retired officers from those same departments, and now maintains an active database. [Footnote: "The Plain View Project found thousands of troubling Facebook posts that included racist or otherwise offensive language. As a result, several departments conducted investigations of their officers."]

      ...[Cites social network examples from San Jose police officers.] These examples of explicit biases among law enforcement agencies – both nationwide and in this state – suggest that the problem is far more widespread than most people might believe.

      ...While the exact scale of explicit racism in law enforcement agencies is difficult to measure, there are numerous examples to suggest a significant problem that could negatively impact officers' interactions with the public. Indeed, these examples raise concerns about "[w]ho might be sitting in jail because what looked like an objective stop, what looked like a clean interaction, may actually have been driven by bigotry."

      Footnote 55: Thus, any efforts to address stop data disparities would necessarily need to look at the forms, and scope, of explicit bias within individual law enforcement agencies. [end footnote]

    • Larger systemic and social oppression can inform officers’ decisions -- both directly and indirectly -- to interact more with certain groups and in different ways, and thus lead to stop data disparities. Criminal behavior alone cannot explain those disparities.

      For example, changing demographics of a city may drive local governing bodies to increase police presence in Black and Latinx neighborhoods, which, in turn, increases the likelihood that officers have more contacts with people in those neighborhoods.

      Further, the changing demographics of a neighborhood may increase calls for service driven by explicit or bias by proxy, as discussed in more detail later in this Report....

      [L]arger social forces have an impact on policing and may explain some stop data disparities. All stakeholders should be aware of these dynamics when seeking to reduce disparities and achieve reforms.

      Other systemic inequities may also lead members of certain racial and identity groups to live in poverty, which itself results in “a substantially higher rate of involvement with the juvenile and criminal justice systems because of the disproportionate policing of lower-income neighborhoods.

      Transgender individuals, for example, are more likely to live in poverty and experience higher unemployment and homelessness than cisgender individuals because they face systemic discrimination in education, employment, and housing.Transgender individuals, in turn, may be more likely than cisgender individuals to participate in underground economies (such as sex work) to survive.

      Doing so renders them more vulnerable to arrests for "quality of life" crimes after a person becomes entangled in the criminal justice system, additional systemic barriers keep them further entrenched in the system.

      Research demonstrates that a "criminal record has a significant negative impact on hiring outcomes, even for applicants with otherwise appealing characteristics," and Black applicants with a record saw a 60 percent drop in the likelihood of getting a callback or job offer -- twice the same drop-off for otherwise identical White applicants with a record (30 percent).71

      Individuals with criminal records also face serious barriers to housing. Federal law, for example, prohibits persons convicted of certain crimes from securing public housing and other forms of federally-assisted housing.

      And, many landlords routinely exclude individuals with criminal records from private housing.

      In sum, job and housing insecurity can push a person further into poverty and, in turn, increase their interactions with law enforcement.

      Criminal Justice System Involvement and the Impact on the Type of Policing Actions Taken

      Moreover, once involved in the system, the type of interactions a person subsequently has with law enforcement may create additional disparities. Mass incarceration and other disparities in the criminal justice system disproportionately impact Black individuals. Black individuals, for example, account for 30 percent of those on probation or parole.

      The waiver of Fourth Amendment protections against unwarranted searches and seizures is a fairly standard probation or parole supervision term, which permits officers to search a supervised person without probable cause and based on their discretion.

      The RIPA 2018 stop data showed that individuals perceived to be Black were almost three times as likely to be searched as individuals perceived to be White. In 23.9 percent of stops involving a search of a person perceived to be Black, the officer provided the basis for search as a condition of their supervision; in comparison, officers conducted the same type of searches on only 18.8 percent of individuals perceived to be White.

      These disparities invite further research into whether officers assume that Black individuals are on supervision (e.g., have a criminal record), and in turn ask Black individuals about their supervision status more frequently than they ask White individuals.

      Policy Decisions to Reduce Stop Data Disparities

      Because there are likely multiple sources of the disparities we observe, effectively reducing these disparities will necessarily require a multi-pronged approach. One prong would be to address explicit bias. [FN 78: Of course, it is possible that these vetting efforts could drive bias further underground; that is, officers might be able to hide their explicit biases by knowingly providing "appropriate" answers in the hiring process to evade scrutiny. Agencies should be mindful of this concern when determining measures to evaluate officers for bias in the hiring process.] Law enforcement agencies, for example, could use the background check included as part of the hiring process to evaluate explicit biases, and monitor agency-issued cell phones and computers to ensure employees do not use those devices to exchange racist or other offensive content. Additionally, in an approach similar to The Plain View Project, agencies could proactively conduct a review of their personnel’s social media to identify problematic behavior and discipline officers to demonstrate to the entire agency that racist or bigoted viewpoints are not tolerated.

      Another component of a multi-pronged approach is for law enforcement agencies to work to manage how implicit biases affect officers’ behavior through training and education. Managing implicit biases improves policing and is consistent with the tenets of procedural justice.

      As noted above, efforts to reduce disparities observed in stop data cannot be limited to rooting out officers with explicit biases or finding ways for officers to override their implicit biases. Rather, addressing biases among individual officers should be components of a larger, more comprehensive approach to reducing stop data disparities. Any meaningful effort to address stop data disparities must recognize and address the structural dimensions of those disparities.

      For example, law enforcement agencies can also train officers on the impact urban development has on policing, including how it can lead to increased stops or arrests in a particular neighborhood, and on how to use critical thinking skills to recognize whether a call for service is premised by bias by proxy, rather than on criminal activity.

      Law enforcement agencies should take other steps to remove structural practices that contribute to misconceptions about race and identity; for example, agencies can decline to post mug shot photographs. Further, responsibility to address disparities extends beyond law enforcement.

      Policymakers must contextualize these disparities and acknowledge that others within the broader criminal justice system, including attorneys and judges, play a part in creating and maintaining structural inequities that increase the frequency of law enforcement’s interactions, including stops, with certain racial and identity groups. The Board urges policymakers to prioritize not only changes to law enforcement agency practices, but also to policies involving housing, education, health care, and criminal justice in order to remediate the disparities created by these and other systems.

    The Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board was created in 2015 by AB 953 which passed on a 43-30-7 Assembly vote (with Assemblyman Patrick O'Donnell recorded as "no vote recorded" and a state Senate vote of 26-13-1 (with then-state Senator Ricardo Lara voting "yes.")

    Assembly vote: AB 953 (Sept. 10, 2015)

    Ayes
    Alejo, Bloom, Bonilla, Bonta, Brown, Burke, Calderon, Campos, Chau, Chiu, Chu, Cooley, Dababneh, Daly, Dodd, Eggman, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gipson, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gordon, Roger Hernández, Holden, Jones-Sawyer, Levine, Lopez, Low, McCarty, Medina, Mullin, Nazarian, Quirk, Rendon, Ridley-Thomas, Salas, Santiago, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Weber, Wood, Atkins

    Noes
    Achadjian, Travis Allen, Baker, Bigelow, Brough, Chang, Chávez, Dahle, Beth Gaines, Gallagher, Gatto, Gray, Grove, Hadley, Harper, Jones, Kim, Lackey, Linder, Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, Melendez, Obernolte, Olsen, Patterson, Steinorth, Wagner, Waldron, Wilk

    NVR
    Cooper, Frazier, Irwin, O'Donnell, Perea, Rodriguez, Williams
    AB 93 State Senate vote: Sept 9, 201)
    Senate Floor

    Ayes
    Allen, Beall, Block, De León, Glazer, Hall, Hancock, Hernandez, Hertzberg, Hill, Hueso, Jackson, Lara, Leno, Leyva, Liu, McGuire, Mendoza, Mitchell, Monning, Moorlach, Pan, Pavley, Roth, Wieckowski, Wolk

    Noes
    Anderson, Bates, Berryhill, Cannella, Fuller, Gaines, Huff, Morrell, Nguyen, Nielsen, Runner, Stone, Vidak

    NVR
    Galgiani oalifornia High


    Support really independent news in Long Beach. No one in LBREPORT.com's ownership, reporting or editorial decision-making has ties to development interests, advocacy groups or other special interests; or is seeking or receiving benefits of City development-related decisions; or holds a City Hall appointive position; or has contributed sums to political campaigns for Long Beach incumbents or challengers. LBREPORT.com isn't part of an out of town corporate cluster and no one its ownership, editorial or publishing decisionmaking has been part of the governing board of any City government body or other entity on whose policies we report. LBREPORT.com is reader and advertiser supported. You can help keep really independent news in LB similar to the way people support NPR and PBS stations. We're not non-profit so it's not tax deductible but $49.95 (less than an annual dollar a week) helps keep us online.


    blog comments powered by Disqus

    Recommend LBREPORT.com to your Facebook friends:


    Follow LBReport.com with:

    Twitter

    Facebook

    RSS

    Return To Front Page

    Contact us: mail@LBReport.com



    Adoptable pet of the week:




    Copyright © 2021 LBReport.com, LLC. All rights reserved. Terms of Use/Legal policy, click here. Privacy Policy, click here