Understanding the Effects of Anti-Profiling Policies

1. Understanding the Effects of Anti-Profiling Policies Paul Heaton RAND Criminology and Population Dynamics Workshop June 2007

2. Motivation • Nationwide movement to enact policies to prevent racial profiling by police • 26 states with legislation requiring data collection • Jurisdictions in 21 other states with voluntary data collection • Several states, including California and Florida, with mandatory training programs • Use a racial profiling scandal in New Jersey in 1998-1999 to estimate the effect of changes in profiling policy on arrests, offenses, and other behavior

3. Findings • The scandal and policy reforms led to substantial (20-40%) reductions in arrests of Blacks relative to Whites for motor vehicle theft. • Changes in the number and distribution of offenses suggest an increase in vehicle thefts in response to the changing arrest patterns. • Findings robust to numerous specification checks; similar results are observable in Maryland.

4. Why Might Profiling Policy Affect Arrests and Offending? “Troopers are going to be more cautious and are probably much more selective…When it comes time to go further, I'm sure there has to be a conscious decision at some point. Unless it's something very obvious or blatant, [officers] may not go any further.” Ed Lennon, President of the State Troopers Fraternal Association of New Jersey, in a 1999 interview regarding the profiling controversy

5. Data Sources • Agency-level UCR data on arrests and offenses, 1990-2003 • Focus on vehicle theft, closely linked to police stop behavior and well-reported with separate arrest and offense data • Place-level Census data

8. Black pre-reform mean arrest rate: .0010 White pre-reform mean arrest rate: .00015

9. White post-reform mean arrest rate: .0001 Black post-reform mean arrest rate: .0005

10. ≈ - 45%

11. Estimated Effects of the Scandal on Arrests

12. Did the Policy Change Affect Offending? • Obstacle: No direct data on the race of offenders independent of arrest data. • Evidence from both the time series and the geographic distribution of offenses suggest increased offending at the time the new policies were enacted

13. Trends in Vehicle Theft, 1994-2003

14. Trends in Vehicle Theft, 1994-2003

15. Trends in Burglaries and Larcenies, 1994-2003

16. Trends in Burglaries and Larcenies, 1994-2003

20. Interpretation of Offending Changes • Locality at 75th percentile of Black population distribution would have 17% more vehicle theft than one at 25th percentile • Policy would result in approximately 3000 additional vehicle thefts annually in NJ • Does not suggest minorities have dramatically different responsiveness to enforcement

21. Robustness Checks • Similar results changing sample, time period, comparison groups • Placebo tests—policy effects not observed for unaffected crimes, groups, or locations • Replication using Maryland’s 1995 reforms

22. Conclusions • Contributions of paper 1. Adds to profiling literature by estimating policy effects 2. Patterns in arrest/offending data are difficult to reconcile with causal explanations other than changes in profiling behavior by police 3. Provides minority-specific measure of responsiveness to enforcement, an important quantity in evaluating profiling policies