Police-Community Relations in Cincinnati: Year Three Evaluation Report

Abstract

This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law as indicated in a notice appearing later in this work. This electronic representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for non-commercial use only. Unauthorized posting of RAND PDFs to a non-RAND Web site is prohibited. RAND PDFs are protected under copyright law. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of our research documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please see RAND Permissions.

Police-Community Relations in Cincinnati

“…These results are largely consistent with the findings in our earlier reports (Riley et al, 2005;Ridgeway et al, 2006;Schell et al, 2007). As noted in earlier reports, these findings cannot answer whether racial bias does or does not exist, but they do help explain why black Cincinnati residents perceive that it does, which may lead to a more negative attitude in future interactions with the police.…”

How do police use race in traffic stops and searches? Tests based on observability of race

“…First, if targeting particular nonrace characteristics is good policing and is the reason for apparent racial bias in table 2, one would expect to observe the same thing in other jurisdictions. However, the method has been applied in both Oakland and Cincinnati without finding similar results (GR, 2006;Schell et al, 2007).…”

Examining the Validity of Traffic Stop Data: A Mixed-Methods Analysis of Police Officer Compliance

“…In Cincinnati, a team of researchers from RAND conducted a five-year review of traffic stop data gathered (electronically) by Cincinnati Police Department (CPD) officers. In year one, over 30 percent of stop records had at least one error; in years two and three, the error rate dipped down to just below 2000Philadelphia, PA 50* NA Smith & Petrocelli (2001) Richmond, VA NA 36 Cordner et al (2002) San Diego, CA NA 40 Engel et al (2006) Cleveland, OH 6.7 NA Warren et al (2006) State of North Carolina NA "up to a third" Grogger and Ridgeway (2006) Oakland, CA 13.8 NA Engel et al (2007) State of Arizona -Year 1 14.1 NA Engel et al (2008) State of Arizona -Year 2 10.4 NA Cherkauskas et al (2009) State of Arizona -Year 3 7.8 NA Riley et al (2005) Cincinnati, OH -Year 1 30.4 17-22 Ridgeway et al (2006) Cincinnati, OH -Year 2 24.8 12.2 Schell et al (2007) Cincinnati, OH -Year 3 24.1 9.7 Ridgeway et al (2008) Cincinnati, OH -Year 4 0.8 5.0 Ridgeway (2009) Cincinnati, OH -Year 5 0.5 1.7 Wallace et al 2016Maricopa Cty, AZ -Year 1 10.8 NA Wallace et al 2017Maricopa Cty, AZ -Year 2 5-6 NA Wallace et al 2018Maricopa Cty, AZ -Year 3 5-6 NA Hunt et al 2017Greensboro, NC 22 NA Smith et al (2017) San Jose, CA 9 NA *Data on driver race only.…”