Journal of Quantitative Criminology

, Volume 22, Issue 1, pp 1–29 | Cite as

Assessing the Effect of Race Bias in Post-traffic Stop Outcomes Using Propensity Scores

Article

 

In response to community demands, case settlements, and state laws concerning racial profiling, police departments across the nation are collecting data on traffic stops. While the data collection is rapidly moving forward, there are few if any agreed upon methods for analyzing the data. Much of the attention has been on benchmarks for the race distribution of stops and searches. Little empirical work has advanced our understanding of the influence of race in the post-stop activities of police. The present study proposes a propensity score technique to determine the extent to which race bias affects citation rates, search rates, and the duration of the stop. Adjusting for confounding variables using the propensity score offers an alternative to multivariate regression that is more interpretable, less prone to errors in model assumptions, and ultimately easier to present to stakeholders in policing practices. An analysis of traffic stop data from the City of Oakland, California demonstrates the process, presentation, and interpretation of the results that the methodology produces. Ultimately, the study addresses the extent to which race plays a role in officers’ use of discretion.

KEY WORDS

police discretion racial profiling propensity scores traffic stop outcomes 

References

  1. Alpert, G. P., Smith, M. R., and Dunham, R. G. (2003). Toward a better benchmark: Assessing the utility of not-at-fault traffic crash data in racial profiling research. Confronting Racial Profiling in the 21st Century: Implications for Racial Justice, Boston.Google Scholar
  2. Attorney General of the State of New York (1999). The New York City Police Department’s ‘Stop & Frisk’ Practices: A Report to the People of the State of New York From The Office Of The Attorney General, Civil Rights Bureau.Google Scholar
  3. Berk R. A., Newton P. J., (1985). Does arrest really deter wife battery? An effort to replicate the findings of the Minneapolis spouse abuse experiment. Am. Sociol. Rev. 50(2):253–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Breiman L., Friedman J. H., Olshen R. A., Stone C. J., (1984). Classification and Regression Trees. Wadsworth International Group, Belmont CAGoogle Scholar
  5. Cordner, G., Williams, B., and Velasco, A. (2002). Vehicle stops in San Diego. City of San Diego. Available at http://www.sannet.gov/police/pdf/stoprpt.pdfGoogle Scholar
  6. Decker, S., and Rojek, J. (2002). Saint Louis metropolitan police department traffic stop patterns. Report submitted to the St. Louis Police Department, January.Google Scholar
  7. Engel R. S., Calnon J. M. (2004). Examining the influence of drivers’ characteristics during traffic stops with police: Results from a national survey. Justice Q. 21(1):49–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Farrell, A., McDevitt, D. J., Bailey, L., Andresen, C., and Pierce, E. (2004). Massachusetts Racial and Gender Pmiling Study, Final Report. Center for Criminal Justice Policy Research, Northeastern University.Google Scholar
  9. Fisher R. (1935). The Design of Experiments. Oliver and Boyd, EdinburghGoogle Scholar
  10. Friedman J. H. (2001). Greedy function approximation: A gradient boosting machine. Ann. Stat. 29(5):1189–1232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. The Gallup Organization (1999). Racial profiling is seen as widespread, particularly among young black men. December 9, 1999. Retrieved from http://polls.gallup.com
  12. Gould J. B., and Mastrofski, S. D. (2004). Suspect searches: Assessing police behavior under the U.S. constitution. Criminol. Public Policy 3(3): 316–362Google Scholar
  13. Grogger, J., and Ridgeway, G. (2006, to appear). Testing for racial profiling in traffic stops from behind a veil of darkness. Journal of the American Statistical Association.Google Scholar
  14. Harcourt, B. (2004). Unconstitutional police searches and collective responsibility. Criminol. Public Policy 3(3): 363–378.Google Scholar
  15. Harris D. A. (2002). Profiles In Injustice: Why Racial Profiling Cannot Work. The New Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  16. Hastie T., Tibshirani R., Friedman J. (2001). The Elements of Statistical Learning. Springer-Verlag, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  17. Hirano K., Imbens G. (2001). Estimation of causal effects using propensity score weighting: An application to data on right heart catheterization. Health Serv. Outcomes Res. Methodol. 2:259–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hirano K., Imbens G., Ridder G. (2003). Efficient estimation of average treatment effects using the estimated propensity score. Econometrica 71(4):1161–1189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hosmer D. W., Lemeshow S. (2000). Applied Logistic Regression. Wiley, BostonGoogle Scholar
  20. Imbens, G. (2003). Nonparametric estimation of average treatment effects under exogeneity: A review. Technical Working Paper 294, National Bureau of Economic Research.Google Scholar
  21. Kelling G. L. (1992). Toward new images of policing: Herman Goldstein’s problem-oriented policing. Law Soc. Inq. 17(3):545Google Scholar
  22. Kelling, G. L. (1999). “Broken Windows” and police discretion. National Institute of Justice. NCJ 178259. Available at http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/nij/178259.pdfGoogle Scholar
  23. Knowles J., Persico N., Todd P. (2001). Racial Bias in Motor Vehicle Searches: Theory and Evidence. J. Polit. Econ. 109(1):203–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lamberth, J. (1994). Revised Statistical Analysis of the Incidence of Police Stops and Arrests of Black Drivers/Travelers on the New Jersey Turnpike Between Exits or Interchanges 1 and 3 from the Years 1988 through 1991. Lamberth Consulting.Google Scholar
  25. Lamberth, J. (1996). Expert report for Wilkins v. Maryland state police, Civil Action No. CCB-93483.Google Scholar
  26. Lange, J. E., Blackman, K. O., and Johnson, M. B. (2001). Speed violation survey of the New Jersey turnpike: Final report. Office of the Attorney General of New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  27. Mastrofski S. D. (2004). Controlling Street-level police discretion. Ann. Am. Acad. Polit. Soc. Sci. 593(1):100–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. McCaffrey D. F., Ridgeway G., Mortal A. R. (2004). Propensity score estimation with boosted regression for evaluating causal effects in observational studies. Psychol. Methods 9(4):403–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. McConnell, E. H., and Scheidegger, A.R. (2001). Race and speeding citations: Comparing speeding citations issued by air traffic officers with those issued by ground traffic officers, Presentation at the annual meeting of the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences, Washington, D.C., April 4–8.Google Scholar
  30. McCullagh, P., and Nelder, J. A. (1989). Generalized Linear Models, 2nd ed., Chapman & Hall, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  31. Merriam-Webster Dictionary of Law (1996) Merriam-Webster, Inc.Google Scholar
  32. R Development Core Team (2005). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0, URL http://www.Rproject.orgGoogle Scholar
  33. Ridgeway G. (1999). The state of boosting. Comput. Sci. Stat. 31:172–181Google Scholar
  34. Ridgeway, G. (2005). GBM 1.5 package manual. http://cran.r-project.org/doc/packages/gbm.pdfGoogle Scholar
  35. Rosenbaum P. (1987). Model-based direct adjustment. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 82:387–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rosenbaum P. (2002). Observational Studies. Springer-Verlag, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  37. Rosenbaum P. R., Rubin D. B. (1983). The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika 70:41–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rubin D. B. (1974). Estimating causal effects of treatments in randomized and non-randomized studies. J. Educ. Psychol. 66:688–701CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rubin D. B. (1978). Bayesian inference for causal effects: The role of randomization. Ann. Stat. 7:34–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rubin D. B. (1986). Which ifs have causal statements? J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 81(396):961–962CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rubin D.B. (2005). Causal inference using potential outcomes: Design, modeling, decisions. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 100(469):322–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Smedley B. D., Smith A. Y., Nelson A. R. (2003). Unequal Treatment: Confronting Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Health Care. National Academic Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  43. Smith M. R., Petrocelli M. (2001). Racial profiling? A multivariate analysis of police traffic stop data. Police Q. 4(1):4–27Google Scholar
  44. Steward, D. (2004). Racial profiling: Texas traffic stops and searches. Texas Criminal Justice Reform Coalition. Available at http://www.criminaljusticecoalition.orgGoogle Scholar
  45. Tita, G., Jack Riley, K., Ridgeway, G., Grammich, C., Abrahamse, A. F., and Greenwood, P. (2003). Reducing Gun Violence in East Los Angeles: Results from an Intervention, RAND MR-1764-NIJ, RAND, Santa Monica, CA.Google Scholar
  46. Washington State Police and Criminal Justice Training Commission (2001). Report to the legislature on routine traffic stop data. Available at http://www.wsp.wa.gov/reports/demogra2.docGoogle Scholar
  47. Wooldridge J. (2002). Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.RAND CorporationSanta MonicaUSA

Personalised recommendations