High rates of stop-and-frisk even in

Philly's lowest-crime black áreas

It’s not just black people, but entire, predominantly black, neighborhoods that are
disproportionately impacted by the Philadelphia Police Department’s use of stop-and-frisk.
That’s a key finding of a new analysis of police data from 2014 to 2015 by Lance Hannon,
a Villanova University professor of sociology and criminology who began analyzing
publicly available police data after the presidential candidates clashed over the
effectiveness of stop-and-frisk in debates last year.

He found that mostly black neighborhoods drew 70 percent more frisks than nonblack
areas, yet yielded less contraband. And, he discovered, the elevated rate of frisking was
consistent whether the predominantly black neighborhood was a high-crime area or a very
low-crime area. Although many African American neighborhoods in the city have low
crime rates, he said, “People, police officers, and nonpolice officers tend to judge the
dangerousness of a place based on racial predominance. When they think of a black area as
being dangerous, they are thinking of the outliers — and all the other neighborhoods that
are relatively safe get painted with the same brush.”

Mike Dunn, a spokesman for Mayor Kenney, said that the city is addressing the issue with
implicit bias training and progressive discipline for officers who make bad stops. He said
the overall number of stops has declined since last spring, while the number of stops
identified by the city as problematic has declined by 72 percent.

Hannon’s research makes the case that stop-and-frisk can be problematic not just at the
individual level– but also at the neighborhood level. He says if that can’t be fixed, perhaps
it’s time to end it.

What does your research reveal about stop and frisk that we didn’t already know?

My study provided support for two findings in previous research. First, African Americans
are more likely to experience a frisk when stopped. Second, African Americans are more
likely to experience unproductive frisks – in which the frisk does not uncover any
contraband or lead to an arrest.

My findings also go beyond what has been found in previous research. For example, I find
that it’s not just black individuals; anyone, regardless of race, in a black area is more likely
to be frisked when stopped and more likely to be frisked unproductively.
I also looked at how the crime rate of an area differently matters in predicting the likelihood
of a frisk based on the racial composition of the area. I found that the association between
violent crime and the likelihood that an officer will frisk someone is contingent on the
degree to which African Americans are present in the neighborhood. So in predominantly
black neighborhoods, the association between the violent crime rate and the frisk rate is
very weak. In areas that are not predominantly African American, the association is
moderately strong and in the direction you would expect: higher violent crime rates mean
higher frisk rates.

There is a puzzle here: Why is the violent crime rate significantly less predictive of frisking
activity in predominately black neighborhoods?

Why do you think that is?

Actually, I think the answer to that question is very closely related to the answer to
why law-abiding African Americans experience so many more unproductive frisks as
individuals. The reason that has been talked about before by others is it appears that African
Americans are held to a lower level of reasonable suspicion – so people who should not be
perceived as dangerous or are objectively not dangerous are more likely to get swept up in a
stop-and-frisk initiative and be unproductively frisked due to implicit racial bias. Not only
is that happening at the individual level, but it’s also happening at the neighborhood level.

Neighborhoods with low levels of criminal activity are erroneously considered dangerous
due to the prevalence of African American residents. There seems to be good evidence that
it’s not just the stigma associated with an individual’s race that potentially drives bias; the
stigma associated with a neighborhood’s race also affects bias.

In other words, there is racial profiling of individuals and there is racial profiling of
neighborhoods.

Outside of the issue of racial bias, what do your results say about the usefulness of
stop-and-frisk as a policing tool?

The data suggest that, regardless of racial composition, as the number of frisks increases in
a neighborhood, the proportion of frisks that produce contraband decreases. Some
might interpret that correlation as proof that frequent frisks deter people from carrying
contraband.

But what I believe the data are actually showing is that, in places where you are doing more
stopping and frisking, you are being tougher and harder — but you are not being smarter if
your goal is to uncover weapons. That negative correlation represents that when you’re
overzealous, you make more bad judgment calls. Maximizing the quantity of stop-and-frisk
seems to hurt its quality as a policing tool.

Why do you think this is a big deal?

If there’s more stopping and frisking in minority neighborhoods, it’s going to decrease the
legitimacy of the police in the eyes of residents there and increase mistrust of the police.
Police are going to perceive that mistrust and it’s going to lead them to potentially stop and
frisk more. It becomes almost a spiraling system that hurts everyone.

What do you think should be done?

We need to pay attention to how police officers can be racially biased, based not just on the
race of the suspect but also based on the race of the neighborhood they’re in. We need to
start compiling statistics and monitoring outcomes based on that. ….

In addition, there are a lot of different ways to do proactive policing besides stop-and-frisk.
So if stop-and-frisk isn’t working, or if it’s having these effects which are racially disparate
and ultimately potentially undermining police legitimacy, then change. Stop using stop-
and-frisk, and use something else.

Certainly, we see that, in New York, the crime rate has not actually gone out of control
after stop-and-frisk was greatly curtailed. One clear policy implication is stop trying to do
proactive policing via stop-and-frisk. Find another way.