Introduction

Row

no title

Row

Independent Police Monitor Mission and Responsibilities

The Office of the Independent Police Monitor (OIPM) is an independent, civilian police oversight agency created by the voters in a 2008 charter referendum and opened its doors for the first time in August of 2009. Its mission is to improve police service to the community, civilian trust in the NOPD, and officer safety and working conditions. The OIPM has six broad responsibilities:

  1. To ensure that all complaints regarding police misconduct are classified and investigated or mediated at the appropriate level and that those investigations are fairly, timely and thoroughly handled; to ensure that discipline is fair, timely, appropriate and upheld upon appellate scrutiny. To make information about this review process available to the public.
  2. To monitor NOPD investigations into use of force to identify violations of civil rights, concerns of officer tactics and safety, risks to life, liberty and property, and adherence to law and policy.
  3. To review and analyze aggregate data from complaints, investigations, community concerns and public policy in crafting recommendations aimed toward improving the quality of services by the NOPD.
  4. To reach out to inform the community about the OIPM, to listen and respond to broader community concerns, and prepare the community for engagement in NOPD policy and practice.
  5. To mend police/community relationships by fostering effective police/community partnerships.
  6. To collect police commendations, review and monitor police training and supervision issues and support a healthy and safe working environment for NOPD employees.

The OIPM is responsible for monitoring the New Orleans Police Department and only the New Orleans Police Department. Although OIPM works with other criminal justice system actors, it is not responsible for oversight of any other agency. However, OIPM is mindful of the impact of these other criminal justice actors upon the operations of NOPD and will attempt to analyze that impact in future reports. OIPM accomplishes its mission by focusing on three main activities: complaint and disciplinary system monitoring and review; use of force monitoring and review; and subject-specific analyses or audits. The IPM’s recommendations to improve NOPD’s accountability systems originate from these activities.

Row

Updates & Clarifications (9/17/18)

Since the original publication of this report, several sections have been updated for clarity and clarification.

  • Complaints: Removed the word “only” from: “A review of ‘Disposition of Rank Complaints’ and ‘Disposition of Citizen Initiated Complaints’ illustrates that, while over 50% of rank complaints are sustained, only 15% of complaints initiated by the public are.”
  • Use of Force: Now using “increase” and “decrease” consistently instead of approximating trends as “flat”. No longer assert that the increase in force between 2014 to 2015 is solely attributable to new reporting rules given that the rise continues for UOF through 2016.
  • Community Outreach: Respondents could choose multiple concerns, not only one. Consequently the term “greatest concern” has been changed to emphasize that options were not mutually exclusive.

Complaints

Row

COMPLAINTS AND DISCIPLINE

Download the full Complaints and Discipline Report

NOT MOBILE FRIENDLY For the best experience, view this website on a desktop computer using full-screen.

Police Districts

Row

Complaints by year

Allegations by year

Row

Title

In 2017, NOPD initiated 734 misconduct investigations. NOPD and OIPM’s data regarding the total number of complaints align. However, OIPM’s data analyst found slightly more (1,546) allegations than what was reported by NOPD (1,505).

Compared to 2016’s total of 850, this number of complaints represents a 14% decrease in the overall number of complaints filed. Of the allegations contained in those complaints, about 39% were filed by NOPD rank and 61% were filed by members of the public or by NOPD employees against fellow employees.

Row

ALLEGATION ANALYSIS

The following information is about the 734 public and rank initiated complaints. These complaints contained 1,546 allegations – an average of two (2) allegations per complaint. Of those complaints, 450 were marked as public initiated and 284 were marked rank initiated.

Row

Most common allegations (regardless of outcome)

Allegation Types

The five most common complaint allegations in 2017 were: Neglect of Duty, Professionalism, and Adherence to Law. Neglect of Duty can involve a number of specific violations of policy. The most common specific types of Neglect of Duty were as follows:

Type of Neglect - Count

  • Failing to Take Appropriate & Necessary Police Action - 93
  • Body Worn Camera, Required Activation - 45
  • Failure to Preserve Evidence - 34
  • Supervisory Responsibility - 25
  • Failing to Make A Written Report When Such Is Indicated - 23
  • Report Preparation - 22
  • Vehicle Pursuits - 21
  • General - 38
  • Failing to comply with instructions, oral or written, from any authoritative source. - 18
  • Bias-Free Policing - 15
  • Search and Seizure - 14
  • Domestic Violence - 26
  • In Car Camera Activation - 11

Row

DISPOSITION ANALYSIS

The dispositions of the complaints filed in 2017 are illustrated in the figure “Individual Allegations by Outcome.” This figure illustrates, for instance, that the most common allegation “Neglect of Duty” is also the allegation most frequently marked “sustained”. “Disposition of All Complaints” shows the outcomes of all complaints.

Row

Individual allegations by outcome

Row

All complaints by outcome

title

Sustained complaints were the greatest proportion of all complaints because 29% of them were sustained. The next largest group of outcomes was complaints marked “unfounded” at 18.3%. The greatest portion of complaints, 29%, are sustained. A review of “Disposition of Rank Complaints and “Disposition of Citizen Initiated Complaints” illustrates that, while over 50% of rank complaints are sustained, 15% of complaints initiated by the public are. It is also worthy to note that 6% of public initiated complaints are mediated by the OIPM’s Community Police Mediation Program.

Row

Citizen complaints by outcome

Rank complaints by outcome

Most common sustained allegations

Row

Who Complains?

“Allegations by Source” illustrates where complaints come from. A large proportion of complaints, 35.9% are filed by NOPD employees. Some of these are “rank initiated” complaints or supervisors documenting misconduct of supervisees. This number also represents the complaints of peer or lower ranking officers against officers who are of the same or higher rank.

Allegations by source

Rank v public complaints

Row

Outcomes by Officer Race

Based on the figure “Impact of Officer Race on Disposition of Complaints”, OIPM found no significant difference in disciplinary outcomes based on officers’ race. Approximately 29% of complaints against African American officers are sustained and 30% for white officers. Future analysis of officer demographics and discipline will consider gender, years of services, and sworn versus civilian employees.

Row

How officer race impacts disposition

How officer race impacts disposition

Row

HIGH RISK ALLEGATIONS

Stops, Frisks, Searches and Profiling - Fourth Amendment Protections against Search and Seizure

When reviewing all complaints filed, OIPM identified 45 complaints containing allegations that appeared to be related to complainants’ Fourth Amendment rights. These complaints were about improper searches, stops without reasonable suspicion, discrimination, and bias based policing.

A brief description of the policies that were violated is below. For more information, you may reference NOPD’s official poilcies.

  • Chapter 1.2.4: Search and Seizure: The federal and state Constitutions both provide every person with the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. This Chapter requires that New Orleans Police Department officers abide by these legal protections when dealing with search and seizure issues, as well as searches of persons in custody.
  • Chapter 1.3.1.1: Hancuffing and Restraint Devices: This Chapter governs handcuffing and otherwise restraining suspects during detentions and arrests to provide adequately for the safety and security of the suspect being detained or in custody, the transporting officer, and the public.
  • Policy 440: Contacts, Detentions and Photographing Detainees: The purpose of this policy is to establish guidelines for conducting field interviews (FI) and the taking and retention of photographs of persons detained in the field but not arrested.
  • Policy 402: Discriminatory Policing, Racial Bias-Based Profiling, LGBT Community

The dispositions of these investigations are detailed as follows:

Row

Fourth amendment violations

Fourth amendment violations by outcome

Row

Anonymous Complaints

Complainants occasionally wish to remain anonymous. It is difficult to determine their reasons, but one of the impetuses for setting up an anonymous complaint process was to address civilian concerns about retaliation when filing complaints. In 2017, two (2) out of 83 contacts received by the OIPM involved anonymous complainants. NOPD recorded ten (10) PIB case numbers associated with anonymous complainants.

Anonymous complaints

Row

DISCIPLINE

The following graphs detail disciplinary outcome by the race and sex of the complainant and then by the race and sex of the officer. This data does not indicate disproportionate outcomes for officers based on their race or sex, but it does indicate that the NOPD is not collecting race or sex information about its complainants in a large number of complaint records.

Row

Discipline by Allegation

Row {data-height =470}

Discipline by Complainant Sex

Discipline by Complainant Race

Row

Discipline by Officer Sex

Discipline by Officer Race

Row

Actions taken

Mediation misclassifications

Mediation

Row

COMMUNITY-POLICE MEDIATION PROGRAM

The New Orleans Community-Police Mediation Program is a service provided by the OIPM to improve the relationships between the community and NOPD, allow the NOPD’s Public Integrity Bureau’s (PIB) to reallocate hours spent investigating lower risk complaint allegations to have more resources available to investigate higher risk complaint allegations, and to improve trust in NOPD’s services. The Office of the Independent Police Monitor (OIPM) is an independent, civilian police oversight agency created in August of 2009. The mission of the OIPM is to improve police service to the community, civilian trust in the NOPD, and officer safety and working conditions.

Through the development and implementation of best practices, the program quickly became a national model assisting in the development of programs in other cities such as Ferguson and St. Louis, Missouri; Baltimore, Maryland; Los Angeles, California; Chicago, Illinois; and Greenville, North Carolina.

As part of the OIPM’s mission of public transparency and accountability, this report serves to inform the public on the function and goals of the Community-Police Mediation Program and to evaluate the program’s accomplishments in 2017.

Download the full Community-Police Mediation Program Report

title

Row

Data on Mediations

Number and Type of Complaints Referred and Mediated

In 2017, the Community-Police Mediation Program mediated 32 out of the 77 complaints that were referred to the mediation program from the Public Integrity Bureau (42%). The 45 complaints that were referred to mediation but not mediated were declined for the following reasons:

  • 6 officers declined
  • 1 officer declined while another officer accepted (2 officers were named in the complaint), but the complaint could not be bifurcated
  • 10 civilians were not reachable with the contact information they provided (phone numbers disconnected, wrong contact information provided, no response to phone calls and emails)
  • 2 cases not eligible for mediation due to involvement of litigation with an attorney
  • 1 mediation could not be scheduled within the 10-day time frame required by NOPD Policy 1025
  • 1 incorrect officer was named by PIB
  • 24 civilians declined to mediate for the following reasons:
  • Civilian believes in mediation but didn’t think it would help this officer change his behavior.
  • The civilian didn’t have time to mediate because of family or medical issues.
  • Civilian was sick or had other health issues.
  • Civilian didn’t feel safe in presence of officer.
  • Civilian already received an apology from NOPD and felt the matter was resolved.
  • Civilian preferred the complaint be investigated through the traditional complaint investigation process.
  • Civilian feels traumatized and does not wish to talk with officer.
  • Civilian wants to pursue civil litigation.

Row

ALLEGATIONS

In 2017, the majority of complaints referred to mediation were for allegations of Professionalism or Performance of Duty, Neglect of Duty.

Row

Figure 1: Allegations in Complaints Referred to Mediation from PIB in 2017

*Some complaints contain multiple allegations; hence the total number of allegations is greater than the total number of complaints referred

*Some complaints contain multiple allegations; hence the total number of allegations is greater than the total number of complaints referred

Summary Statistics of Complaints Referred to Mediation:

  • 42% of cases referred to the Mediation Program were mediated (32 out of 77 cases).
  • 92% of officers agreed to mediate (85 out of 92 officers; Some cases had multiple officers, so the number of officers is greater than the number of cases).
  • 56% of the civilians who were reachable agreed to mediate (32 out of 57 civilians).
  • 4% of cases referred were ineligible for mediation, so returned to PIB for traditional investigation (3 out of 77 cases; 2 cases involved litigation and 1 had the incorrect officer.
  • The most common types of allegations in cases referred to mediation were Professionalism (73%, 62 out of 85 allegations) and Performance of Duty, Neglect of Duty (22%, 19 out of 85 allegations).

Row

YEAR TO YEAR COMPARISON

The following figures illustrate mediation numbers for 2017 in comparison to previous years. It is challenging to draw conclusions at this time, as the number of mediation cases is not large enough for statistical significance, meaning there is not enough data to determine whether differences between the years are “real” or whether they are simply due to chance. However, the OIPM plans to conduct further evaluation and analysis of the year-to-year data at the end of 2018, at which point there will be 5 years’ worth of data and more than 100 cases to evaluate.

Row

Figure 2: Year to Year Comparison: Percentage of Complaints Mediated of Complaints Referred by PIB

Mediation Figure 3

Mediation Figure 3

Figure 3

*The Mediation Program launched in October 2014, so these numbers are only for October through December 2014

*The Mediation Program launched in October 2014, so these numbers are only for October through December 2014

Row

DEMOGRAPHICS OF MEDIATION PARTICIPANTS

  • In 2017, 32 civilians and 37 police officers participated in mediation sessions through the program. Five of the mediated complaints included two officers, which is why there are five more officers than civilians.
  • Both officers and community members are invited to bring a non-speaking support person to the mediation session and eight community members opted to serve as a support person in a mediation session for an officer or a civilian.
  • The average age of officer participants was 40 years old and the average age of civilian participants was 44 years old.
  • The average number of years of NOPD service of the officers who participated was 11 years.

Row

Figure 4

Figure 4: Race Demographics of Participants

Figure 4: Race Demographics of Participants

Figure 5

Figure 5: Gender Demographics of Participants

Figure 5: Gender Demographics of Participants

Row

Mediator Data – Demographics

In 2017, The New Orleans Community-Police Mediation Program had 22 mediators on its roster. Mediators received an initial 50 hours of CLE-approved mediation training and attend monthly professional development trainings throughout the year to maintain and build their skills. In 2017, the Program provided 12 hours of Professional Development training through in-service mediator training.

Mediator Demographics

Figure 6

Figure 6

Row

EVALUATION: RESULTS FROM 2017 SURVEYS

At the end of each mediation session, the officer, civilian, and two mediators are asked to complete surveys. The surveys are anonymous and voluntary and aim to gather feedback to evaluate and improve the program. In addition, thirty days after the mediation, program volunteers administer a longer survey to the officer and civilian by phone to obtain more in-depth, qualitative information regarding their opinion and experience of the mediation process.

Row

Quantitative Data: Mediator Survey

Figure 7: Post-Mediation Mediator Survey Feedback

Figure 7: Post-Mediation Mediator Survey Feedback

Row

Quantitative Data: Officer Survey

Figure 8: Post-Mediation Officer Survey Feedback

Figure 8: Post-Mediation Officer Survey Feedback

Quantitative Data: Civilian Survey

Figure 9: Post-Mediation Civilian Survey Feedback

Figure 9: Post-Mediation Civilian Survey Feedback

Row

CONCLUSION

In 2017, the New Orleans Community-Police Mediation Program continued to create safe spaces for authentic conversation that get to the root of a lack of trust and confidence in NOPD. It also made significant steps towards transforming community-police relationships. From participant surveys and anecdotal feedback, mediation has provided benefits for officers, complainants, for the complaint process, and for community policing. The process has helped by allowing civilians to directly share face-to-face with an officer what they would like policing to look, hear, and feel like in their communities. Officers have received a chance to learn from their mistakes, an opportunity to better understand community needs, and a space to explain their actions and policing, in general, to civilians. Civilians gained greater satisfaction with the complaint process, an opportunity to better understand policing, and a chance to be fully heard and understood. NOPD and PIB benefited from the alternative to the complaint process, with the potential to free up their resources and to have a process that leaves both officers and civilians more satisfied. Ultimately, the New Orleans Community-Police Mediation Program is not only providing a mechanism of civilian police accountability, but helping to increase trust in the police which can create more safety for all. This annual report is a glimpse into the potential of the Community-Police Mediation Program and its impact on community and police relationships in New Orleans.

Download the full Community-Police Mediation Program Report

Use of Force

Row

STATISTICAL REVIEW OF NOPD’S USE OF FORCE

The analysis section of the UOF report is split into three sections:

  1. Analysis of details pertaining to the NOPD overall.
  2. Analysis of details pertaining to groupings of NOPD officers.
  3. Analysis of details pertaining to the individuals subjected to NOPD actions.

Download the Full Stastical Review of NOPD’s Use of Force Report

NOT MOBILE FRIENDLY For the best experience, view this website on a desktop computer using full-screen.

Police districts

Row

FTN vs UOF

FTN stands for “force tracking number”. It is the designation given to track the entirety of an interaction between NOPD and one or more individuals wherein force was used.

A single FTN corresponds to one or more UOF. If Officer A and Officer B both use their hands against Individual C, the result would be one FTN, corresponding to two UOFs (one for each officer). The same pattern would apply if there were multiple types of force used or multiple individuals that force was used on.

This report will always clearly label whether FTN or UOF is being used for a particular analysis but the onus is on the reader to remain vigilant of the distinction.

Row

Use of Force by Year

FTN & UOF in 2017 by Month

Row

Analysis

FTN & UOF by year * There were 604 FTNs in 2017, up by 15 FTNs from the previous year. UOFs decreased from 1,592 to 1,574. * OIPM & NOPD have identical data for 2017. 2015 and 2016 still need to be confirmed. * Force jumps between 2014 and 2015. The next year, UOF continues to climb but FTN does not. * UOF has been rising but FTN about steady. This means more officers, individuals, types of force used per force incident. * 2016 is the first year that the database that OIPM accesses (IAPro) was used. Before then, historic numbers from NOPD are relied on. * Furthermore, 2017 is the first year the OIPM has had access to the underlying database. We worked with NOPD to resolve discrepancies with historic numbers.

FTN & UOF by month * Figure 2 clarifies the relationship between FTN and UOF. * There is high variability between the number of FTN and the resulting UOF. * UOF and FTN peak in Feb and August, corresponding to Mardi Gras and summertime. * UOF has its third peak in Nov but FTN is low that month. This leads to an average UOF/FTN of 4.5 which is around 2-3 the rest of the year. * What is driving UOF most: citizens, types of force, number of officers?

Row

Level 1

Level 2

Level 3

Level 4

Row

Analysis

Level 1

  • Level 1 force is decreasing.
  • Exhibiting firearms has not changed.
  • Many officers unholster but don’t point weapon which is not counted as a use of force.

Level 2

  • Level 2 grew after shrinking the year before.
  • Growth attributable to 66% growth in defense tech/take down.

Level 3

  • Level 3 doubled from 3 to 6.

Level 4

  • Level 4 shrunk by 50.
  • Driven by reduction of canine bites to zero.

Row

Force by Level and Type of Force

Force by Level and District

Row

Analysis

Force by level and type of force

  • Level 1 and Level 2 force account for the vast amount of force used.
  • Exhibiting firearms accounts for as much force as all other types combined.

Force by Level and District

  • 7th district and Special Operations have most uses of force.
  • 7th has more than Special Operations. Last year it was reversed.
  • 1st (Mid City), 4th (Algiers), 5th (Bywater, Treme, 9th ward) have only Level 1 and Level 2 force.

Row

Force by Type and Effectiveness

NOPD’s Determination of Unauthorized Force

Row

Analysis

UOF EFFECTIVENESS BY TYPE

  • Like last year, all forms of taser use stand out as being least effective.
  • NOPD self-determines effectiveness. Not clear what the guidelines are.
  • All firearm discharges were deemed effective.
  • 59 instances of exhibiting firearms have not been effective. That equals 8%.
  • Use of hands not effective 10% of the time.
  • How can ‘other’ force always be effective?

NOPD’S DISPOSITION ON UOF

  • 7 unauthorized instances of force.
  • Last year there was only one. 7 is more in line with expectation of 6.
  • 140, about 10% have outcomes that don’t make sense.

Row

Level 1

Level 2

Level 3

Level 4

Row

Analysis

Level 1

  • Exhibiting firearms is the overwhelming reason for using force.
  • Combined with exhibiting tasers, accounts for 75% of low level force.
  • 3 times more likely to pull out a weapon than use hands.
  • There are about as many Level 1 hands as Level 2 take downs.

Level 2

  • 77.4% take down.

Row

Reason for Force

Reason for Exhibiting Firearms

What Preceded Force

Row

Analysis

Reason for Force

  • Resisting arrest is the most common reasons for force at 28.2%.
  • Other accounts for 18.9% of justifications for force. Other should not be so common. NOPD must be more specific.

Reason for Exhibiting Firearms

  • 30% firearm exhibits are other.
  • This is still bigger than the overall other rate, but a decrease from last year’s staggering 50%.

What Preceded Force

  • 12.4% of UOFs occur during a traffic stop, 27.8% during arrest, and 33.5% of UOFs occur during a call for service.

Percentage of Force by Officers Using the Most Force How to read the graph: The vertical axis is percentage and horizontal axis is number of officers. The graph is cumulative, meaning that the top 10 officers includes the top 5 officers. From the graph, the top 10 officers are responsible for 10.38% of all FTN. The top 10 officers are responsible for 13.34% of UOF. There were about 400 officers that used force in 2017 so, the top 500 officers are responsible for 100% of force.

Row

Average Force per Officer

Percentage of Force by Officers Using Most Force

Row

Analysis

Average Force per Officer

  • Almost identical to last year.
  • On average, an NOPD officer will be involved in a force incident once every other year.
  • Only considering officers who used force at least once in 2017, the rate is closer to 3 incidents every 2 years.

Percentage of Force by Officers Using Most Force

  • These results also very similar to 2016.
  • About 1/3 (~400+) of officers’ use force.
  • Of those, 20 officers account for 20% of force. Unfair to say “bad apples” because many of those officers are in special operations.
  • Trend is that UOF is higher than FTN, meaning of officers using force more often, they are also more forceful when they do (more individuals + types). What’s that about?

Row

Contribution to FTN by top 5 officers

[1] "They account for 5.76923076923077 % of all FTNs"
[1] "5 are male"
[1] "30 - 40 years old"
[1] "3 - 12 years of experience"
[1] "4 are white, 1 are black, 0 are hispanic, 0 are asian, 0 are native american, 0 are asian, and 0 have an unknown race"
# A tibble: 2 x 2
  Officer.division            count
  <chr>                       <int>
1 Seventh District                2
2 Special Operations Division     3
# A tibble: 2 x 2
  Officer.sub.division.A count
  <chr>                  <int>
1 Tactical Section           3
2 Task Force                 2

Contribution to UOF by Top 5 Officers

[1] "They account for 7.75095298602287 % of all UOFs"
[1] "5 are male"
[1] "30 - 44 years old"
[1] "5 - 16 years of experience"
[1] "3 are white, 2 are black, 0 are hispanic, 0 are asian, 0 are native american, 0 are asian, and 0 have an unknown race"
# A tibble: 1 x 2
  Officer.division            count
  <chr>                       <int>
1 Special Operations Division     5
# A tibble: 1 x 2
  Officer.sub.division.A count
  <chr>                  <int>
1 Tactical Section           5

Row

Contribution to FTN by Top 10 Officers

[1] "They account for 10.3846153846154 % of all FTNs"
[1] "10 are male"
[1] "26 - 50 years old"
[1] "2 - 21 years of experience"
[1] "6 are white, 4 are black, 0 are hispanic, 0 are asian, 0 are native american, 0 are asian, and 0 have an unknown race"
# A tibble: 2 x 2
  Officer.division            count
  <chr>                       <int>
1 Seventh District                4
2 Special Operations Division     6
# A tibble: 3 x 2
  Officer.sub.division.A count
  <chr>                  <int>
1 Day Watch                  1
2 Tactical Section           6
3 Task Force                 3

Contribution to UOF by Top 10 Officers

[1] "They account for 13.3418043202033 % of all UOFs"
[1] "10 are male"
[1] "26 - 44 years old"
[1] "3 - 16 years of experience"
[1] "6 are white, 4 are black, 0 are hispanic, 0 are asian, 0 are native american, 0 are asian, and 0 have an unknown race"
# A tibble: 2 x 2
  Officer.division            count
  <chr>                       <int>
1 Seventh District                3
2 Special Operations Division     7
# A tibble: 2 x 2
  Officer.sub.division.A count
  <chr>                  <int>
1 Tactical Section           7
2 Task Force                 3

Row

Contribution to FTN by Top 20 Officers

[1] "They account for 17.8846153846154 % of all FTNs"
[1] "18 are male"
[1] "26 - 50 years old"
[1] "2 - 27 years of experience"
[1] "10 are white, 9 are black, 0 are hispanic, 1 are asian, 0 are native american, 1 are asian, and 0 have an unknown race"
# A tibble: 7 x 2
  Officer.division                 count
  <chr>                            <int>
1 ""                                   1
2 Administrative Duties Services       1
3 Criminal Investigations Division     1
4 Fifth District                       2
5 Fourth District                      1
6 Seventh District                     6
7 Special Operations Division          8
# A tibble: 9 x 2
  Officer.sub.division.A   count
  <chr>                    <int>
1 ""                           1
2 Day Watch                    2
3 K9 Section                   1
4 Limited Duty                 1
5 Narcotics                    2
6 Special Victims  Section     1
7 Staff                        1
8 Tactical Section             7
9 Task Force                   4

Contribution to UOF by Top 20 Officers

[1] "They account for 21.8551461245235 % of all UOFs"
[1] "18 are male"
[1] "26 - 52 years old"
[1] "2 - 27 years of experience"
[1] "12 are white, 7 are black, 0 are hispanic, 1 are asian, 0 are native american, 1 are asian, and 0 have an unknown race"
# A tibble: 7 x 2
  Officer.division               count
  <chr>                          <int>
1 Administrative Duties Services     1
2 Eighth District                    1
3 Fifth District                     1
4 First District                     1
5 Seventh District                   6
6 Special Operations Division        9
7 Third District                     1
# A tibble: 10 x 2
   Officer.sub.division.A count
   <chr>                  <int>
 1 2nd Platoon                1
 2 B Platoon                  1
 3 C Platoon                  1
 4 Day Watch                  2
 5 K9 Section                 1
 6 Limited Duty               1
 7 Narcotics                  1
 8 Staff                      1
 9 Tactical Section           8
10 Task Force                 3

Row

Force by Officer Age and Experience

Row

Analysis

Use of Force by Officer Age and Experience

  • As officers get older, they commit less force.
  • Officers 31 - 35 make up 15.6% of the police department but are responsible for over 350 incidents of force.
  • In the next age bracket, officers 36 - 40 make up 35% of all police on the force (nearly double the previous bracket), but the amount of force decreases.
  • Officers 51 and older make up 28% of the police department but are only responsible for about 100 incidents of force.
  • Experience levels are not enough to explain use of force.
  • Officers older than 31 tend to have over 5 years of experience but continue to use nonnegligible amounts of force.
  • Not yet clear how assignment factors into this. Are older officers in administrative roles where they are less likely to answer calls for service and/or interact with the public?

Row

Officer Injuries During UOF

Individual Injuries During UOF

Row

Analysis

NOPD police officers face a real risk of injury and death. This is critical to understanding the context in which officers make decisions to use force. But risk of injury is not unique to officers. Individuals who are the subjects of police force also face a risk of injury. See “UOF leading to individual injury” for reference to how UOF injury risk applies to individuals who are subjected to NOPD use of force.

  • Given most force is exhibiting weapons, the injuries when physical force exerted is higher.
  • Individuals more likely to be injured because of force.
  • Both officers and individuals face a real risk of injury whenever force is used.

Row

UOF by Individual Gender and Race

UOF by Female Individual Race

UOF by Male Individual Race

Row

Analysis

  • Males have force used against them more often.
  • Black males have more force used against them than black females.
  • Inversely, white females have more force used against them than white males.

Row

Female Individual UOF by Type and Race

Male Individual UOF by Type and Race

Row

Analysis

  • Black people are most exposed to firearms, but white people get hands.

Row

Force Used Disproportionately Against Black People by Month

Force Used Disproportionately Against Black People by District

Row

Analysis of UOF by Officer Gender and Race

  • Like last year, force against black people eclipses population, arrests, and stops 11 of 12 months.
  • January had a low 52% of force against black people.
  • Stops and arrests of black people are moderately stable. However, force has much more variability and does not seem correlated with the number of stops or arrests.

  • All districts except for 1st (Mid city) use force against black people disproportionately to other metrics.
  • 2nd (Broadmoor) and 3rd (Lakeview) are most disproportionate.

Row

UOF by Officer Gender and Race

UOF by Female Officer Race

UOF by Male Officer Race

Row

Analysis

  • Male officers used more force.
  • White males use more force than all other groups even though they only account for 39% of police officers.
  • Female officers use force proportional to their representation.
  • Male officers have the specific disproportionality of white males using a lot of force.
  • White male officers account for 50% of force.

Row

Female Officer UOF by Type and Race

Male officer UOF by Type and Race

Officers

Row

OFFICER DEMOGRAPHICS

NOT MOBILE FRIENDLY For the best experience, view this website on a desktop computer using full-screen.

Row

Total Number Active Officers

2017 Active Officers by Race

2017 Active Officers by Sex

Row

Where Officers Live by Zip Code