Disparities in Policing From Theory to Practice

In recent years, high-profile police use-of-force encounters with individuals of color (e.g., George Floyd in Minneapolis, Minnesota; Breonna Taylor in Louisville, Kentucky; Jacob Blake in Kenosha, Wisconsin) have increased the long-standing scrutiny of law enforcement actions and deepened the mistrust between communities and police when police behave inappropriately.

Disparities in policing are indeed multifaceted issues that cannot be adequately understood solely by examining individual instances of violence. Analyzing how these events reflect broader systemic oppression is essential to gaining a comprehensive understanding. It requires exploring historical and ongoing patterns of discrimination, socioeconomic inequalities, neighborhood disadvantage, and the influence of power dynamics on policing practices. By recognizing and addressing these systemic factors, we are in a better position to address disparities in policing and reduce incidents of police violence.

Theoretically, disparities in policing can be explained by three theories: majority-minority communities, conflict theory of law, and minority threat hypothesis–group threat theory. In majority-minority communities, the high level of violent crime leads to more police encounters and a greater need for police presence, which increases the risk of fatal outcomes.¹ According to majority-minority communities, individuals living in lower-income, distressed communities of color, characterized by higher poverty rates, greater residential segregation, and elevated levels of violent crime, are more likely to experience social control measures, including heightened policing. Multiple studies have consistently shown that racial/ethnic minorities, particularly Black people and Hispanic people, are more likely to be subjected to more intense law enforcement practices than White people.²

The conflict theory of law suggests that policing enforces social control that benefits those in power, resulting in intensified policing and potential use of force.³ This argument means that areas with a higher population of non-Whites, particularly Black people, could have larger police forces mainly because of Whites’ fear and perceived economic threat.⁴ Finally, the minority threat hypothesis and group threat theory propose that minority-serving areas and socially marginalized populations experience more aggressive policing and lethal outcomes because these groups are seen as threatening the established order and power structure.⁵ On the community side, it might also lead to an increase in hate crimes targeting these minority groups.⁶ Without taking these theories into consideration, there is a possibility of misinterpreting or misreading research findings.

The study conducted by Ward et al. (p. 387) addressed a gap in the existing research on police violence by explicitly focusing on nonfatal shooting incidents. This study utilized a comprehensive data set, thereby offering valuable insights into the disparities in policing. Additionally, it highlights some essential findings that merit further explanation and analysis. In addressing various aspects related to this study and similar research, I highlight in the following sections several significant factors that directly or indirectly influence the subject matter.

SIZE AND COMPOSITION OF THE POPULATION

It is crucial to consider the size of the population when analyzing data on fatal and nonfatal police shootings. Although the frequency of such incidents can be higher among the White population, this interpretation can be misleading without considering population size. Many studies have reported that Black and Hispanic people have higher rates of fatal police shootings than White people,² that they are 50% more likely to experience some form of force in interactions with police.⁷ The demographic composition plays a role in the occurrence of police shootings—for example, when the Black and Hispanic populations at the county level increased by one unit, the rate of police shootings increased by 1.5 and 1.6, respectively.⁸

NEIGHBORHOOD AND GEOGRAPHICAL DISPARITIES

Neighborhood context can influence interactions and police decision-making. Police are more likely to use fatal force in areas with economic disadvantage, racial conflict, high crime rates, and a high proportion of vulnerable and low-income populations—more specifically, communities of color.⁹ These disparities were most pervasive in suburbs, where Black people were arrested 4.5 times more often than White people for quality-of-life (disorderly behaviors in public) offenses.¹⁰ The characteristics of these neighborhoods influence police decisions to increase social control through more arrests, upgraded crime classifications, and the use of more coercive actions in interactions with citizens. Studies on police violence should consider geographical disparities; failure to do so can lead to misleading findings that unintentionally favor a lower rate of police disparities for non-White populations.

To delve deeper into this subject, I conducted a county-level analysis using Mapping Police Violence data and Washington Post fatal force data from 2015 to 2020, aligning with the timeframe used in Ward et al.’s study. The analysis specifically examined the influence of race and location on incidents of fatal shootings. The findings revealed a higher prevalence of police fatal shootings in areas characterized by high social vulnerability, particularly affecting individuals from diverse racial backgrounds. When I compared low- and high-social vulnerability areas, the rate of fatal shootings for White people increased by 2.25 times, whereas Black people experienced a 7.5 times increase. Alarmingly, Hispanic people faced a 12-fold increase in fatal shooting deaths in high-social vulnerability areas.⁹ Examining neighborhood-level disparities in police violence requires an examination of the problem from the structural level.

CHARACTERISTICS OF POLICE OFFICERS

As mentioned by Ward et al., injuries resulting from shootings by sheriff’s departments and state police have been shown to have a higher likelihood of being lethal compared with injuries from shootings by local police departments. The study by Ward et al. pointed out the significance of giving more attention to local police departments in addressing violent crime. Local police departments have an advantage in combating violent crime through their involvement with communities and familiarity with the local environment. Increasing accountability both at the system level and individual level is crucial for preventing firearm injuries. Law enforcement policymakers may reduce disparities in policing by increasing “front-end restrictions on officer discretion or increased back-end accountability”¹¹; paying more attention to work-related factors, victims, and police gender and race/ethnicity; and ensuring the protection of police officers while carrying out their duties by implementing a system of double-distributed accountability.

LACK OF GOOD DATA

Existing data sets—such as the Washington Post’s Police Shootings, Mapping Police Violence, and Gun Violence Archive—have deficiencies in capturing individual factors. One major issue is the missing observation of race and ethnicity in these data sets. Ward et al. found that approximately 29% of the data they analyzed were missing race or ethnicity information, with a higher occurrence among non-White populations (determined by the study team’s assigned race). The issue of missing data goes beyond just race and ethnicity; important individual factors such as age, location, officers involved, names of victims, and officer race/ethnicity are often missing or not consistently reported in available data sets. Many studies have emphasized the lack of reliable and comprehensive data on addressing disparities in policing; this highlights the essential need for policymakers and relevant organizations to take action to address this issue effectively.

Deep concerns remain about the historical and structural racism and discrimination that have resulted in stringent social control of communities of color and low-income people. There is growing recognition that current federal and state police accountability policies are largely inadequate,¹² and that more must be done to address the systematic causes of disparities in policing.