Traking Enforcement Rates in New York City 2003-2014
A Report of the Misdemeanor Justice Project of the John Jay College of Criminal Justice
Presented to the Citzen’s Crime Commision December 11, 2015
1
Tracking Enforcement Rates in New York City,
2003-2014
Introduction by President Jeremy Travis
Preeti Chauhan, Ph.D.
Todd C. Warner, Ph.D.
Adam G. Fera, M.A.
Ervin Balazon, M.P.A.
Olive Lu, M.S.
Megan Welsh, Ph.D.
December 11, 2015
GOALS OF THE REPORT
This report seeks to better understand longitudinal trends in the different types ofenforcement actions that bring the public into contact with law enforcement officials.Our primary analyses focus on four types of enforcement activity: the issuance of criminal summonses (C-summonses); stop, question, and frisk actions (SQF); misdemeanor arrests; and felony arrests. We recognize that other types of enforcement actions occur, such as moving violationsummonses, parking summonses, and Transit Adjudication Bureau (TAB) summonses. However, longitudinal and demographic data are not available for these enforcement activities. Therefore, we examine trends only for arrests, stops, and C-summonses from 2003 to2014 in New York City as a whole and by age, gender, and race/ethnicity (when data are available). This is the third technical report in a series of reports released from the Misdemeanor Justice Project (MJP). Our first two reports, Trends in Misdemeanor Arrests in New York5 and The Summons Report: Trends in the Issuance and Disposition of Summonses in New York City,6 were released in October 2014 and April 2015, respectively. In addition to examining demographic characteristics, these reports unpacked trends in charges, dispositions, and sentences for misdemeanor arrests and C-summonses. The present report takes a step back from these two reports and examines the macro-level volume of police enforcement actions using multiple metrics. The aims of this report are three-fold: (1) to document trends in different types ofenforcement actions that occur between the public and law enforcement officials in New York City for the past twelve years; (2) to compare these different types of enforcement actions by demographics; and (3) to contribute to current policy discussions on police enforcement actions. As with all MJP reports, we do not offer in-depth interpretation, make causal inferences regarding the results, or provide policy recommendations. The four take-home messages from this report are the following:
1.
Overall, enforcement activity increased considerably until 2011 and substantially decreased over the following three years.These trends were driven primarily by the substantial increase and decrease in reported stops, and secondarily by C-summonses and misdemeanors.
2.
Trends observed for enforcement activities differed among the demographic groups. Over the course of the study period, men, young people, and racial/ethnic minorities experienced the greatest amount of fluctuation in enforcement rates. Alternatively, enforcement rates for women, older age groups, and Whites remained relatively constant.5 Please find our first report here:
http://johnjay.jjay.cuny.edu/files/web_images/10_28_14_TOCFINAL.pdf
6
Please find our second report here: http://www.jjay.cuny.edu/sites/default/files/news/Summons_Report_DRAFT_4_24_2015_v8.pdf
16
3.
There were differences in enforcement activity between the demographic groups. For instance, the gender gap in enforcement rates between men and women decreased while gaps between the youngest and oldest age groups; and racial/ethnic groups were more varied.
4.
From 2011 to 2014, there have been approximately 800,000 fewer enforcement activities including felony arrests, misdemeanor arrests, C-summonses, moving
Read the full Report