Testing for disparities in traffic stops: Best practices from the Connecticut model

• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12528
• Author: Jesse J. Kalinowski,Kenneth Barone,Matthew B. Ross
• Date: 01 November 2020
• Published date: 01 November 2020

DOI: ./- .

SPECIAL ISSUE ARTICLE

TACKLING DISPARITY IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM

Testing for disparities in traffic stops: Best

practices from the Connecticut model

Matthew B. Ross1,2Jesse J. Kalinowski3Kenneth Barone4

Department of Economic Sciences,

Claremont Graduate University,

Claremont, California, USA

Wagner School of Public Service, New

YorkUniversity, New York, New York,

USA

Department of Economics, Quinnipiac

University, Hamden, Connecticut, USA

Institute for Municipal and Regional

Policy, Central Connecticut State

University, New Britain, Connecticut,

USA

Correspondence

MatthewB. Ross, Department of Economic

Sciences,School of Social Science, Policy

&Evaluation, Claremont Graduate Uni-

versity, E. th Street, Claremont, CA,

USA.

Email:Matthew.Ross@CGU.edu

[Correctionadded on  October ,

afterf irst online publication: The author

affiliation ‘Institute for Regionaland

MunicipalPolicy’ has been corrected to

‘Institutefor Municipal and Regional Pol-

icy’ in affiliation .]

Abstract

Connecticut’s novel approach to collecting and analyz-

ing traffic stop data for evidence of disparate treatment

is widely considered to be a model of best practice. Here,

we provide an overview of Connecticut’s framework,

detail solutions to the canonical empirical challenges

of analyzing traffic stop, and describe a data-driven

approach to early intervention. Unlike most juris-

dictions that simply produce an annual traffic stop

report, Connecticut has developed an ongoing system

for identifying and mitigating disparity. Connecticut’s

framework for identifying significant disparities on an

annual basis relies on the so-called “preponderance of

evidence” approach. Drawing from the cutting-edge of

the empirical social science literature, this approach

applies several, as opposed to a single, rigorous empiri-

cal test of disparity.For departments identified as having

a disparity, Connecticut has developed a process for

intervening on an annual basis. In that process, policing

administrators engage with researchers to conduct an

empirical exploration into possible contributing factors

and enforcement policies. In Connecticut, this approach

has transformed what had once been a war of anecdotes

into a constructive data-driven conversation about

policy. Variants of the Connecticut Model have recently

been adopted by the State of Rhode Island, Oregon, and

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits

use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or

adaptations are made.

©  The Authors. Criminology & Public Policypublished by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society of Criminology

Criminology & Public Policy. ;:–. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/capp 1289