I’ve been doing a lot of thinking lately about measurement – specifically measurement related to diversity and inclusion in policing and disparate treatment. I’ve worked with, around, and for law enforcement agencies a big part of my adult life and one of the things that has given me the most pause for thought is the number of people from diverse and minority populations who seem to be stopped, searched, arrested, and injured or killed during engagements with police officers.  And then these same people are studied, sometimes for years, in search of evidence that helps policy and police “be better”.  The problem, though, is that we use the same basic techniques, collect the same kinds of data, largely analyze it in the same way, and never (or almost never) ask the question, “how does the collection and analysis of this data help the people about whom the data are collected?”.

In recent years, public awareness of these events has reached a critical boil.  And in a lot of ways, that’s a good thing because we see everyday people doing a lot more thinking and critique of the role police play in maintaining a functional democracy.  Black and Brown people have gained voice in important ways that historically have been stifled.  White people are confronting privilege and questioning the historical basis for our policies and laws.  Young people are becoming involved in shaping the future of the nation for themselves and generations that follow them.   We’ve heard important voices of people with different degrees of ability, age, political ideology, religion, and many other dimensions of diversity in ways that we haven’t seen in generations.  For policing, we’re questioning everything ranging from purpose to tactics, technology, and psychology, and officer wellness.  All of these things are good and healthy exercises that are largely unique to American democracy.  I’ll support, facilitate, and engage in these conversations any day of the week because as painful as they are sometimes, they are necessary in terms of building the foundation for inclusive, discursive, and participatory democracy.

But here’s where I get stuck:  What if we’re measuring the wrong stuff, or worse, what if our measurements and metrics are wrong?  In policing, disparate treatment is usually defined in terms of population comparisons. For example, stop data (using various techniques) usually comes down to looking at comparisons between universal population demographics and demographics of people who are stopped, often with a focus on race and/or ethnicity.  The same goes for police use of force reporting.  In other words, if the community a police agency serves is 20 percent Asian, 20 percent Black, 20 percent Hispanic, 20 percent indigenous American, and 20 percent white, then we expect to see stop or use of force data that reflects those same proportions.  Anything different carries a hint of disparity and inequality.

Stick with me here – and here comes a disclaimer:  I will never, nor will my firm, condone disparate treatment by the dominant culture (usually defined as “white”) against any person for any reason solely defined by an element of diversity including race, ethnicity, religion, gender or gender identity, disability or ability, income or economics, or any other dimension of diversity.  We will continue to challenge conventional thinking and encourage our clients to do the same thing.  We have to do a better job of measuring success and failure.

Of all unlikely things, I’m inspired by the fashion industry.  In recent years new designers and voices have rejected size as the ultimate statement of value and worth, particularly for women.  Traditional sizing for fashion runs from extra small to extra large (maybe), in that order with smaller sizing at the top of the chart. For American women, this strategy usually excludes sizes over 14 or 16 (and for higher end design houses, excludes sizing over 10).  This sends the statement to consumers that “smaller is better, larger is worse, and larger over a certain point doesn’t exist for us and women who are outside these parameters aren’t worthy of our wares”.  But recently, some designers have challenged this by getting rid of the linear dimensions of size (and therefore worth) and moving toward nonlinear measurement strategies.  Think about the value of getting rid of a linear chart and moving to a layered wheel as a metric for making a purchasing decision, but not a metric for defining the social value of the purchaser.

A fashion maven I am not… but… it did inspire me to think about how we measure and report on stop data and use of force in law enforcement.  Using race and ethnicity as the sole determinant of disparate treatment by law enforcement causes us to shift our attention from other determinants of disparate treatment.  Race is important, and I don’t disagree addressing disparate treatment based on race is essential for a lot of good reasons.  But, I think there’s a good argument that race isn’t the only factor that should be considered when we assess the efficacy and equity of how police interact with the communities they serve.  Maybe it is time we started looking for new measures.