Independent Review of Toronto Star Analysis of Criminal ... · Toronto Star’s analysis of these...

AN INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF THE TORONTO STAR ANALYSIS OF CRIMINAL INFORMATION PROCESSING SYSTEM (CIPS) DATA

PROVIDED BY THE TORONTO POLICE SERVICE (TPS)

Edward B. Harvey, PhD University of Toronto

with the assistance of

Richard Liu, B.A. (Hons)

University of Toronto

March 2003

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Executive Summary 1 2. Introduction and Overview 5 3. Objectives 7 4. The Data: Characteristics and Limitations 8

4.1 Overview 8 4.2 What The Toronto Star says about the data 8 4.3 Reservations about The Toronto Star’s use of the CIPS data 10 4.4 Cleaning up the CIPS data for the independent review 11 4.5 Comments on the use of demographic baseline data 13

5. The Analysis: Issues and Results 14

5.1 Overview 14 5.2 The Toronto Star analysis of the CIPS data 14 5.3 A replication and review of The Toronto Star analysis 17 5.4 Further forms of analysis 36

6. Conclusions 38 APPENDIX A: Documents Consulted APPENDIX B: Tables showing analyses of offender/population ratios for different racial

groups by Division and offence categories. APPENDIX C: Tables showing proportion of offenders vs. population by Divisions and

offence categories (Blacks and Whites compared; Blacks, Whites and All Others compared).

APPENDIX D: Tables and graph analysis of offender rates in 8 TPS Divisions (Blacks

and Whites compared in 5 offence areas).

1

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On May 31, 2002, under a Freedom of Information request, The Toronto Star obtained data, for the period late 1996 to early 2002, from the Criminal Information Processing System (CIPS) which is used by the Toronto Police Service (TPS). The Toronto Star’s analysis of these data provided the basis for a series of articles, commencing October 19, 2002, in which the newspaper alleged that the TPS engages in racial profiling -- specifically, the targeting of Blacks. I was asked by Chief Julian Fantino to carry out an independent review of The Toronto Star analysis. In order to carry out this task, I was given the same CIPS data as that which was provided to The Toronto Star. This document constitutes the full report of my independent review. The independent review was driven by three objectives: • To conduct an independent analysis of the CIPS data supplied to The Toronto Star

by the TPS. • To identify questions and concerns related to The Toronto Star's use and analysis

of the CIPS data and to assess the conclusions they arrived at based on this analysis (in particular, the allegation that the TPS is engaged in "racial profiling" targeted on Blacks).

• To present alternative analyses and conclusions based on this independent review

and analysis. The independent review identified various problems in the approach taken by The Toronto Star, including: • Inadequate recognition and acknowledgement of the fact that the CIPS database

was never designed to be a research database and has certain inherent limitations when used for such purposes. CIPS was designed as an administrative tool to assist TPS officers in the conduct of their duties. It is not and was never intended to be a research database.

• It is important to understand that CIPS is only a sample -- and not a scientific

sample -- of the millions of contacts the TPS had with the public over the 1996-2002 timeframe. For example, CIPS is a very limited source of information relating to traffic offences (which includes non-moving offences).

• The Toronto Star describes the CIPS as “…a massive police database recording

more than 480,000 incidents in which an individual was arrested, or ticketed, for an offence dating back to 1996. It included almost 800,000 criminal and other charges.” (The Toronto Star, October 19, 2002, section A1). This conveys the impression that CIPS is a comprehensive and definitive database. In fact, as I

2

document in this report, the CIPS database contains many instances of incomplete and/or inaccurate data.

• It is also important to note that the CIPS sub-populations on which The Toronto Star

bases its analyses are much smaller than the numbers referred to above. For example, The Toronto Star’s analysis of out of sight (non-moving) offences is based on 4,696 cases; the analysis of simple possession of drugs is based on 10,401 cases; as for “possession of cocaine” (a sub-set of “simple possession of drugs”), The Toronto Star does not at any point in its articles provide a sub-population number. (In my independent review I found the “possession of cocaine” sub- population number to be 2,535.)

• The Toronto Star did not carry out an adequate clean-up of the CIPS data.

Incomplete and/or incorrect data can bias the outcomes of statistical analysis. This independent review is based on a systematic and rigorous clean-up of the CIPS data. The steps involved in this clean-up are documented in the report.

• The Toronto Star provided few details on the key assumptions and procedures they

used in their analysis. For example, it proved impossible to determine their definition of “violent crime”. In the absence of such transparency, scientific replication of an analysis and its stated results is rendered difficult. All of the procedures used in this independent review are transparent and documented to facilitate replication of the analysis and its results by anyone who may wish to do so.

• There are instances of methodological inconsistency in The Toronto Star’s analysis

of CIPS data. For example, the newspaper focuses on single offences in the case of out of sight (non-moving) offences, simple possession of drugs, and possession of cocaine and then switches, without explanation, to multiple offenders in the case of “violent crime”.

• The Toronto Star makes overly simple use of demographic baseline data in its

analysis. Given the substantial socio-demographic variation among the Divisions in the TPS jurisdiction, detailed analysis at the Division level is essential. This has been done in the independent review.

Before commencing the independent review analysis, a multi-step clean-up of the CIPS data was carried out. These steps included: • Removal of incomplete and incorrect data from the Arrests File and Charges File. • Reconciliation of the Arrests File and Charges File data to ensure consistency. • In a further step to maximize consistency, persons with multiple charges were

screened out of the CIPS database.

3

• The fundamental purpose of the independent review data clean-up was to eliminate incorrect and incomplete data that could bias statistical outcomes and interpretations while preserving as much of the data as possible.

Using the cleaned-up data, the independent review carried out its own review

and analysis of The Toronto Star's analysis of "out of sight" (non-moving) offences, simple drug possession (DRUGSPOSESS) and possession of cocaine (Offence Rule ID #993 and #580).

As noted above, it was not possible to determine The Toronto Star's definition of violent crime. The independent review analysis was conducted for 5 offence categories: (1) "out of sight"(non-moving); (2) simple possession of drugs (DRUGSPOSESS); (3) possession of cocaine (Offence Rule ID #993 and #580); (4) prostitution; (5) impaired. Highlights of the independent review analysis include the following: • The independent review results do not provide evidence of systemic racial profiling

being practiced by the Toronto Police Service. The picture is considerably more mixed and complex than The Toronto Star suggests.

• The results suggest that different groups are involved in different types of crime. • In the areas of “out of sight” (Non-Moving) offences, simple drug possession

(Drugsposess) and Possession of Cocaine (Offence Rule ID #993 and #580), Blacks are over-represented in the offender population relative to their numbers in the total population of each Division analysed.

• In other offence areas (see analysis of prostitution and impaired), a pattern of White

over-representation is more likely to apply. • In the case of possession of cocaine, release-at-scene (Form 9) rates are 74.3% for

Whites and 74.0% for Blacks when using the cleaned-up database and controlling for: (1) CPIC; (2) MANIX; (3) BAIL; (4) PROBATION; (5) PREVIOUS CONVICTION; (6) TAP PAROLE; (7) WARRANT.

• The “All Other” skin colour group in CIPS is comprised of visible racial minorities.

Although numerically significant (29.2% of the Toronto population), the group has lower offender rates than Blacks and Whites across a wide range of offences.

4

• The results also suggest that patterns vary from Division to Division in the TPS jurisdiction. This is not surprising given the considerable sociodemographic variability among Divisions.

In summation, this independent review has conducted a consistent and

transparent analysis of the CIPS data. The results of this analysis do not support allegations by The Toronto Star that the Toronto Police Service is engaged in racial profiling. Likewise, the data do not support the underlying implication that the Toronto Police Service is engaged in systemic racial profiling.

5

2. INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

Under a Freedom of Information (FOI) request, The Toronto Star obtained modified data (modified to protect confidentiality) from the Criminal Information Processing System (CIPS) database of the Toronto Police Service (TPS) for the period late 1996 to early 2002. The TPS released the data to The Toronto Star in June, 2002.

Toronto Star staff proceeded to analyse the CIPS data over the summer of 2002. Commencing October 19, 2002, The Toronto Star published a series of articles based on their analysis of the CIPS data with which they had been provided. The relevant articles are listed in Appendix A: Documents Consulted. The central argument contained in the articles is an allegation that the Toronto Police Service practices racial profiling – specifically, Blacks are targeted – with the underlying implication that the TPS is engaged in systemic racial profiling.

I was asked to carry out an independent review of the statistical analysis conducted by The Toronto Star and to assess the adequacy of their methodology and the validity of the conclusions at which they arrived. To support this independent review, I was provided with the same CIPS data as that provided to The Toronto Star. In addition, I used Toronto 1996 Census of Canada-based sociodemographic profile data for the various TPS geographies (Toronto, Division and Patrol Areas). I was also provided with the opportunity to consult with TPS Senior Command, TPS Corporate Planning and the TPS Crime Information Unit (CIU) on various issues related to this review.

In its articles dealing with alleged racial profiling by the TPS, The Toronto Star generally did not provide specific information on its management of CIPS data and the analytical procedures used. Accordingly, a significant amount of time was invested in simply arriving at a determination of what The Toronto Star had done. Once this determination had been made, it was possible to replicate aspects of The Toronto Star analysis and, in addition, carry out additional analyses. In overall terms, I have serious reservations about the steps taken (or not taken) by The Toronto Star to clean-up the CIPS data for analysis purposes. I also have serious reservations about the consistency/appropriateness of certain methodological procedures used in the Star’s data analysis. Taken together, these two considerations obviously raise questions about the validity of the conclusions arrived at by The Toronto Star and the veracity of the allegation that the TPS engages in racial profiling. In addition to the Executive Summary and Introduction and Overview, this report comprises five additional sections and four appendices. Section 3 sets out the fundamental objectives of this independent review. Section 4 addresses a number of issues and concerns related to the CIPS data. Section 5 examines various aspects of The Toronto Star analytical methodology and presents the results of my independent analysis. Section 6 sets forward various conclusions and recommendations. Appendix A: Documents Consulted, lists the background materials with which I was provided. Appendix B presents tables showing analyses of offender/population ratios for different racial groups by Division and offence categories. Appendix C sets forward tables showing proportion of offenders vs. population by Divisions and offence categories

6

(Blacks and Whites compared; Blacks, Whites and All Others compared). Appendix D sets forward tables and graph analysis of offender rates in 8 TPS Divisions where the Black proportion of the Division population is greater than 6 percent. (Blacks and Whites compared in 5 offence areas).

7

3. OBJECTIVES The objectives of this study are as follows: • To conduct an independent review of The Toronto Star analysis of CIPS data

provided by the TPS. • To identify questions and concerns related to The Toronto Star’s use and analysis

of the CIPS data and the conclusions based on their approach. • To present alternative analyses and conclusions based on this independent review.

8

4. THE DATA: CHARACTERISTICS AND LIMITATIONS

4.1 Overview

The Criminal Information Processing System (CIPS) data supplied to The Toronto Star by the TPS in June 2002 covered the period late 1996 to early 2002 and contained a total of 483,614 observations.

In the series of articles commencing October 19, 2002 and alleging racial profiling by the TPS, The Toronto Star makes various statements about the CIPS data. I identify and document the source of these in sub-section 4.2 below.

I then set forward, in sub-section 4.3, a number of reservations about how The Toronto Star used the CIPS data. In particular, these reservations pertain to inadequacies in how The Toronto Star cleaned-up the data prior to commencing their analysis. Errors and missing data can significantly affect statistical outcomes and need to be dealt with in a rigorous and consistent fashion.

Accordingly, I carried out a thorough review and clean-up of the CIPS data, the precise steps of which are documented in sub-section 4.4. In carrying out this clean-up operation, I have attempted to preserve as much data as possible while eliminating data errors and inadequacies with the potential to skew the analysis and, therefore, the conclusions arising from the analysis.

Although my clean-up of the data is more rigorous than that conducted by The Toronto Star, I have maintained, for the purposes of replication and comparison, the same “late 1996/early 2002” timeframe used by The Toronto Star.

Finally, as noted in Section 2 of this report, I used 1996 Census of Canada-based demographic profile data for various TPS geographies (Toronto, Divisions and Patrol Areas). I use these data to create baseline comparators at the Division level, a procedure that is expanded upon in sub-section 4.5. 4.2 What The Toronto Star says about the data The Toronto Star makes the following comments about the CIPS data they were provided with: • “Criminal Information Processing System (CIPS), a Toronto police database that

documents charges laid since late 1996. It’s used to track arrests, and the arrested, as they enter the criminal justice system. It also documents non-criminal offences, such as Highway Traffic Act charges and bylaw infractions.” Source: The story behind the numbers, The Toronto Star, October 19, 2002, section A.

• “The evidence is contained in a massive police database recording more than

480,000 incidents in which an individual was arrested, or ticketed, for an offence dating back to 1996. It included almost 800,000 criminal and other charges.”

9

Source: Singled out, The Toronto Star, October 19, 2002, section A1. • “The Star tailored its request to avoid personal information, ensuring privacy by

recoding over 350 Criminal Code, drug and traffic offences into nondescript categories.” Source: The story behind the numbers, The Toronto Star, October 19, 2002, section A.

• “Police released a modified version of CIPS, excluding personal information. It

details the more than 480,000 incidents in which an individual was arrested or ticketed for an offence, and nearly 800,000 criminal and other charges laid by the force from late 1996 to early 2002.” Source: The story behind the numbers, The Toronto Star, October 19, 2002, section A.

• “Police are forbidden, by their governing board, from analyzing this data in terms of

race, but The Star has no such restriction. The findings provide hard evidence of what blacks have long suspected – race matters in Canadian society especially when dealing with police. Source: Singled out, The Toronto Star, October 19, 2002, section A1.

• “In most cases, the data were clean and complete, but there were some gaps and

instances of human error, such as misspellings and bad entries. The Star cleaned up the data where possible. Where large amounts of information was missing. The Star makes note of it in its findings.” Source: The story behind the numbers, The Toronto Star, October 19, 2002, section A.

• “Multiple offenders show up as multiple entries.” Source: The story behind the numbers, The Toronto Star, October 19, 2002, section A.

• “Skin colour: It’s noted in 399,922 of the 483,614 incidents, or 82.6 percent of

incidents in which an individual was arrested or ticketed, and in 93.5 percent of the 310,551 arrested for Criminal Code and drug offences.” Source: The story behind the numbers: Today’s analysis, The Toronto Star, October 26, 2002, section A

• “Of the total 483,614 incidents, 70 per cent came with a birth country. When

looking at Criminal Code and drug offences, birth country was specified in 86.7 percent of the charges.” Source: The story behind the numbers, The Toronto Star, October 26, 2002, Section A

10

• “Employment status: Indicated for 93.1 percent of arrestees.” Source: The story behind the numbers, The Toronto Star, October 26, 2002, Section A

4.3 Reservations about The Toronto Star’s use of the CIPS data I have a number of concerns about the way in which The Toronto Star has used the CIPS data in their analysis. These are as follows: • The CIPS data contains various inaccuracies. There are a significant number of

observations that are undated, pre-date l996, or are dated after April 2002. (N=65,466)

• The Toronto Star reports that it carried out some "clean-up" work on the CIPS data

but are otherwise uninformative about what they may or may not have done. I am very doubtful if this has been done in a systematic or rigorous way. For example, in their October l9, 2002 piece "Treatment differs by division" The Toronto Star presents a graphic entitled "Race and Police Records" in which the total number of individuals is given as 483,6l4 -- an invalid number based on my analysis.

• The CIPS database contains data entry errors and missing data. There is no

statistically valid means of "correcting" these deficiencies. The correct procedure is to eliminate incorrect or missing data from the database and then proceed with the analysis. Not to do so poses serious risks of statistical bias and incorrect conclusions.

• The Toronto Star has not taken proper account of multiple offenders. Although the

charges analysis will not be affected, the number of arrestees will be and it is from the Arrests File that an analyst ascertains skin colour. The Crime Information Unit (CIU) provided me with an electronic file of the IDs of duplicate persons which enabled me to perform a controlled statistical analysis of this important issue.

• My detailed audit of CIPS data revealed other anomalies as well. For example, in

469 cases information appears in the Charges File but no Arrest ID is available. These may seem like relatively small numbers but given that CIPS is a relational database there is a serious risk here of creating "error multiplier effects". The incomplete data referred to in this point has not been included in my analysis.

• As a database, CIPS was designed as an administrative tool to assist TPS officers

in the conduct of their duties. It is not and was never intended to be a research database. It should also be noted that CIPS is only a sample (and not a scientifically designed sample) of the millions of contacts with the public the TPS had over the 1996-2002 timeframe. For example, CIPS contains only a small amount of traffic information. This is because most of the persons charged with

11

traffic offences plead guilty or do not respond to the provincial offences notice and are found guilty after 15 days. The Toronto Star should have been more forthright about these limitations.

4.4 Cleaning-up the CIPS data for the independent review The first step I took was to develop specific criteria for cleaning-up the data. The criteria are as follows: • In the ARRESTS FILE of CIPS, Arrest Dates (Month/Year) of the incidents must be

between September 1996 and April 2002. This eliminates incidents that are undated, predate September 1996, or are dated after April 2002.

• In the CHARGES FILE of CIPS, the Start Date (Month/Year) of charges filed must

be between September 1996 and April 2002. This eliminates charges that are undated, predate September 1996, or are dated after April 2002. This will also keep the data consistent.

• In 469 cases, information appears in the CHARGES FILE but no Arrest ID is

available. Such incomplete data will be excluded from my analysis. • Both the Arrest Dates (Month/Year) of the incidents in the ARRESTS FILE and the

Start Dates in the CHARGES FILE must be between September 1996 and April 2002. This will ensure that the data are consistent and fall within the September 1996 to April 2002 timeframe.

• In the CIPS database, multiple offenders show up as multiple entries. This has the

potential of skewing the data and biasing analytical outcomes. Accordingly, I consulted with the Crime Information Unit (CIU) to obtain an electronic file that could be used to screen out persons with multiple charges in the CIPS database. The file is the Single Offence Arrests File and contains 246,821 Arrest ID’s charged with one count of an offence.

The second step I took was to implement the data clean-up process as follows: • Eliminated the 469 entries in the CHARGES FILE where information appeared but

no Arrest ID was available. • Selected incidents in the ARRESTS FILE with Arrest Dates (Month/Year) between

September 1996 and April 2002. As a result of applying this criterion, the number of incidents where an individual was arrested or ticketed for an offence between September 1996 and April 2002 is 418,148, not 483,614, (as reported by The Toronto Star).

12

• Selected charges in the CHARGES FILE with Start Date (Month/Year) between September 1996 and April 2002. As a result of applying this criterion, the number of charges laid between September 1996 and April 2002 is 766,387, not 794,968, (as reported by The Toronto Star.)

• Using the cleaned-up ARRESTS FILE and the cleaned-up CHARGES FILE and the

SINGLE OFFENCE ARRESTS FILE supplied by the Crime Information Unit (CIU), I screened the data to ensure that offenders were in fact arrested between the September 1996 and April 2002 timeframe. As a result of applying this criterion, the number of offenders charged with a single count of an offence between September 1996 and April 2002 is 204,373.

• It is important to recognize that in the three offence areas The Toronto Star focused

on and in which I was able to carry out replication work, the offender populations analysed by the newspaper are small compared to the total number of offenders charged with a single count of an offence in CIPS (all offences), the number for which -- as noted above -- is 204,373 in my cleaned-up database. The following examples illustrate this point.

• In the case of out of sight (non-moving) offences, The Toronto Star singled out

7,511 cases where individuals had been charged and then focused on 4,696 cases where skin colour had been noted. After I applied my systematic and consistent clean-up procedures to the CIPS database (documented above), the total out of sight (non-moving) offender population is 3,883, which is 813 less than The Toronto Star’s number of 4,696. Specifically, 3,883 is the number of offenders charged with a single count of a non-moving offence where both skin colour and location of arrest were noted in CIPS during the September 1996 to April 2002 timeframe.

• In the case of simple possession of drugs offences, The Toronto Star singled out

10,779 cases where individuals had been charged and then focused on 10,401 cases where skin colour had been noted. After I applied my systematic and consistent clean-up procedures to the CIPS database, the total simple possession of drugs population is 9,346, which is 1,055 less than the The Toronto Star’s number of 10,401. Specifically, 9,364 is the number of offenders charged with a single count of simple drug possession where both skin colour and location of arrest were noted in CIPS during the September 1996 to April 2002 timeframe.

• In the case of possession of cocaine (a subset of simple possession of drugs), The

Toronto Star at no point in its articles identified the number of offenders on which it based its analysis. After I applied my systematic and consistent clean-up procedures to the CIPS database, I obtained a “possession of cocaine” offender population of 2,535. Specifically, 2,535 is the number of offenders charged with a single count of possession of cocaine where both skin colour and location of arrest were noted in CIPS during the September 1996 to April 2002 timeframe.

13

4.5 Comments on the use of demographic baseline data

A key component of The Toronto Star allegation that the TPS engages in racial profiling (specifically, the targeting of Blacks), is the argument that the representation of Blacks (compared to other racial groups) is higher in the CIPS arrest and charge populations than their representation in the Toronto population (or some sub-set or sub-sets of that population). Given the extensive sociodemographic differences among the various TPS Divisions, it is my opinion that the relevant baseline for comparison purposes is at the Division level. The 1996 Census of Canada-based sociodemographic profile data permits the identification – at the Division level – of the proportion of Blacks relative to other racial groups and the total population in each Division. Accordingly, in the analyses conducted in connection with the independent review, baseline comparisons are made at the Division level for all offence categories analysed. The 1996 Census of Canada-based data is not in a form that permits the analysis of patterns within racial groups, such as age, income, education and labour force status.

It should also be noted that various other types of data are relevant to the establishment of baselines for the purposes of evaluating the veracity of “racial profiling” allegations. For example, in the case of traffic data there are a number of potentially confounding factors, including: (1) racial distribution of motorists on the road; (2) length of time motorists are on the road; (3) time of day; (4) age composition of motorists; (5) number of officers patrolling. Given the non-availability of such data, I made the most sophisticated methodological use possible of the existing sociodemographic baseline data by employing it consistently at the TPS Division level of analysis.

14

5. THE ANALYSIS: ISSUES AND RESULTS 5.1 Overview

This section commences with a discussion of the analysis made by The Toronto Star for the purposes of its series of articles commencing October 19, 2002. This is followed by a discussion of my replication and review of The Toronto Star analysis. This section presents the results of a number of statistical analyses, including: (1) analyses of offender/population ratios for different racial groups by Division and offence categories, and (2) analyses of the proportion of offenders vs. population by Divisions and offence categories. These analyses include comparisons of Blacks and Whites and comparisons of Blacks, Whites and All others. Section 5 concludes with a brief discussion of the present impossibility, given data limitations, of making sociodemographic comparisons between offender and reference populations within racial groups. 5.2 The Toronto Star analysis of the CIPS data The Toronto Star pursues its analysis of CIPS data in four areas: • “Out of sight” offences. The Toronto Star defines these as violations that routinely

surface only after a traffic stop has been made, such as driving while under suspension, failing to carry a license, failing to change address on license, and driving without insurance.

• Simple drug possession. The Toronto Star focuses on arrestees charged with a

single drug possession charge. • Possession of cocaine. This is a sub-set of simple drug possession. It is a focus of

The Toronto Star analysis. • Violent crime. The Toronto Star “…recoded over 350 offences into a couple dozen

non-descript offence categories. For example, charges such as murder, manslaughter, attempted murder, and aggravated assault were categorized by The Star as “VIOLENTMAJOR” offences …” Quote taken directly from “Synopsis of Toronto Star Analysis of CIPS data”, provided to Chief Fantino, October 18, 2002.

In the series of articles commencing October 19, 2002, in which The Toronto Star makes allegations that the Toronto Police Service engages in racial profiling, the newspaper makes a number of observations about the analyses they conducted of CIPS data.

15

Simple drug possession • “To measure differences in treatment of blacks and whites, The Star focused on

Toronto’s more than 10,000 arrests for simple drug possession over the six-year period.” Source: Singled out, The Toronto Star, October 19, 2002, Section A12.

• “Out of a pool of 10,729 people, skin colour was specified in 93.8 percent of cases.

They are the focus….” Source: The story behind the numbers, The Toronto Star, October 19, 2002, section A.

• “Most people arrested on this charge – 63.8 per cent – were classified by police as

being white. About a quarter – 23.6 per cent – were described as black.” Source: Singled out, The Toronto Star, October 19, 2002, Section A12.

• “Blacks arrested by Toronto police are treated more harshly than whites, a Toronto

Star analysis of crime data shows”.

“Black people, charged with simple drug possession, are taken to police stations more often than whites facing the same charge”. “Once at the station, accused blacks are held overnight, for a bail hearing, at twice the rate of whites”. Source: Singled out, The Toronto Star, October 19, 2002, Section A1.

• “Whites were released on the scene 76.5 per cent of the time while blacks were

released 61.8 per cent of the time….Of those taken to the station, blacks were held behind bars for a court appearance 15.5 per cent of the time. Whites were kept in jail awaiting a bail hearing in 7.3 per cent of cases.” Source: Singled out, The Toronto Star, October 19, 2002, Section A12, A13.

• “The Star looked at how police released over 10,000 people facing a single count of

simple drug possession and found, city-wide, blacks were treated more harshly than whites. The difference in treatment became greater, and more harsh, depending where, and in which of the city’s 16 policing divisions, the arrest took place.” Source: Treatment differs by division, The Toronto Star, October 19, 2002, Section A.

Possession of cocaine • “If the drug was cocaine, the treatment was tougher: 63 per cent of whites were

released at the scene, but only 41.5 per cent of blacks.” Source: Who gets arrested, The Toronto Star, October 19, 2002.

16

• Since 1997, just over 40 per cent of blacks charged with one count of cocaine

possession were held for bail hearing, while only 20 per cent of whites were locked up until they could be brought to court. Source: Treatment differs by division, The Toronto Star, October 19, 2002.

Violent crime • “Toronto Police arrest records analyzed by The Star show that accused blacks

represent nearly 27 per cent of charges for crimes classified by the paper as violent, including homicides, attempted murder, minor assaults, sex assaults and gun-related offences.” Source: Source: Race and violent crime, The Toronto Star, October 26, 2002.

• “Breakdown of violent charges by skin colour assigned by police”: 52% White, 27%

Black, 16% Brown, and 5% Other or Unknown. (Chart). Source: Race and violent crime, crime and skin colour, The Toronto Star, October 26, 2002.

• “Top 10 birth countries by arrestees, by charge, for violent crimes, compared to

proportion in the population. Portugal, India and Vietnam appear in arrest statistics in about the same proportion as in the population. Jamaica, Guyana, Sri Lanka, Iran and Somalia are over-represented.” Source: Race and violent crime, charges by birth country, The Toronto Star, October 26, 2002.

• “About one third of charges laid for violent crimes were against people who were

unemployed, regardless of skin colour.” 35.6% of unemployed Whites, 35% of unemployed Blacks, 27.5% of unemployed Brown, and 34.6% of unemployed Other. Source: Race and violent crime, crime and employment, The Toronto Star, October 26, 2002.

“Out of sight” offences • “These “out-of-sight” traffic offences include failing to update a driver’s licence with

a change of address, driving without a licence, driving without insurance, or driving while under suspension. Police usually discover such violations only after a motorist has been pulled over.” Source: Police target black drivers, The Toronto Star, October 20, 2002, Section A1.

• “The Star singled out 7,511 cases in the database where individuals had been

charged with only one count of these “out-of-sight” violations, and focused on the 4,696 cases where skin colour had been noted.” Source: The story behind the numbers, The Toronto Star, October 20, 2002.

17

• “Now, for the first time, empirical evidence suggests police have indeed been

targeting black drivers in Toronto. Police traffic offence data, obtained and analyzed by The Star, shows a disproportionate number of blacks ticketed for violations that routinely surface only after a stop has been made.” Source: Police target black drivers, The Toronto Star, October 20, 2002, Section A1.

• “Almost 34 per cent of all drivers charged with out-of-sight violations were black, in

the group where race was listed. Yet, according to the latest census figures, Toronto’s black community represents just 8.1 per cent of the city’s population. By contrast, 62.7 per cent of Toronto’s population is white, but whites account for 52.1 per cent of motorists charged with out-of-sight traffic offences.”

Source: Police target black drivers, The Toronto Star, October 20, 2002, Section A8.

5.3 A replication and review of The Toronto Star analysis

The Toronto Star provided few details on the definitions and analytical procedures which form the basis for the interpretations and conclusions set forward in the series of articles commencing October 19, 2002. It was therefore necessary to carry out a wide range of analyses of CIPS data in order to arrive at a reasonable determination of “what The Toronto Star had done.” It was possible to make this determination for “out of sight” offences, simple drug possession and possession of cocaine. It did not prove possible to make such a determination in the case of violent crime. I simply do not know – and have found no way of determining – how The Toronto Star recoded various offences into what they describe as VIOLENTMAJOR offences. It should also be noted that while The Toronto Star focused on single offences in the case of “out of sight”, simple drug possession and possession of cocaine, in the case of VIOLENTMAJOR offences, multiple offenders were counted. No reason is advanced for this apparent methodological inconsistency. It is also unclear why violent crime as an offence category would be used in an analysis of the alleged use of racial profiling by the Toronto Police Service. By its nature, violent crime is typically responded to by officers as a result of reports received. This does not appear to be consistent with the assumptions built into the racial profiling allegations. In the series of Toronto Star articles commencing October 19, 2002, reference is from time to time made to the representation levels of Blacks and Whites in the CIPS database and the representation of these groups in Toronto. Although it is important to make comparisons between the offender populations (as measured in the CIPS data) and reference populations (as measured in 1996 Census of Canada data), the use of

18

Toronto as a baseline would appear to be somewhat simplistic given the substantial sociodemographic variations among the 16 Divisions that make up the TPS jurisdiction. The analyses conducted in the independent review address these issues in various ways. Using the cleaned-up data, as described in section 4 of this report, cross-tabulation tables were prepared for each Division. Table 5.1 underleaf illustrates the format of these tables which was designed to analyse, for each Division, different patterns among Black offenders, White offenders and All Other offenders1.

1 “All Others” is defined as the following racial groups (South Asian (e.g. East India), Chinese, Korean, Japanese, Southeast Asian (e.g. Cambodia), Filipino, Arab/West Asian (e.g. Armenia), Lain American, Visible minority (n.i.e.) and Multiple visible minority; based on 1996 Census of Canada data.

TABLE 5.1

ANALYSIS OF OFFENDER/POPULATION RATIOS FOR DIFFERENT RACIAL GROUPS BY DIVISION AND OFFENCE CATEGORIES

DIVISION __________ OFFENCE CATEGORY

BLACK OFFENDERS

BLACKS IN POPULATION

WHITE OFFENDERS

WHITES IN POPULATION

ALL OTHER OFFENDERS

ALL OTHERS IN POPULATION

TOTAL OFFENDERS

TOTAL POPULATION

N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N % ‘OUT OF SIGHT’-NON-MOVING OFFENCES

‘SIMPLE DRUG POSSESSION’-DRUGSPOSESS

COCAINE PROSTITUTION IMPAIRED

20

Comparisons are made with the total population of Blacks, Whites and All Others in each Division. As may be seen from Table 5.1 underleaf, the offence categories examined include “out of sight” non-moving offences, “simple drug possession”—DRUGSPOSESS, and possession of cocaine. These three areas were examined by The Toronto Star in their analyses. In addition, the offences of prostitution and impaired driving have been added to the analyses performed in the independent review. Table 5.2 presents data on the total population of each Division within the TPS jurisdiction and the percentage of that population that is Black (as per the 1996 Census of Canada-based data). At this point a decision was made to focus further analysis on those Divisions where the Black population is greater than 6%. This exclusion is based on concerns about the validity of statistical analysis based on such small proportions. The data for the eight Divisions which met this criterion (Divisions 12, 13, 23, 31,41, 42, 51, and 54) were then subjected to further analysis and testing for statistical significance. Table 5.3 underleaf presents the format for the analysis which examines -- for each Division and offence category selected – differences between Blacks and Whites. This analysis has been carried out because at various points in its material, The Toronto Star makes comparisons between Blacks and Whites. In my opinion, simply comparing Blacks and Whites is somewhat simplistic and it is more appropriate to compare Blacks, Whites and All Others. Accordingly, this analysis has also been performed and Table 5.4 underleaf shows the format that is used. To ensure objective interpretation of results, statistical tests have been performed on all tabulations to determine if the relationships shown in the tables are statistically significant (at the .05 level or beyond) or statistically not significant. For those tables where Blacks and Whites are compared in terms of offender/population ratios, the Z-test is the appropriate statistical test and it has been used. In the tables where Blacks, Whites and All Others are compared in terms of offender/population ratios, the Chi-Square test is the appropriate statistical test and it has been used. At the bottom of each table, either the Z-test value or the Chi-Square statistic is given followed by the bracketted annotation of sig. (statistically significant at the .05 level or beyond) or n.s. (not statistically significant). If a test result is not statistically significant this means that the pattern revealed by the data is no better than what would occur by chance. Put another way, it means that there is no statistically significant difference among the groups. Conversely, a statistically significant test value means that the differences among groups revealed by the data are statistically significant and not reducible to chance. For the two types of analysis described above (Blacks and Whites compared; Blacks, Whites, and All Others compared) the results are now presented in summary form for each of the 8 Divisions being focused on in this report.

21

TABLE 5.2

TORONTO POLICE SERVICE (TPS) DIVISIONS: TOTAL POPULATION OF DIVISION AND PERCENT BLACK

DIVISION TOTAL POPULATION PERCENT BLACK

11 92,610 4.8 12 87,280 17.1 13 130,430 8.5 14 101,710 3.5 21 56,020 3.7 22 122,565 3.1 23 147,470 16.3 31 181,035 13.9 32 185,850 3.7 33 175,130 5.7 41 213,210 8.3 42 341,025 10.9 51 57,305 12.5 52 65,895 4.2 53 128,800 2.1 54 123,785 7.1 55 81,085 5.6

SOURCE: BASED ON 1996 CENSUS OF CANADA DATA.

22

TABLE 5.3

PROPORTION OF OFFENDERS VS. POPULATION IN DIVISION: BLACKS AND WHITES COMPARED BY DIVISION AND OFFENCE CATEGORY

DIVISION: ____________________ OFFENCE CATEGORY: ____________________

RACIAL GROUPS

OFFENDERS

POPULATION IN

DIVISION

N % N %

BLACK

WHITE

TOTAL

Z-TEST VALUE ___________

SOURCE: OFFENDER DATA TAKEN FROM THE TORONTO POLICE SERVICE

(TPS) CRIMINAL INFORMATION PROCESSING SYSTEM (CIPS) DATABASE FOR THE PERIOD SEPTEMBER 1996 TO APRIL 2002. POPULATION DATA ARE BASED ON 1996 CENSUS OF CANADA.

23

TABLE 5.4

PROPORTION OF OFFENDERS VS. POPULATION IN DIVISION: BLACKS, WHITES, AND ALL OTHERS COMPARED BY DIVISION AND OFFENCE CATEGORY DIVISION: ____________________ OFFENCE CATEGORY: ____________________

RACIAL GROUPS

OFFENDERS

POPULATION IN

DIVISION

N % N %

BLACK

WHITE

ALL

OTHERS

TOTAL

CHI-SQUARE STATISTIC ___________

SOURCE: OFFENDER DATA TAKEN FROM THE TORONTO POLICE SERVICE (TPS) CRIMINAL INFORMATION PROCESSING SYSTEM (CIPS) DATABASE FOR THE PERIOD SEPTEMBER 1996 TO APRIL 2002. POPULATION DATA ARE BASED ON 1996 CENSUS OF CANADA.

24

Division 12: Blacks and Whites Compared • In the offence category “Out of Sight” (Non-Moving), there is a statistically

significant difference between Blacks and Whites. Blacks comprise 52.7% of the offender population and 23.4% of the total White and Black population combined. Whites comprise 47.3% of the offender population and 76.6% of the total White and Black population combined in the Division.

• In the offence category “Simple Drug possession” (DRUGSPOSESS), there is a

statistically significant difference between Blacks and Whites. Blacks comprise 42.0% of the offender population and 23.4% of the total White and Black population combined in the Division. Whites comprise 58.0% of the offender population and 76.6% of the total White and Black population combined in the Division.

• In the offence category “Possession of Cocaine”, there is no statistically significant

difference between Blacks and Whites. Blacks comprise 27.4% of the offender population and 23.4% of the total White and Black population combined in the Division. Whites comprise 72.6% of the offender population and 76.6% of the total White and Black population combined in the Division.

• In the offence category “Prostitution”, there is no statistically significant difference

between Blacks and Whites. Blacks comprise 24.3% of the offender population and 23.4% of the White and Black population combined. Whites comprise 75.7% of the offender population and 76.6% of the total White and Black population combined in the Division.

• In the offence category “Impaired”, there is no statistically significant difference

between Blacks and Whites. Blacks comprise 15.5% of the offender population and 23.4% of the total White and Black population combined in the Division. Whites comprise 84.5% of the offender population and 76.6% of the total White and Black population combined in the Division.

Division 12: Blacks, Whites and All Others Compared • In the offence category “Out of Sight” (Non-Moving), there is a statistically

significant difference between Blacks, Whites and All Others. Blacks comprise 47.5% of the offender population and 17.1% of the total population in the Division. Whites comprise 42.6% of the offender population and 56.1% of the total population in the Division. All Others comprise 10.0% of the offender population and 26.8% of the total population in the Division.

• In the offence category “Simple Drug possession” (DRUGSPOSSESS), there is a

statistically significant difference between Blacks, Whites and All Others. Blacks comprise 38.1% of the offender population and 17.1% of the total population in the

25

Division. Whites comprise 52.5% of the offender population and 56.1% of the total population in the Division. All Others comprise 9.4% of the offender population and 26.8% of the total population in the Division.

• In the offence category “Possession of Cocaine”, there is a statistically significant

difference between Blacks, Whites, and All Others. Blacks comprise 25.0% of the offender population and 17.1% of the total population in the Division. Whites comprise 66.3% of the offender population and 56.1% of the total population in the Division. All Others comprise 8.7% of the offender population and 26.8% of the total population in the Division.

• In the offence category “Prostitution”, there is a statistically significant difference

between Blacks, Whites, and All Others. Blacks comprise 20.5% of the offender population and 17.1% of the total population in the Division. Whites comprise 63.7% of the offender population and 56.1% of the total population in the Division. All Others comprise 15.8% of the offender population and 26.8% of the total population in the Division.

• In the offence category “Impaired”, there is a statistically significant difference








26








statistically significant difference between Blacks, Whites and All Others. Blacks comprise 24.6% of the offender population and 8.5% of the total population in the Division. Whites comprise 68.8% of the offender population and 72.9% of the total population in the Division. All Others comprise 6.7% of the offender population and 18.6% of the total population in the Division.





27

• In the offence category “Impaired”, there is no statistically significant difference between Blacks, Whites, and All Others. Blacks comprise 11.4% of the offender population and 8.5% of the total population in the Division. Whites comprise 60.0% of the offender population and 72.9% of the total population in the Division. All Others comprise 28.6% of the offender population and 18.6% of the total population in the Division.





• In the offence category “Possession of Cocaine”, there is no statistically significant







significant difference between Blacks, Whites and All Others. Blacks comprise

28

41.5% of the offender population and 16.3% of the total population in the Division. Whites comprise 45.5% of the offender population and 53.6% of the total population in the Division. All Others comprise 13.0% of the offender population and 30.1% of the total population in the Division.












statistically significant difference between Blacks and Whites. Blacks comprise 39.7% of the offender population and 20.4% of the total White and Black population

29

combined in the Division. Whites comprise 60.3% of the offender population and 79.6% of the total White and Black population combined in the Division.













30

• In the offence category “Prostitution”, there is no statistically significant difference between Blacks, Whites, and All Others. Blacks comprise 12.2% of the offender population and 13.9% of the total population in the Division. Whites comprise 61.2% of the offender population and 54.1% of the total population in the Division. All Others comprise 26.2% of the offender population and 32.0% of the total population in the Division.












between Blacks and Whites. Blacks comprise 11.3% of the offender population and 11.9% of the total White and Black population combined in the Division. Whites

31

comprise 88.7% of the offender population and 88.1% of the total White and Black population combined in the Division.











Division 42: Blacks and Whites Compared

32

• In the offence category “Out of Sight” (Non-Moving) offences, there is a statistically significant difference between Blacks and Whites. Blacks comprise 54.3% of the offender population and 21.5% of the total White and Black population combined in the Division. Whites comprise 45.7% of the offender population and 78.5% of the total White and Black population combined in the Division.






between Blacks and Whites. Blacks comprise 10.0% of the offender population and 21.5% of the White and Black population combined in the Division. Whites comprise 90.0% of the offender population and 78.5% of the total White and Black population combined in the Division.






statistically significant difference between Blacks, Whites and All Others. Blacks comprise 23.3% of the offender population and 10.9% of the total population in the Division. Whites comprise of 50.6% of the offender population and 39.8% of the

33

total population in the Division. All Others comprise 26.0% of the offender population and 49.2% of the total population in the Division.







Division 51: Blacks and Whites Compared • In the offence category “Out of Sight” (Non-Moving) offences there is no statistically

significant difference between Blacks and Whites. Blacks comprise 27.9% of the offender population and 19.6% of the total White and Black population combined in the Division. Whites comprise 72.1% of the offender population and 80.4% of the total White and Black population combined in the Division.





34

• In the offence category “Prostitution”, there is a statistically significant difference between Blacks and Whites. Blacks comprise 15.9% of the offender population and 19.6% of the White and Black population combined in the Division. Whites comprise 84.1% of the offender population and 80.4% of the total White and Black population combined in the Division.



Division 51: Blacks, Whites and All Others Compared • In the offence category “Out of Sight” (Non-Moving), offences there is a statistically



statistically significant difference between Blacks, Whites and All Others. Blacks comprise 36.9% of the offender population and 12.5% of the total population in the Division. Whites comprise of 52.2% of the offender population and 51.5% of the total population in the Division. All Others comprise 10.9% of the offender population and 36.0% of the total population in the Division.






between Blacks, Whites, and All Others. Blacks comprise 5.3% of the offender population and 12.5% of the total population in the Division. Whites comprise 78.9% of the offender population and 51.5% of the total population in the Division.

35

All Others comprise 15.8% of the offender population and 36.0% of the total population in the Division.













36

• In the offence category “Simple Drug possession” (DRUGSPOSSESS), there is a statistically significant difference between Blacks, Whites and All Others. Blacks comprise 18.7% of the offender population and 7.1% of the total population in the Division. Whites comprise 68.7% of the offender population and 62.1% of the total population in the Division. All Others comprise 12.7% of the offender population and 30.8% of the total population in the Division.







5.4 Further forms of analysis

This sub-section of the report addresses three other forms of analysis related to this independent review: (1) the treatment of Blacks and Whites with respect to possession of cocaine; (2) graph analysis of offender rates by TPS Divisions in five offence areas; (3) the potential value of more detailed use/analysis of Census of Canada data.

5.4.1 The treatment of Blacks and Whites with respect to possession of cocaine. In its reporting on possession of cocaine, The Toronto Star states, “If the drug was cocaine, the treatment was tougher: 63 per cent of Whites were released at the scene, but only 41.5 per cent of blacks.” (The Toronto Star, October 19, 2002). Using the cleaned-up CIPS database, I re-analysed the numbers controlling for a number of factors available in the CIPS database. These factors are:

37

• CIPS • MANIX • BAIL • PROBATION • PREVIOUS CONVICTION • TAP PAROLE • WARRANT

The purpose of these controls was to come up with a population of Blacks and a

population of Whites who were “clean” with respect to police records and the criminal justice system. Put in plain language, I wanted to ensure I was comparing “apples” with “apples”. This analysis revealed no difference in the “release-at-scene” (Form 9) rates for Blacks and Whites. The rate for Blacks was 74.0%; the rate for Whites was 74.3%. 5.4.2 Graph analysis of offender rates by eight TPS Divisions in five offence

areas

Appendix D sets forward tables which present – for Blacks and Whites, for 8

TPS Divisions where the Black proportion of the Division’s population exceeds 6 percent, and for 5 offence areas -- the offender population in the Division, the total population in the Division and the offender rate calculated from these numbers. The appendix also includes 5 figures which graphically plot the data set forward in the five tables. It is my opinion that the graphic plots show variable patterns that suggest that TPS officers are responding to different types of policing circumstances and challenges in the different Divisions. If the TPS were engaged in systemic racial profiling, I would expect Black offender rates to be consistently highest across all offence categories examined in those Divisions with the highest proportion of Blacks in the Division’s population. A careful inspection of the charts shows that this is not the case. Consider the following examples. In the offence area of “simple drug possession”, Blacks are over-represented on a population baseline basis (compared to Whites). The distribution of offenders pattern by Division, however, shows variations that do not support allegations of systemic racial profiling. For example, Black over-representation is highest in Division 51 which ranks fourth in term of the proportion of its population that is Black (12.5%). Black over-representation in Division 23 -- which ranks second in terms of the proportion of its population that is Black (16.3%) -- ranks lower in terms of the Black offender rate than a number of Divisions with lower proportions of Blacks in their population: Division 31 (13.9%), Division 51 (12.5%), Division 42 (10.9%) and Division 13 (8.5%). In sum, these results -- and other results set forward in the charts -- do not support the contention that the TPS is engaged in systemic racial profiling. 5.4.3 The Use of Census of Canada data

38

The CIPS data permits some analysis of the sociodemographic characteristics of the offender population in terms of age, employment, immigration status and other indicators.

The analysis of such data, however, is of limited value if comparisons cannot be made to a reference population, preferably at the Division level.

The 1996 Census of Canada-based data used in this review is in a form that does not permit the analysis of sociodemographic patterns within racial groups. Special tabulations of Census of Canada data that would permit such analyses would be a useful resource.

6. CONCLUSIONS

• There are inadequacies and inconsistencies in the methodology used by The Toronto Star. These include:

- The CIPS data should have been more extensively cleaned-up before proceeding with the analysis. For example, in their October 19, 2002 piece, “Treatment Differs by Division”, The Toronto Star presents a graphic entitled “Race and Police Records” in which they give the total number of individuals as 483,614. Based on the clean-up procedures I conducted and documented in Section 4 of this report, the number reported by The Toronto Star points to the presence of inaccurate data in the database which they used for their analysis. For example, their October 26, 2002 piece, “race and violent crime” was based on the total number of individuals (483,614) in the database. - There is other evidence of inconsistency in the methodology used by The Toronto Star. For example, in the offence categories “out of sight” (NON-MOVING), simple drug possession (DRUGSPOSESS), and possession of cocaine, The Toronto Star bases its analysis on single offenders. In the case of violent crime (VIOLENTMAJOR), they focus on multiple offenders with no explanation for the shift. - At points in their analysis, The Toronto Star makes comparisons between Black and White offenders and their numbers in the Toronto population. This is a simplistic use of baselining methodology given the sociodemographic variability among the various Divisions comprising the TPS jurisdiction. - Overall, The Toronto Star is not transparent about its data preparation and analytical methodology procedures. This creates major problems for the objective

39

assessment of their research procedures and conclusions and the review and replication of the work they have carried out.

• The CIPS database has been designed as a tool to assist officers in the

performance of administrative tasks related to their duties. There is a large number of different officers making a large of number of different entries to CIPS which inevitably affects the quality and completeness of the data. In addition, as noted in this report, CIPS is only a sample (and not a scientifically designed sample) of the millions of contacts with the public the TPS had over the 1996-2002 timeframe. In short, CIPS was never intended to be used a research database. If an attempt is made to use it in such a way, then it is -- at minimum – incumbent upon the user to take rigorous, systematic and properly documented steps to clean-up the data to the greatest extent possible.

• The results of the independent review show that in the areas of out of sight (non-

moving) offences, simple drug possession (DRUGSPOSESS), and possession of cocaine, Blacks are over-represented in the offender population relative to their numbers in the total population of each Division being analyzed. When other offence areas are considered (prostitution and impaired were analysed in this independent review) the pattern of Black over-representation changes significantly. To the contrary, a pattern of White over-representation emerges. (See my analysis, in Appendix C, of Black/White differences in the offence areas of prostitution and impaired in the eight TPS Divisions where the proportion of the Black population is greater than 6 percent.)

• With respect to possession of cocaine (a sub-set of simple drug possession), when

various controls are used in the statistical analysis (CIPC, MANIX, BAIL, PROBATION, PREVIOUS CONVICTION, TAP PAROLE, WARRANT), release-at-scene (Form 9) rates are the same for Blacks and Whites (74.3% vs. 74.0%).

• To sum up, this independent review has conducted a consistent and transparent

analysis of the CIPS data. It is a conclusion of this independent review that the picture is much more mixed and complex than that presented by The Toronto Star. The results of this analysis do not support allegations by The Toronto Star that the Toronto Police Service is engaged in racial profiling. Likewise, the data do not support the underlying implication that the Toronto Police Service is engaged in systemic racial profiling.

APPENDIX A DOCUMENTS CONSULTED

APPENDIX A: DOCUMENTS CONSULTED

(1) I consulted the following articles in The Toronto Star:

"There is no racism. We do not do racial profiling", The Toronto Star, October 19, 2002 Section A14. “Singled Out”, The Toronto Star, October 19, 2002, Section A1, A12, A13. “Treatment differs by division”, The Toronto Star, October 19, 2002. “Race and police records”, The Toronto Star, October 19, 2002. “Who gets arrested”, The Toronto Star, October 19, 2002. “Different treatment”, The Toronto Star, October 19, 2002. “A story behind the numbers”, The Toronto Star, October 19, 2002. “Police and Race”, The Toronto Star, October 20, 2002. “Police target black drivers”, The Toronto Star, October 20, 2002, Section A1, A8. “Singled out”, The Toronto Star, October 20, 2002. “Analysis raises board hackles”, The Toronto Star, October 20, 2002. “Ex-Raptor battles back in the courts”, The Toronto Star, October 20, 2002. “Summit urges on police arrests”, The Toronto Star, October 21, 2002, Section A1, A17. “Why I fear for my sons”, The Toronto Star, October 21, 2002, Section A1, A8. “They just don't get it”, The Toronto Star, October 21, 2002, Section A23. “The story behind the numbers”, The Toronto Star, October 21, 2002. “Denial of problems an affront to minorities”, The Toronto Star, October 22, 2002. “Police union blasts Star”, The Toronto Star, October 22, 2002, Section A6.

“When racism is a gun to the head”, The Toronto Star, October 22, 2002, Section A7. “New calls for arrest summit”, The Toronto Star, October 22, 2002, Section A1, A6. “Civic leadership 101: Deny, deflect, denounce”, The Toronto Star, October 22, 2002, Section B1.

“Racial bias 'a reality': Eves”, The Toronto Star, October 23, 2002, Section A1, A23.

“Police complaints overhaul urged”, The Toronto Star, October 23, 2002.

“Statistics only lend weight to experience”, The Toronto Star, October 23, 2002, Section B1, B3. “Board mulls response to arrest issue”, The Toronto Star, October 24, 2002. “Why doubt reality of bias?”, The Toronto Star, October 24, 2002, Section A1, A29, A31. “Believe me, it's a great way to lower my profile”, The Toronto Star, October 24, 2002, Section A2. “Police board wants to see data on race profiling”, The Toronto Star, October 25, 2002, Section A2. “Open letter to the police chair”, The Toronto Star, October 25, 2002. “Group wants blacks to run summit”, The Toronto Star, October 25, 2002. “Chief won't 'tolerate any form of racism'”, The Toronto Star, October 26, 2002. “Studies and more studies on racial profiling issue”, The Toronto Star, October 26, 2002. “Police chief calls for race relations probe”, The Toronto Star, October 26, 2002, Section A1, A15. “The story behind the numbers”, The Toronto Star, October 26, 2002. “Black crime rates highest”, The Toronto Star, October 26, 2002.

“'You're seeing black faces, black faces'”, The Toronto Star, October 26, 2002. “Racial data a hot potato”, The Toronto Star, October 26, 2002. “Some racial profiling illegal, judge says”, The Toronto Star, October 26, 2002. “Inquiry veteran ready for challenge”, The Toronto Star, October 26, 2002. “Black leaders want a say”, The Toronto Star, October 26, 2002, Section B1, B4. “The story behind the numbers”, The Toronto Star, October 26, 2002. “Old reactions to race, crime won't work”, The Toronto Star, October 28, 2002, Section B1, B7. “This time we have the will”, The Toronto Star, October 29, 2002, Section B1, B5. “Past reports to help guide police inquiry”, The Toronto Star, October 29, 2002, Section B1, B5. “Racial profiling seen as crime”, The Toronto Star, October 29, 2002.

“No racial targeting anywhere in Ontario, police chiefs say”, The Toronto Star, October 30, 2002.

(2) “Synopsis of Toronto Star Analysis of CIPS Data”, provided to Chief Fantino,

October 18, 2002.

(3) “Toronto Star Analysis of Toronto Police Service Data: Time Line”, www.thestar.com.

(4) “Toronto Star Analysis of Toronto Police Service Data”, www.thestar.com.

(5) “Analysis of Toronto Police Data Base”, Michael Friendly, York University,

www.thestar.com (6) Fridell, L., Lunney, R., Diamond D., and Kubu, B. “Data Collection on

Citizen’s Race/Ethnicity to Address Racially Biased Policing and Perceptions Thereof”, from: Racially Biased Policing: A Principled Response, Washington: Police Executive Research Forum, 2001.

APPENDIX B TABLES SHOWING ANALYSIS OF OFFENDER/POPULATION RATIOS FOR DIFFERENT RACIAL GROUPS BY DIVISION AND OFFENCE CATEGORIES

TABLE 1 DIVISION 11 OFFENCE CATEGORY

BLACK OFFENDERS


WHITE OFFENDERS


ALL OTHER OFFENDERS


TOTAL OFFENDERS

TOTAL POPULATION


47

22.7

4475

4.8

146

70.5

73990

79.9

14

6.8

14145

15.3

207

100.0

92610

100.0


105

16.3

4475

4.8

477

74.2

73390

79.9

61

9.5

14145

15.3

643

100.0

92610

100.0

COCAINE 36 19.0 4475 4.8 142 75.1 73390 79.9 11 5.8 14145 15.3 189 100.0 92610 100.0 PROSTITUTION 97 13.1 4475 4.8 527 71.1 73390 79.9 117 15.8 14145 15.3 741 100.0 92610 100.0 IMPAIRED 8 5.2 4475 4.8 125 80.6 73390 79.9 22 14.2 14145 15.3 155 100.0 92610 100.0

TABLE 2 DIVISION 12 OFFENCE CATEGORY

BLACK OFFENDERS


WHITE OFFENDERS


ALL OTHER OFFENDERS


TOTAL OFFENDERS

TOTAL POPULATION


310

47.5

14950

17.1

278

42.6

48960

56.1

65

10.0

23370

26.8

653

100.0

87280

100.0


275

38.1

14950

17.1

379

52.5

48960

56.1

68

9.4

23370

26.8

722

100.0

87280

100.0


TABLE 3

DIVISION 13 OFFENCE CATEGORY

BLACK OFFENDERS


WHITE OFFENDERS


ALL OTHER OFFENDERS


TOTAL OFFENDERS

TOTAL POPULATION


72

28.2

11060

8.5

154

60.4

95060

72.9

29

11.4

24310

18.6

255

100.0

130430

100.0


191

24.6

11060

8.5

535

68.8

95060

72.9

52

6.7

24310

18.6

778

100.0

130430

100.0


TABLE 4


BLACK OFFENDERS


WHITE OFFENDERS


ALL OTHER OFFENDERS


TOTAL OFFENDERS

TOTAL POPULATION


34

22.4

3590

3.5

92

60.5

71500

70.3

26

17.1

26620

26.2

152

100.0

101710

100.0


200

19.0

3590

3.5

718

68.2

71500

70.3

135

12.8

26620

26.2

1053

100.0

101710

100.0


TABLE 5


BLACK OFFENDERS


WHITE OFFENDERS


ALL OTHER OFFENDERS


TOTAL OFFENDERS

TOTAL POPULATION


31

18.0

5785

3.2

127

73.8

150130

84.0

14

8.1

22670

12.7

172

100.0

178585

100.0


37

12.2

5785

3.2

240

79.2

150130

84.0

26

8.6

22670

12.7

303

100.0

178585

100.0


TABLE 6


BLACK OFFENDERS


WHITE OFFENDERS


ALL OTHER OFFENDERS


TOTAL OFFENDERS

TOTAL POPULATION


? ?

41.5

24055

16.3

161

45.5

79005

53.5

46

13.0

44410

30.1

354

100.0

147470

100.0


109

37.5

24055

16.3

149

51.2

79005

53.5

33

11.3

44410

30.1

291

100.0

147470

100.0


TABLE 7


BLACK OFFENDERS


WHITE OFFENDERS


ALL OTHER OFFENDERS


TOTAL OFFENDERS

TOTAL POPULATION


260

45.2

25080

13.9

234

40.7

98030

54.1

81

14.1

57925

32.0

575

100.0

181035

100.0


242

33.7

25080

13.9

368

51.3

98030

54.1

108

15.0

57925

32.0

718

100.0

181035

100.0


TABLE 8


BLACK OFFENDERS


WHITE OFFENDERS


ALL OTHER OFFENDERS


TOTAL OFFENDERS

TOTAL POPULATION


26

22.0

6800

3.7

76

64.4

139350

75.0

16

13.6

39700

21.4

118

100.0

185850

100.0


14

10.4

6800

3.7

96

71.6

139350

75.0

24

17.9

39700

21.4

134

100.0

185850

100.0


TABLE 9


BLACK OFFENDERS


WHITE OFFENDERS


ALL OTHER OFFENDERS


TOTAL OFFENDERS

TOTAL POPULATION


27

18.9

10045

5.7

86

60.1

99515

56.8

30

21.0

65570

37.4

143

100.0

175130

100.0


47

18.9

10045

5.7

161

64.7

99515

56.8

41

16.5

65570

37.4

249

100.0

175130

100.0


TABLE 10


BLACK OFFENDERS


WHITE OFFENDERS


ALL OTHER OFFENDERS


TOTAL OFFENDERS

TOTAL POPULATION


57

26.8

17700

8.3

114

53.5

130755

61.3

42

19.7

64755

30.4

213

100.0

213210

100.0


43

23.6

17700

8.3

107

58.8

130755

61.3

32

17.6

64755

30.4

182

100.0

213210

100.0


TABLE 11


BLACK OFFENDERS


WHITE OFFENDERS


ALL OTHER OFFENDERS


TOTAL OFFENDERS

TOTAL POPULATION


165

42.9

37275

10.9

139

36.1

135800

39.8

81

21.0

167950

49.2

385

100.0

341025

100.0


173

23.3

37275

10.9

375

50.6

135800

39.8

193

26.0

167950

49.2

741

100.0

341025

100.0


TABLE 12


BLACK OFFENDERS


WHITE OFFENDERS


ALL OTHER OFFENDERS


TOTAL OFFENDERS

TOTAL POPULATION


31

23.1

7175

12.5

80

59.7

29495

51.5

23

17.2

20635

36.0

134

100.0

57305

100.0


495

36.9

7175

12.5

700

52.2

29495

51.5

146

10.9

20635

36.0

1341

100.0

57305

100.0


TABLE 13


BLACK OFFENDERS


WHITE OFFENDERS


ALL OTHER OFFENDERS


TOTAL OFFENDERS

TOTAL POPULATION


44

29.7

2755

4.2

75

50.7

45710

69.4

29

19.6

17430

26.5

148

100.0

65895

100.0


267

15.8

2755

4.2

1239

73.4

45710

69.4

183

10.8

17430

26.5

1689

100.0

65895

100.0


TABLE 14


BLACK OFFENDERS


WHITE OFFENDERS


ALL OTHER OFFENDERS


TOTAL OFFENDERS

TOTAL POPULATION


22

22.9

2745

2.1

68

70.8

108210

84.0

6

6.3

17845

13.9

96

100.0

128800

100.0


9

7.5

2745

2.1

105

8.8

108210

84.0

6

5.0

17845

13.9

120

100.0

128800

100.0


TABLE 15


BLACK OFFENDERS


WHITE OFFENDERS


ALL OTHER OFFENDERS


TOTAL OFFENDERS

TOTAL POPULATION


32

19.4

8775

7.1

112

67.9

76920

62.1

21

12.7

38090

30.8

165

100.0

123785

100.0


28

18.7

8775

7.1

103

68.7

76920

62.1

19

12.7

38090

30.8

150

100.0

123785

100.0


TABLE 16


BLACK OFFENDERS


WHITE OFFENDERS


ALL OTHER OFFENDERS


TOTAL OFFENDERS

TOTAL POPULATION


25

22.1

4515

5.6

69

61.1

50450

62.2

19

16.8

26120

32.2

113

100.0

81085

100.0


37

15.9

4515

5.6

165

71.1

50450

62.2

30

12.9

26120

32.2

232

100.0

81085

100.0


TABLE 17

ALL DIVISIONS OFFENCE CATEGORY

BLACK OFFENDERS


WHITE OFFENDERS


ALL OTHER OFFENDERS


TOTAL OFFENDERS

TOTAL POPULATION


1330

34.3

190620

8.1

2011

51.8

1475855

62.7

542

14.0

688610

29.2

3883

100.0

2355085

100.0


2272

24.3

190620

8.1

5917

63.3

1475855

62.7

1157

12.4

688610

29.2

9346

100.0

2355085

100.0


APPENDIX C TABLES SHOWING PROPORTION OF OFFENDERS VS. POPULATION BY

DIVISIONS AND OFFENCE CATEGORIES (BLACKS AND WHITES COMPARED; BLACKS, WHITES, AND ALL OTHERS COMPARED)

TABLE: 51-1 DIVISION: 51 OFFENCE CATEGORY: NON-MOVING

RACIAL GROUPS

OFFENDERS

POPULATION IN

DIVISION

N % N %

BLACK

31

23.1

7175

12.5

WHITE

80

59.7

29495

51.5

ALL

OTHERS

23

17.2

20635

36.0

TOTAL

134

100.0

57305

100.0

CHI-SQUARE STATISTIC = 27.08 (sig.)



TABLE: 51-2 DIVISION: 51 OFFENCE CATEGORY: DRUGSPOSESS

RACIAL GROUPS

OFFENDERS

POPULATION IN

DIVISION

N % N %

BLACK

495

36.9

7175

12.5

WHITE

700

52.2

29495

51.5

ALL

OTHERS

146

10.9

20635

36.0

TOTAL

1341

100.0

57305

100.0

CHI-SQUARE STATISTIC = 893.296 (sig.) SOURCE: OFFENDER DATA TAKEN FROM THE TORONTO POLICE SERVICE


TABLE: 51-5 DIVISION: 51 OFFENCE CATEGORY: IMPAIRED

RACIAL GROUPS

OFFENDERS

POPULATION IN

DIVISION

N % N %

BLACK

4

5.3

7175

12.5

WHITE

60

78.9

29495

51.5

ALL

OTHERS

12

15.8

20635

36.0

TOTAL

76

100.0

57305

100.0



TABLE: 51-3 DIVISION: 51 OFFENCE CATEGORY: COCAINE (OFFENCE RULE ID #993 AND #580)

RACIAL GROUPS

OFFENDERS

POPULATION IN

DIVISION

N % N %

BLACK

362

41.9

7175

12.5

WHITE

416

48.2

29495

51.5

ALL

OTHERS

85

9.8

20635

36.0

TOTAL

863

100.0

57305

100.0



TABLE: 51-4 DIVISION: 51 OFFENCE CATEGORY: PROSTITUTION

RACIAL GROUPS

OFFENDERS

POPULATION IN

DIVISION

N % N %

BLACK

263

12.7

7175

12.5

WHITE

1386

67.0

29495

51.5

ALL

OTHERS

419

20.3

20635

36.0

TOTAL

2068

100.0

57305

100.0




RACIAL GROUPS

OFFENDERS

POPULATION IN

DIVISION

N % N %

BLACK

31

27.9

7175

19.6

WHITE

80

72.1

29495

80.4

TOTAL

111

100.0

36670

100.0

Z TEST VALUE = -0.122 (n.s) SOURCE: OFFENDER DATA TAKEN FROM THE TORONTO POLICE SERVICE



RACIAL GROUPS

OFFENDERS

POPULATION IN

DIVISION

N % N %

BLACK

495

41.4

7175

19.6

WHITE

700

58.6

29495

80.4

TOTAL

1195

100.0

36670

100.0

Z-TEST VALUE = 14.505 (sig.) SOURCE: OFFENDER DATA TAKEN FROM THE TORONTO POLICE SERVICE



RACIAL GROUPS

OFFENDERS

POPULATION IN

DIVISION

N % N %

BLACK

4

6.3

7175

19.6

WHITE

60

93.7

29495

80.4

TOTAL

64

100.0

36670

100.0

Z-TEST VALUE = -3.869 (sig.) SOURCE: OFFENDER DATA TAKEN FROM THE TORONTO POLICE SERVICE



RACIAL GROUPS

OFFENDERS

POPULATION IN

DIVISION

N % N %

BLACK

362

46.5

7175

19.6

WHITE

416

53.5

29495

80.4

TOTAL

778

100.0

36670

100.0




RACIAL GROUPS

OFFENDERS

POPULATION IN

DIVISION

N % N %

BLACK

263

15.9

7175

19.6

WHITE

1386

84.1

29495

80.4

TOTAL

1649

100.0

36670

100.0




RACIAL GROUPS

OFFENDERS

POPULATION IN

DIVISION

N % N %

BLACK

165

42.9

37275

10.9

WHITE

139

36.1

135800

39.8

ALL

OTHERS

81

21.0

167950

49.2

TOTAL

385

100.0

341025

100.0




RACIAL GROUPS

OFFENDERS

POPULATION IN

DIVISION

N % N %

BLACK

13

10.2

37275

10.9

WHITE

69

54.3

135800

39.8

ALL

OTHERS

45

35.4

167950

49.2

TOTAL

127

100.0

341025

100.0




RACIAL GROUPS

OFFENDERS

POPULATION IN

DIVISION

N % N %

BLACK

173

23.3

37275

10.9

WHITE

375

50.6

135800

39.8

ALL

OTHERS

193

26.0

167950

49.2

TOTAL

741

100.0

341025

100.0




RACIAL GROUPS

OFFENDERS

POPULATION IN

DIVISION

N % N %

BLACK

16

41.0

37275

10.9

WHITE

19

48.7

135800

39.8

ALL

OTHERS

4

10.3

167950

49.2

TOTAL

39

100.0

341025

100.0




RACIAL GROUPS

OFFENDERS

POPULATION IN

DIVISION

N % N %

BLACK

25

6.7

37275

10.9

WHITE

224

60.4

135800

39.8

ALL

OTHERS

122

32.9

167950

49.2

TOTAL

371

100.0

341025

100.0




RACIAL GROUPS

OFFENDERS

POPULATION IN

DIVISION

N % N %

BLACK

165

54.3

37275

21.5

WHITE

139

45.7

135800

78.5

TOTAL

304

100.0

173075

100.0




RACIAL GROUPS

OFFENDERS

POPULATION IN

DIVISION

N % N %

BLACK

13

15.9

37275

21.5

WHITE

69

84.1

135800

78.5

TOTAL

82

100.0

173075

100.0

Z-TEST VALUE = -1.411 (n.s.)



RACIAL GROUPS

OFFENDERS

POPULATION IN

DIVISION

N % N %

BLACK

173

31.6

37275

21.5

WHITE

375

68.4

135800

78.5

TOTAL

548

100.0

173075

100.0




RACIAL GROUPS

OFFENDERS

POPULATION IN

DIVISION

N % N %

BLACK

16

45.7

37275

21.5

WHITE

19

54.3

135800

78.5

TOTAL

35

100.0

173075

100.0




RACIAL GROUPS

OFFENDERS

POPULATION IN

DIVISION

N % N %

BLACK

25

10.0

37275

21.5

WHITE

224

90.0

135800

78.5

TOTAL

249

100.0

173075

100.0




RACIAL GROUPS

OFFENDERS

POPULATION IN

DIVISION

N % N %

BLACK

147

41.5

24055

16.3

WHITE

161

45.5

79005

53.6

ALL

OTHERS

46

13.0

44410

30.1

TOTAL

354

100.0

147470

100.0




RACIAL GROUPS

OFFENDERS

POPULATION IN

DIVISION

N % N %

BLACK

109

37.5

24055

16.3

WHITE

149

51.2

79005

53.6

ALL

OTHERS

33

11.3

44410

30.1

TOTAL

291

100.0

147470

100.0




RACIAL GROUPS

OFFENDERS

POPULATION IN

DIVISION

N % N %

BLACK

10

10.5

24055

16.3

WHITE

60

63.2

79005

53.6

ALL

OTHERS

25

26.3

44410

30.1

TOTAL

95

100.0

147470

100.0

CHI-SQUARE STATISTIC = 4.035 (n.s.) SOURCE: OFFENDER DATA TAKEN FROM THE TORONTO POLICE SERVICE



RACIAL GROUPS

OFFENDERS

POPULATION IN

DIVISION

N % N %

BLACK

16

36.4

24055

16.3

WHITE

27

61.4

79005

53.6

ALL

OTHERS

1

2.3

44410

30.1

TOTAL

44

100.0

147470

100.0




RACIAL GROUPS

OFFENDERS

POPULATION IN

DIVISION

N % N %

BLACK

8

8.2

24055

16.3

WHITE

83

85.6

79005

53.6

ALL

OTHERS

6

6.2

44410

30.1

TOTAL

97

100.0

147470

100.0




RACIAL GROUPS

OFFENDERS

POPULATION IN

DIVISION

N % N %

BLACK

147

47.7

24055

23.3

WHITE

161

52.3

79005

76.7

TOTAL

308

100.0

103060

100.0




RACIAL GROUPS

OFFENDERS

POPULATION IN

DIVISION

N % N %

BLACK

109

42.2

24055

23.3

WHITE

149

60.1

79005

76.7

TOTAL

258

100.0

103060

100.0




RACIAL GROUPS

OFFENDERS

POPULATION IN

DIVISION

N % N %

BLACK

10

14.3

24055

23.3

WHITE

60

85.7

79005

76.7

TOTAL

70

100.0

103060

100.0




RACIAL GROUPS

OFFENDERS

POPULATION IN

DIVISION

N % N %

BLACK

16

37.2

24055

23.3

WHITE

27

62.8

79005

76.7

TOTAL

43

100.0

103060

100.0

Z-TEST VALUE = 1.817 (n.s.) SOURCE: OFFENDER DATA TAKEN FROM THE TORONTO POLICE SERVICE



RACIAL GROUPS

OFFENDERS

POPULATION IN

DIVISION

N % N %

BLACK

8

8.8

24055

23.3

WHITE

83

91.2

79005

76.7

TOTAL

91

100.0

103060

100.0




RACIAL GROUPS

OFFENDERS

POPULATION IN

DIVISION

N % N %

BLACK

310

47.5

14950

17.1

WHITE

278

42.6

48960

56.1

ALL

OTHERS

65

10.0

23370

26.8

TOTAL

653

100.0

87280

100.0





RACIAL GROUPS

OFFENDERS

POPULATION IN

DIVISION

N % N %

BLACK

275

38.1

14950

17.1

WHITE

379

52.5

48960

56.1

ALL

OTHERS

68

9.4

23370

26.8

TOTAL

722

100.0

87280

100.0




RACIAL GROUPS

OFFENDERS

POPULATION IN

DIVISION

N % N %

BLACK

46

25.0

14950

17.1

WHITE

122

66.3

48960

56.1

ALL

OTHERS

16

8.7

23370

26.8

TOTAL

184

100.0

87280

100.0




RACIAL GROUPS

OFFENDERS

POPULATION IN

DIVISION

N % N %

BLACK

13

13.3

14950

17.1

WHITE

71

72.4

48960

56.1

ALL

OTHERS

14

14.3

23370

26.8

TOTAL

98

100.0

87280

100.0




RACIAL GROUPS

OFFENDERS

POPULATION IN

DIVISION

N % N %

BLACK

62

20.5

14950

17.1

WHITE

193

63.7

48960

56.1

ALL

OTHERS

48

15.8

23370

26.8

TOTAL

303

100.0

87280

100.0




RACIAL GROUPS

OFFENDERS

POPULATION IN

DIVISION

N % N %

BLACK

310

52.7

14950

23.4

WHITE

278

47.3

48960

76.6

TOTAL

588

100.0

63910

100.0

Z TEST VALUE = 12.387 (sig.) SOURCE: OFFENDER DATA TAKEN FROM THE TORONTO POLICE SERVICE



RACIAL GROUPS

OFFENDERS

POPULATION IN

DIVISION

N % N %

BLACK

275

42.0

14950

23.4

WHITE

379

58.0

48960

76.6

TOTAL

654

100.0

63910

100.0




RACIAL GROUPS

OFFENDERS

POPULATION IN

DIVISION

N % N %

BLACK

13

15.5

14950

23.4

WHITE

71

84.5

48960

76.6

TOTAL

84

100.0

63910

100.0

Z-TEST VALUE = -1.96 (n.s.) SOURCE: OFFENDER DATA TAKEN FROM THE TORONTO POLICE SERVICE



RACIAL GROUPS

OFFENDERS

POPULATION IN

DIVISION

N % N %

BLACK

46

27.4

14950

23.4

WHITE

122

72.6

48960

76.6

TOTAL

168

100.0

63910

100.0




RACIAL GROUPS

OFFENDERS

POPULATION IN

DIVISION

N % N %

BLACK

62

24.3

14950

23.4

WHITE

193

75.7

48960

76.6

TOTAL

255

100.0

63910

100.0




RACIAL GROUPS

OFFENDERS

POPULATION IN

DIVISION

N % N %

BLACK

72

28.2

11060

8.5

WHITE

154

60.4

95060

72.9

ALL

OTHERS

29

11.4

24310

18.6

TOTAL

255

100.0

130430

100.0





RACIAL GROUPS

OFFENDERS

POPULATION IN

DIVISION

N % N %

BLACK

191

24.6

11060

8.5

WHITE

535

68.8

95060

72.9

ALL

OTHERS

52

6.7

24310

18.6

TOTAL

778

100.0

130430

100.0




RACIAL GROUPS

OFFENDERS

POPULATION IN

DIVISION

N % N %

BLACK

4

11.4

11060

8.5

WHITE

21

60.0

95060

72.9

ALL

OTHERS

10

28.6

24310

18.6

TOTAL

35

100.0

130430

100.0




RACIAL GROUPS

OFFENDERS

POPULATION IN

DIVISION

N % N %

BLACK

33

25.8

11060

8.5

WHITE

89

69.5

95060

72.9

ALL

OTHERS

6

4.7

24310

18.6

TOTAL

128

100.0

130430

100.0




RACIAL GROUPS

OFFENDERS

POPULATION IN

DIVISION

N % N %

BLACK

35

17.6

11060

8.5

WHITE

135

67.8

95060

72.9

ALL

OTHERS

29

14.6

24310

18.6

TOTAL

199

100.0

130430

100.0




RACIAL GROUPS

OFFENDERS

POPULATION IN

DIVISION

N % N %

BLACK

72

31.9

11060

10.4

WHITE

154

68.1

95060

89.6

TOTAL

226

100.0

106120

100.0




RACIAL GROUPS

OFFENDERS

POPULATION IN

DIVISION

N % N %

BLACK

191

26.3

11060

10.4

WHITE

535

73.7

95060

89.6

TOTAL

726

100.0

106120

100.0




RACIAL GROUPS

OFFENDERS

POPULATION IN

DIVISION

N % N %

BLACK

4

16.0

11060

10.4

WHITE

21

84.0

95060

89.6

TOTAL

25

100.0

106120

100.0




RACIAL GROUPS

OFFENDERS

POPULATION IN

DIVISION

N % N %

BLACK

33

27.0

11060

10.4

WHITE

89

73.0

95060

89.6

TOTAL

122

100.0

106120

100.0




RACIAL GROUPS

OFFENDERS

POPULATION IN

DIVISION

N % N %

BLACK

35

20.6

11060

10.4

WHITE

135

79.4

95060

89.6

TOTAL

170

100.0

106120

100.0




RACIAL GROUPS

OFFENDERS

POPULATION IN

DIVISION

N % N %

BLACK

260

45.2

25080

13.9

WHITE

234

40.7

98030

54.1

ALL

OTHERS

81

14.1

57925

32.0

TOTAL

575

100.0

181035

100.0





RACIAL GROUPS

OFFENDERS

POPULATION IN

DIVISION

N % N %

BLACK

242

33.7

25080

13.9

WHITE

368

51.3

98030

54.1

ALL

OTHERS

108

15.0

57925

32.0

TOTAL

718

100.0

181035

100.0




RACIAL GROUPS

OFFENDERS

POPULATION IN

DIVISION

N % N %

BLACK

17

15.9

25080

13.9

WHITE

62

57.9

98030

54.1

ALL

OTHERS

28

26.2

57925

32.0

TOTAL

107

100.0

181035

100.0




RACIAL GROUPS

OFFENDERS

POPULATION IN

DIVISION

N % N %

BLACK

48

26.5

25080

13.9

WHITE

115

63.5

98030

54.1

ALL

OTHERS

18

9.9

57925

32.0

TOTAL

181

100.0

181035

100.0




RACIAL GROUPS

OFFENDERS

POPULATION IN

DIVISION

N % N %

BLACK

21

12.2

25080

13.9

WHITE

106

61.6

98030

54.1

ALL

OTHERS

45

26.2

57925

32.0

TOTAL

172

100.0

181035

100.0




RACIAL GROUPS

OFFENDERS

POPULATION IN

DIVISION

N % N %

BLACK

260

52.6

25080

20.4

WHITE

234

47.4

98030

79.6

TOTAL

494

100.0

123110

100.0




RACIAL GROUPS

OFFENDERS

POPULATION IN

DIVISION

N % N %

BLACK

242

39.7

25080

20.4

WHITE

368

60.3

98030

79.6

TOTAL

610

100.0

123110

100.0




RACIAL GROUPS

OFFENDERS

POPULATION IN

DIVISION

N % N %

BLACK

17

21.5

25080

20.4

WHITE

62

78.5

98030

79.6

TOTAL

79

100.0

123110

100.0




RACIAL GROUPS

OFFENDERS

POPULATION IN

DIVISION

N % N %

BLACK

48

29.4

25080

20.4

WHITE

115

70.6

98030

79.6

TOTAL

163

100.0

123110

100.0




RACIAL GROUPS

OFFENDERS

POPULATION IN

DIVISION

N % N %

BLACK

21

16.5

25080

20.4

WHITE

106

83.5

98030

79.6

TOTAL

127

100.0

123110

100.0




RACIAL GROUPS

OFFENDERS

POPULATION IN

DIVISION

N % N %

BLACK

57

26.8

17700

8.3

WHITE

114

53.5

130755

61.3

ALL

OTHERS

42

19.7

64755

30.4

TOTAL

213

100.0

213210

100.0





RACIAL GROUPS

OFFENDERS

POPULATION IN

DIVISION

N % N %

BLACK

43

23.6

17700

8.3

WHITE

107

58.8

130755

61.3

ALL

OTHERS

32

17.6

64755

30.4

TOTAL

182

100.0

213210

100.0




RACIAL GROUPS

OFFENDERS

POPULATION IN

DIVISION

N % N %

BLACK

18

8.2

17700

8.3

WHITE

141

64.4

130755

61.3

ALL

OTHERS

60

27.4

64755

30.4

TOTAL

219

100.0

213210

100.0




RACIAL GROUPS

OFFENDERS

POPULATION IN

DIVISION

N % N %

BLACK

10

34.5

17700

8.3

WHITE

18

62.1

130755

61.3

ALL

OTHERS

1

3.4

64755

30.4

TOTAL

29

100.0

213210

100.0




RACIAL GROUPS

OFFENDERS

POPULATION IN

DIVISION

N % N %

BLACK

39

10.3

17700

8.3

WHITE

252

66.3

130755

61.3

ALL

OTHERS

89

23.4

64755

30.4

TOTAL

380

100.0

213210

100.0




RACIAL GROUPS

OFFENDERS

POPULATION IN

DIVISION

N % N %

BLACK

57

33.3

17700

11.9

WHITE

114

66.7

130755

88.1

TOTAL

171

100.0

148455

100.0




RACIAL GROUPS

OFFENDERS

POPULATION IN

DIVISION

N % N %

BLACK

43

28.7

17700

11.9

WHITE

107

71.3

130755

88.1

TOTAL

150

100.0

148455

100.0




RACIAL GROUPS

OFFENDERS

POPULATION IN

DIVISION

N % N %

BLACK

18

11.3

17700

11.9

WHITE

141

88.7

130755

88.1

TOTAL

159

100.0

148455

100.0




RACIAL GROUPS

OFFENDERS

POPULATION IN

DIVISION

N % N %

BLACK

10

35.7

17700

11.9

WHITE

18

64.3

130755

88.1

TOTAL

28

100.0

148455

100.0




RACIAL GROUPS

OFFENDERS

POPULATION IN

DIVISION

N % N %

BLACK

39

13.4

17700

11.9

WHITE

252

86.6

130755

88.1

TOTAL

291

100.0

148455

100.0




RACIAL GROUPS

OFFENDERS

POPULATION IN

DIVISION

N % N %

BLACK

32

19.4

8775

7.1

WHITE

112

67.9

76920

62.1

ALL

OTHERS

21

12.7

38090

30.8

TOTAL

165

100.0

123785

100.0





RACIAL GROUPS

OFFENDERS

POPULATION IN

DIVISION

N % N %

BLACK

28

18.7

8775

7.1

WHITE

103

68.7

76920

62.1

ALL

OTHERS

19

12.7

38090

30.8

TOTAL

150

100.0

123785

100.0




RACIAL GROUPS

OFFENDERS

POPULATION IN

DIVISION

N % N %

BLACK

10

9.3

8775

7.1

WHITE

76

71.0

76920

62.1

ALL

OTHERS

21

19.6

38090

30.8

TOTAL

107

100.0

123785

100.0




RACIAL GROUPS

OFFENDERS

POPULATION IN

DIVISION

N % N %

BLACK

6

40.0

8775

7.1

WHITE

9

60.0

76920

62.1

ALL

OTHERS

0

0.0

38090

30.8

TOTAL

15

100.0

123785

100.0




RACIAL GROUPS

OFFENDERS

POPULATION IN

DIVISION

N % N %

BLACK

3

10.0

8775

7.1

WHITE

20

66.7

76920

62.1

ALL

OTHERS

7

23.3

38090

30.8

TOTAL

30

100.0

123785

100.0




RACIAL GROUPS

OFFENDERS

POPULATION IN

DIVISION

N % N %

BLACK

32

22.2

8775

10.2

WHITE

112

77.8

76920

89.8

TOTAL

144

100.0

85695

100.0




RACIAL GROUPS

OFFENDERS

POPULATION IN

DIVISION

N % N %

BLACK

28

21.4

8775

10.2

WHITE

103

78.6

76920

89.8

TOTAL

131

100.0

85695

100.0




RACIAL GROUPS

OFFENDERS

POPULATION IN

DIVISION

N % N %

BLACK

10

11.6

8775

10.2

WHITE

76

88.4

76920

89.8

TOTAL

86

100.0

85695

100.0




RACIAL GROUPS

OFFENDERS

POPULATION IN

DIVISION

N % N %

BLACK

6

40.0

8775

10.2

WHITE

9

60.0

76920

89.8

TOTAL

15

100.0

85695

100.0




RACIAL GROUPS

OFFENDERS

POPULATION IN

DIVISION

N % N %

BLACK

3

13.0

8775

10.2

WHITE

20

86.7

76920

89.8

TOTAL

23

100.0

85695

100.0



APPENDIX D TABLES AND GRAPH ANALYSIS OF OFFENDER RATES IN 8 TPS

DIVISIONS (BLACKS AND WHITES COMPARED IN 5 OFFENCE AREAS)

TABLE 1: NON-MOVING

BLACKS

WHITES

DIVISIONS

OFFENDER POPULATION IN DIVISION

(N)

TOTAL POPULATION IN DIVISION

(N)

OFFENDER RATE (%)


(N)


(N)

OFFENDER RATE (%)

12 310 14950 2.07 278 48960 0.57 13 72 11060 0.65 154 95060 0.16 23 147 24055 0.61 161 79005 0.20 31 260 25080 1.04 234 98030 0.24 41 57 17700 0.32 114 130755 0.09 42 165 37275 0.44 139 135800 0.10 51 31 7175 0.43 80 29495 0.27 54 32 8775 0.36 112 76920 0.15

TABLE 2: DRUGSPOSESS

BLACKS

WHITES

DIVISIONS


(N)


(N)

OFFENDER RATE (%)


(N)


(N)

OFFENDER RATE (%)

12 275 14950 1.84 379 48960 0.77 13 191 11060 1.73 535 95060 0.56 23 109 24055 0.45 149 79005 0.19 31 242 25080 0.96 368 98030 0.38 41 43 17700 0.24 107 130755 0.08 42 173 37275 0.46 375 135800 0.28 51 495 7175 6.90 700 29495 2.37 54 28 8775 0.32 103 76920 0.13

TABLE 3: COCAINE

BLACKS

WHITES

DIVISIONS


(N)


(N)

OFFENDER RATE (%)


(N)


(N)

OFFENDER RATE (%)

12 46 14950 0.31 122 48960 0.25 13 33 11060 0.30 89 95060 0.09 23 16 24055 0.07 27 79005 0.03 31 48 25080 0.19 115 98030 0.12 41 10 17700 0.06 18 130755 0.01 42 16 37275 0.04 19 135800 0.01 51 362 7175 5.05 416 29495 1.41 54 6 8775 0.07 9 76920 0.01

TABLE 4: PROSTITUTION

BLACKS

WHITES

DIVISIONS


(N)


(N)

OFFENDER RATE (%)


(N)


(N)

OFFENDER RATE (%)

12 62 14950 0.41 193 48960 0.39 13 35 11060 0.32 29 95060 0.14 23 8 24055 0.03 83 79005 0.11 31 21 25080 0.08 106 98030 0.11 41 39 17700 0.22 252 130755 0.19 42 25 37275 0.07 224 135800 0.16 51 263 7175 3.67 1386 29495 4.70 54 3 8775 0.03 20 76920 0.03

TABLE 5: IMPAIRED

BLACKS

WHITES

DIVISIONS


(N)


(N)

OFFENDER RATE (%)


(N)


(N)

OFFENDER RATE (%)

12 13 14950 0.09 71 48960 0.15 13 4 11060 0.04 21 95060 0.02 23 10 24055 0.04 60 79005 0.08 31 17 25080 0.07 62 98030 0.06 41 18 17700 0.10 141 130755 0.11 42 13 37275 0.03 69 135800 0.05 51 4 7175 0.06 60 29495 0.20 54 10 8775 0.11 76 76920 0.10

FIGURE 1 NON-MOVING OFFENDERS BY DIVISIONS:

BLACK AND WHITE OFFENDER RATES COMPARED

2.07%

0.65% 0.61%

1.04%

0.44%0.36%

0.57%

0.16% 0.20% 0.24%0.10% 0.15%

0.43%0.32%

0.27%0.09%

0.00%

0.50%

1.00%

1.50%

2.00%

2.50%

12 13 23 31 41 42 51 54

DIVISIONS

OF

FE

ND

ER

RA

TE

S

BLACKS

WHITES

FIGURE 2 DRUG POSSESSION OFFENDERS BY DIVISIONS:


1.73%

0.96%

6.90%

0.77% 0.56%0.19% 0.38% 0.28%

2.37%

0.32%0.46%0.24%0.45%

1.84%

0.13%0.08%0.00%

1.00%

2.00%

3.00%

4.00%

5.00%

6.00%

7.00%

12 13 23 31 41 42 51 54

DIVISIONS

OF

FE

ND

ER

RA

TE

S

BLACKS

WHITES

FIGURE 3 COCAINE OFFENDERS BY DIVISIONS:


0.25% 0.09%0.04%0.06%0.07%

0.30%

5.05%

0.07%0.31% 0.19%0.01%0.01%0.03% 0.01%

1.41%

0.12%0.00%

1.00%

2.00%

3.00%

4.00%

5.00%

6.00%

12 13 23 31 41 42 51 54

DIVISIONS

OF

FE

ND

ER

RA

TE

S

BLACKS

WHITES

FIGURE 4 PROSTITUTION OFFENDERS BY DIVISIONS:


0.07%

3.67%

0.32%0.22% 0.03%

0.41%

0.03% 0.08%0.14% 0.19% 0.16%

4.70%

0.03%0.39% 0.11% 0.11%0.00%

0.50%

1.00%

1.50%

2.00%

2.50%

3.00%

3.50%

4.00%

4.50%

5.00%

12 13 23 31 41 42 51 54

DIVISIONS

OF

FE

ND

ER

RA

TE

S

BLACKS

WHITES

FIGURE 5 IMPAIRED OFFENDERS BY DIVISIONS:


0.04% 0.04%

0.07%

0.10%

0.03%

0.06%

0.15%

0.02%

0.08%

0.06%

0.11%

0.05%

0.20%

0.09%

0.11%

0.10%

0.00%

0.02%

0.04%

0.06%

0.08%

0.10%

0.12%

0.14%

0.16%

0.18%

0.20%

12 13 23 31 41 42 51 54

DIVISIONS

OF

FE

ND

ER

RA

TE

S

BLACKS

WHITES

Independent Review of Toronto Star Analysis of Criminal ... · Toronto Star’s analysis of these...

Documents

Transcript of Independent Review of Toronto Star Analysis of Criminal ... · Toronto Star’s analysis of these...