Do Australian police engage in racial profiling? A method for identifying racial profiling in the absence of police data

Figures & data

Figure 1. Threshold analysis.

Table 1. Recoded racial appearance (vehicle stops).¹⁷

Racial appearance	Count	Per cent
1. White	544	78.7
2. Aboriginal (this includes known to police and in a group)	29	4.2
3. African	37	5.4
4. Middle Eastern /Muslim	30	4.3
5. Pasifika^18	12	1.7
6. Asian	14	2.0
7. Other (Hispanic/Indian/Ambiguous)	24	3.5
Total	691	100%

Table 2. Dichotomised racial appearance.¹⁹

Dichotomised racial appearance	Count	Per cent
1. Racialised	147	21.3
2. White	544	78.7
Total	691	100%

Table 3. Trichotomised (targeted) racialised appearance.²⁰

	Frequency	Percentage
1. Targeted (African, Middle Eastern/Muslim, Pasifika, Aboriginal)	110	15.9
2. Other racialised (Asian, Hispanic, Indian, Ambiguous)	38	5.5
3. White	543	78.6
Total	691	100%

Figure 2. Proportions of vehicle intercept types experienced by racialised appearing people compared to white appearing people (uncontrolled data).

Table 4. Multinomial regression results for hypotheses 1(a–d) using vehicle stop complete cases.

	Reference group	p-value	Adjusted p-value^21	Odds ratio	Confidence interval
1a. Odds of high discretion stop for racialised compared with white people	low discretion stops	0.001	0.001	2.772	1.530–5.021
1b. Odds of high discretion stops for targeted racialised compared with white people	low discretion stops	<0.001	<0.001	3.615	1.793–7.289
1c. Odds of unjustified post-stop conduct for racialised people compared with white people	justified post-stop conduct	<0.001	<0.001	4.949	2.904–8.435
1d. Odds of unjustified post-stop conduct for targeted racialised people compared with white people	justified post-stop conduct	<0.001	<0.001	7.402	3.948–13.88

Note: The odds ratios compare high discretion with low discretion stops and unjustified with justified stops.

Table 5. Odds ratio of stop reason and post-stop conduct for racialised and white people – pedestrian and bicycle stops (controlling for age, gender, LGBTI and disability).

	Reference group	p-value	Adjusted p-value	Odds ratio	Confidence interval
2a. Odds of being stopped before an offence is detected for racialised people compared with white people	After an offence is detected	0.103	0.156	1.754	0.892–3.447
2b. Odds of being stopped before an offence is detected for targeted racialised people compared with white people	After an offence is detected	0.013	0.039	2.845	1.250–6.476
2c. Odds of being subject to unjustified post-stop conduct for racialised compared with white people	Justified post-stop conduct	0.078	0.156	1.842	0.934–3.633
2d. Odds of being subject to unjustified post-stop conduct for targeted racialised people compared with white people	Justified post-stop conduct	0.006	0.024	3.252	1.400–7.554