Use of force data presented here reflect use of force incidents recorded by NPD officers. Each law enforcement agency’s policy manual requires that officers record use of force, and defines the behaviors that count as “force” which must be reported. The definition of force that officers are required to report has an impact on the number of incidents recorded, and departments with more robust reporting requirements would have more recorded incidents than departments with vague or less comprehensive requirements. For the department’s definition of reportable force, and CPE’s assessment of the completeness of that definition, see “What counts as force for these analyses?” at the bottom of this page.
Newington, CT 2022
USE OF FORCE
Use of force occurs when an officer uses their body or an object to compel compliance or in a way that could cause pain, injury, or death.
USES OF FORCE BY RACIAL GROUP
- 17% of all use of force incidents recorded between 2013 and 2019 were against Black people, who made up 5.2% of the population of Newington, Connecticut.
- 25% of all use of force incidents recorded between 2013 and 2019 were against Latinx people, who made up 9.5% of the population of Newington, Connecticut.
- 57% of all use of force incidents recorded between 2013 and 2019 were against White people, who made up 77% of the population of Newington, Connecticut.
More information
What does this show?
Each bar on the right shows the percentage of the total use of force incidents recorded in the assessment period that were against people in one racial group. The bars on the left in the same color (and the lighter colored background) show the percentage of the resident population that are people of the same racial group. Hovering over the bars on the right shows the number of incidents that makes up that percentage.
Departments have varying definitions of force and requirements for when officers must report their use of force, so those with more comprehensive reporting requirements may have more recorded incidents than departments with vague or incomplete requirements. For example, some departments do not require officers to report use of hands-on force unless it results in injury or complaint of injury; others do not require officers to report pointing a weapon if it was not discharged. Departments also use different forms to record data on use of force incidents, and forms that encourage more comprehensive or efficient data collection can provide more useful information for analysis than those that solicit fewer, or less specific, incident details.
Our guidance encourages officers to report every incident in which an officer uses or threatens to use their body, a tool, or a weapon against a person, or in any way that could cause pain, injury or death, regardless of the officer’s motivation or whether any injury or complaint results. For more information on the types of incidents officers were required to report during this assessment timeframe, see “What counts as force for these analyses?” at the bottom of this page.
How was this calculated?
We first took the average total recorded incidents per year and calculated the percentage against people of each racial group. Then we compared those percentages to the percentages of the resident population that are of each racial group. See the Data Notes tab for information on how we define racial groups.
We count a use of force incident as a single incident in which any use of force against a person was recorded, regardless of the number of officers, types of force involved, or number of times force was applied. If more than one person had force used against them at the same time, each person who was subjected to force is counted as a separate incident. Our analyses exclude incidents where the only reported type of force is handcuffing, verbal commands, or de-escalation.
Most of our analyses use all use of force data provided by departments, including incomplete years of data. However, certain analyses require complete years of data, so time periods may vary across charts.
We use local demographic data (from the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey 5-year estimates) as the most straightforward and complete representation of the local population. The use of Census data also allows us to perform standardized analyses across law enforcement agencies. We recognize that this measure of demographics may not capture the entire population of individuals with whom police interact. However, the analyses on this page can help shed light on the role that local demographics may play in any observed disparities.
Data required for this analysis:
- Incident unique identifier
- Date of incident
- Racial group of the person subjected to force
To arrive at this finding, we first looked at the total number of use of force incidents recorded each year with complete data.
The number of use of force incidents recorded each year with complete data varied from a low of 20 in 2013 to a high of 54 in 2019.
COMPARING USE OF FORCE INCIDENT RATES
Rates of Use of Force Incidents After Accounting For Neighborhood Crime Rates, Poverty Levels, and Share of Black Residents
The number of census tracts within this jurisdiction was too low to perform this analysis.
More information
What does this show?
This infographic displays findings from CPE’s regression analysis, a statistical technique that allows CPE to investigate differences in use of force rates by race, taking into account other socioeconomic factors that may affect policing strategies and deployment. Specifically, this regression tests how much more or less likely each racial group is than White people to have force used on them in a neighborhood with an average poverty rate, crime rate, and percentage of Black residents – three factors commonly associated with increased police contact. The results of this analysis show the size of racial disparities in use of force that remain even when the influence of poverty levels, crime rates, and the percentage of Black residents across neighborhoods are removed from the equation.
We take into account the share of Black residents, crime rates, and poverty levels in a neighborhood because these factors affect the likelihood that a person of any racial group in a neighborhood will have police contact. This relationship between police presence and the percent of Black residents in a neighborhood is, in part, a result of systemic racism and structural disadvantage (for example, a lack of community services can lead to more calls for police service). But police-driven factors, such as departmental policy or officer behavior, also contribute to increased police activity in neighborhoods with more Black residents, crime, and poverty.
How was this calculated?
To represent neighborhoods, we use Census tracts — small geographic areas of approximately 4,000 residents — as defined by the Census Bureau. We use publicly available Census data to measure the percentage of Black residents in each neighborhood
To measure serious crime rates, we count crimes in each neighborhood that are recorded by the department. Specifically, we count reports of Part 1 offenses. The FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting Statistics defines Part 1 offenses as: murder and non-negligent homicide, rape , robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, motor vehicle theft, larceny, and arson. Racial groups that made up less than 2% of all use of force incidents, or which had fewer than 40 total incidents, were excluded from this analysis (see the Data Notes tab for information on how we define racial groups).
Data required for this analysis:
- Incident unique identifier
- Date of incident
- Person's racial group
- Location of incident (i.e. street address, including zipcode or latitude/longitude)
- Crime unique identifier
- Crime date of incident
- Crime offense (NIBRS/UCR) classification or description
- Crime location (i.e. street address, including zipcode or latitude/longitude)
PERCENTAGE OF USE OF FORCE INCIDENT FREQUENCY EXPLAINED BY NEIGHBORHOOD FACTORS
Percentage of Incident Frequency Explained by Neighborhood Factors
The number of census tracts within this jurisdiction was too low to perform this analysis.
More information
What does this show?
This infographic displays findings from CPE’s regression analysis, a statistical technique that investigates how certain factors contribute to how often all use of force incidents occur. Specifically, it shows the results of testing how much neighborhood poverty levels, crime rates, and share of Black residents—three common explanations for increased police contact—are contributing to the frequency of use of force overall. The results of this analysis show that the frequency of use of force is largely not explained by (or predicted by) these external factors. It is likely that factors within the control of the department, such as departmental policy and practice or officer behavior, play a significant part in determining when, where, and who is subjected to force.
Our model cannot precisely distinguish the extent to which incident frequency is due to reasons within or outside of a department’s control, but we are able to use statistical tools to account for three of the most commonly proposed, quantifiable factors related to frequency of police contact. Thus, our model controls for the predictive effect of crime rates, poverty levels, and racial demographics on use of force frequency, but there are many additional factors that may have an impact on whether a person is likely to come into contact with law enforcement and subsequently be subjected to force.
How was this calculated?
To represent neighborhoods, we use Census tracts, which are small geographic areas of approximately 4,000 residents each, defined by the Census Bureau. We use publicly available Census data to measure neighborhood poverty levels and the percentage of Black residents.
To measure serious crime rates, we count crimes in each neighborhood that are recorded by the department. Specifically, we count reports of Part 1 offenses. The FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting Statistics defines Part 1 offenses as: murder and non-negligent homicide, rape (legacy and revised), robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, motor vehicle theft, larceny theft, and arson. Racial groups which made up less than 2% of all incidents, or which had fewer than 40 total incidents, were excluded from this analysis (see the Data Notes tab for information on how we define racial groups).
For an explanation of why we measure the share of Black residents as a potential factor influencing use of force, see “More information” under the analysis above.
Data required for this analysis:
- Incident unique identifier
- Date of incident
- Person's racial group
- Location of incident (i.e. street address, including zipcode or latitude/longitude)
- Crime unique identifier
- Crime date of incident
- Crime offense (NIBRS/UCR) classification or description
- Crime location (i.e. street address, including zipcode or latitude/longitude)
FORCE TYPES USED, BY RACIAL GROUPS
- The 2 most common force types recorded overall were Holds and Takedown.
- Black people were overrepresented, relative to their share of the population, in the 2 most commonly recorded force types. For example, 18% of uses of force recorded as Holds were against Black people, who make up 5.2% of the population.
- Latinx people were overrepresented, relative to their share of the population, in uses of the 2 most commonly recorded force types. For example, 28% of uses of force recorded as Takedown were against Latinx people, who make up 9.5% of the population.
More information
What does this show?
Each colored bar shows the percentage of uses of each force type recorded against people of each racial group. Hovering over a colored bar shows the number of uses of each force type that makes up that percentage. Each gray bar on the right shows the total number of uses of the particular force type, for all racial groups combined. Any force type that was recorded in high numbers, or in which racial disparities were large, will influence overall racial disparities in use of force.
How was this calculated?
We took the total recorded uses of force and separated them into force type. Then we calculated the percentage of each type that was against people of each racial group.
We count each distinct type of force that was recorded against any person as one force type, regardless of the number of other force types recorded against a given person, the number of officers who applied it, or the number of times it was applied. We combine categories for easier interpretation. See the Data Notes tab for details on how these categories are created and how racial groups are defined.
Data required for this analysis:
- Incident unique identifier
- Date
- Racial group of the person subjected to force
- Type(s) of force recorded in incident, including police weapons/tools used, if any
To arrive at this finding, we first looked at the total number of times each type of force was used.
USE OF FORCE INCIDENTS BY WORK UNIT AND RACIAL GROUP
The work units in this analysis refer to geographical location codes called Patrol Areas.
- Work units 4 and 3A recorded the most incidents of force overall.
Among all work units:
- Work units 4A and Other Work Units recorded the greatest percentages of use of force incidents against Black people.
- Work units 1A and 1 recorded the greatest percentages of use of force incidents against Latinx people.
More information
What does this show?
“Work unit” describes the work groups in a department. It can refer to the assignment of the officer who applied force (e.g. Detective Unit, Narcotics, Traffic, etc.), or the geographic areas where incidents occurred (e.g. precincts, districts, zones, etc.).
Each colored bar shows the percentage of use of force incidents recorded by each work unit of people of each racial group. The Multiple Work Units category, if used, represents incidents involving officers from two or more work units. Hovering over a colored bar shows the number of incidents that make up that percentage. The grey bars on the right show the total number of incidents recorded by each work unit. Any work unit that records a large number of use of force incidents or records large racial disparities will influence overall racial disparities in use of force. If disparities are present among most or all work units, the different racial makeup of various neighborhoods is likely not the whole explanation for the observed disparity.
How was this calculated?
We took the total recorded incidents of force and first separated them by the work unit that recorded the incident. We then calculated what percentage of incidents was recorded for people of each racial group.
The “Other Work Units” category, if used, combines the work units recording less than 2% of incidents. See the Data Notes tab for information on how we define racial groups.
Data required for this analysis:
- Incident unique identifier
- Date of incident
- Racial group of the person subjected to force
- Officer assignment, beat, precinct, district, or other designated police service zone
WHAT COUNTS AS FORCE FOR THESE ANALYSES?
We encourage departments to report every instance in which an officer uses their body or an object (including draw or point a firearm or taser) in an encounter with a member of the public to overcome resistance or in a way that could cause pain, injury, or death. Our guidance provides detailed information on how to effectively collect use of force data.
We reviewed the NPD policies defining which officer behaviors count as reportable use of force throughout the time the data in this section were collected. Understanding what types of incidents were required to be recorded, as well as gaps in what was required to be recorded, is important context for interpreting these analyses. This information can also reveal opportunities for improving data collection policies and practices in the future.
During the time these data were collected, definitions of reportable force in the NPD policy manual were incomplete in the following ways:
- Before October 23, 2017, the use of force reporting policy did not explicitly require a Use of Force report when an officer used weaponless force that did not result in injury or an allegation of injury.
- From October 23, 2017 until the end of the observation period, reporting was required “when [an officer] uses force,” but “force” was not defined in the policy.
- The State of Connecticut Use of Force reporting form provided to us by NPD did not distinguish between point, display, and discharge of a firearm, nor did it distinguish between canine bite and canine deploy to assist.
For an analysis of NPD’s latest available force reporting policy and recommendations for how to improve use of force data collection, see the Newington Policy Foundations for Equitable Policing Report.
Departmental definition of force
CPE analyzed all Use of Force policies provided by the department that were used in the time period covered in this assessment. According to the policy manual provided by NPD, Newington PD General Order 1.3, Use of Force, in force March 24, 2011, “Force” is defined as “conduct on the part of a police employee that is designed to assist the employee in controlling a situation or the actions or behavior of a person or persons” (s.3.A.1).
“Force” was not defined in Newington PD General Order 1.3, Use of Force, revised Oct. 23, 2017 nor in Newington PD General Order 1.3, Use of Force, revised June 29, 2020.
The current version of the Newington PD General Order 1.3, Use of Force, in effect January 1, 2022, provides the following definitions of force:
“Deadly force” is defined at s.3.D as “any force that is likely to cause serious injury or death.” This definition is elaborated at s.6.D, which prohibits the use of the following force techniques “except under circumstances where deadly force is deemed reasonable and necessary:”
- “The intentional use of a chokehold or neck restraint. Including but not limited to: (1). Arm bar hold, (2). Carotid artery hold, (3). Lateral vascular neck restraint, (4). Neck restraint or hold with a knee or other object is prohibited. The use of a choke hold or neck restraint may only be used when the use of deadly physical force is necessary.
- Intentional strikes to the head, neck, spine, or sternum with an impact weapon, improvised impact weapon, knee, kick, or hard object, or striking the head against a hard surface.
- The intentional discharge of a less-lethal launcher projectile at close range to the head, neck, or chest.”
“Less-lethal force” is defined at s.3.I as “any force that is not likely to cause serious physical injury or death. Less lethal force includes weaponless defensive and control techniques (such as open hand strikes, elbow or closed fist strikes, leg sweeps, kicks, and forcible restraint), weapons and munitions (such as OC spray or chemical agents such as tear gas, CEW, projectiles like rubber bullets and bean-bag rounds, batons and other impact weapons, and flash bang devices), and K9.”