Add Facts / Figures page

[b-meson]

Per our press person, we should add facts and figures to our webpage which will help demonstrate why there is a need to do this. For example, the sworn affidavit section should link to this statement source on CPD's website.

State law requires that any person making an allegation of misconduct against a Chicago Police Officer sign a sworn affidavit that certifies that the allegation is true and correct. If the person making the complaint did not actually witness the alleged conduct, they must certify that they believe that the facts in the allegation are true.

Illinois law (50 ILCS 725/3.8) requires that anyone filing a complaint against a sworn peace officer must have the complaint supported by a sworn affidavit. Any person who knowingly files a false complaint may be subject to criminal charges or a civil suit. A person commits perjury when, under oath or affirmation, in a proceeding or in any other matter where by law such oath or affirmation is required, he makes a false statement, material to the issue or point in question, which he does not believe to be true. Perjury is a Class 3 felony.

Also, according to data from the Invisible Institute only 72% of complaints have an ID'ed officer in their older data set.

[redshiftzero]

Just did a review of all our images and tags in order to generate numbers for the press release. However, I think it would be nice if these numbers also went onto the website under "about" and got periodically updated to show everyone the progress we are making.

Number of images we’ve collected:

• 8,319 images collected from Twitter
• 2717 images from Flickr
• 245 from submissions from the public (e.g. activist groups in Chicago)

Note: NOT all these images have been tagged by volunteers yet.

Number of tags we’ve collected:

• 132 tags - about 1% of the department

Note: This is preliminary (still will be roughly accurate so fine for the press release) as I have only verified 60 of those 132 tags are correct. Also NOT all tags have been entered in the database (only the ones that are verified get entered into the database). I will be working verifying and adding to the database the remaining 72 tags tomorrow evening. If we want to increase the number of tags, the primary thing we need to do is go through the 2717 images from Flickr in the same manner as those from Twitter.

Some generic text as a starter for explaining our process: "To review, an image is one that we have collected or have been given that may contain police officers - it could contain many police officers. A “tag” is what we call when a volunteer looks at that image, can read the badge number(s) or name(s) in that image and and thus can associate an officer in the database (name and badge number) with a face in the image. There may be many tags for a given image if there are many officers in the image. One of the main goals of our public launch is to get more volunteers for tagging as well are more submissions from the public."

[redshiftzero]

I think we really need to add a source that clearly shows "X% of complaints are thrown away due to no identified officer"

[b-meson]

I agree. Unfortunately, (and I know this might be a shocker) the city doesn't have that anywhere easily accessible. Using the Invisible Institute's data here are some of what we've discussed.

Freddy Martinez a quick question about the citizen police data project. I am trying to find the % of complaints that are dismissed because IPRA can't "find" the officer in question. does that correspond to 13,609 UNKNOWN

@bmeson I don’t know if that UNKNOWN type corresponds perfectly with “complaints that are dismissed because IPRA can’t ‘find’ the officer in question”. I think there may be other reasons why the accused officer field would be unknown or null. also the “unknown” category being displayed on CPDP.co represents an unknown finding or outcome. And it excludes all of the cases where no investigation even happened because the complainant was scared off by the affidavit requirement

Freddy Martinez [11:15 AM]
let me explain what I'm trying to do. I'm trying to find numbers on how often IPRA can't find an officer so that we can build that in our OpenOversight's "motivation" section. having approximate numbers to show the scale of the problem would be good

@bmeson you could try simply counting the number of rows with null values in the accused officer fields in the most recent june 2016 complaints datafile on the chicago-police-data repo https://github.com/invinst/chicago-police-data/blob/master/complaints-cpd-june2016/june2016_all.csv?raw=true alternatively, from our older complaints dataset, I see 20,525 / 28,595 allegations have some officer identified https://cpdp.co/data/D8or5A/only-20525-28595-have-id-for-the-accused-officer

yea, unfortunately that number includes over 4,000 rows with an unknown outcome (usually in the form a null field in the raw data that we originally received).

Freddy Martinez so the real numbers might be lower?

… so there are 4,000 rows for which we don’t know whether there was a sustained finding, an unsustained finding, or any other finding. many of those cases may be open investigations (but not that many of them). (edited)

Freddy Martinez hmm so if I want only the cases where the officers where never IDs, I have the current 20,525 / 28,595 being around 72% but if we don’t know the outcome, presumably the number of IDed officers would be higher? (I’m just guessing here)

[b-meson]

59 was closed, do we want to keep this open or do we want to close and update facts and figs page accordingly.

[redshiftzero]

Well we should add the 4k rows thing from the press release

[redshiftzero]

And link to cpdb.co as a source