U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

Section I: Overview
Local Law Enforcement and Minority Communities
The Changing Demographics of the Los Angeles Region
Language Diversity in the Los Angeles Region
Section II: Topical Summary

Local Law Enforcement and
Minority Communities

The highly publicized beating of Rodney King by Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) officers in March 1991 and the riots in Los Angeles following the acquittal of the officers graphically demonstrated the increasingly wide gulf and growing antagonism between law enforcement agencies and minority communities in the Los Angeles area. In response to the Rodney King beating, an independent commission headed by Warren Christopher was formed to "examine any aspect of the law enforcement structure in Los Angeles that might cause or contribute to the problem of excessive force."¹ A similar commission led by special counsel James Kolts was appointed to conduct a review of the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department (LASD) in the wake of a number of shootings of minorities by LASD deputies. The Kolts Commission was directed to examine "the policies, practices, and procedures of the Sheriff's Department, including recruitment, training, job performance and evaluation, record keeping and management practices, as they relate to allegations of excessive force, the community sensitivity of deputies and the Department's citizen complaint procedure."²

The Christopher Commission report on the LAPD found serious deficiencies in the department, including a significant number of officers who repetitively misuse force, inadequate supervisory and management attention to the misuse of force, racism and bias within the department, an organizational culture that emphasizes crime control over crime prevention, deficient handling of citizen complaints, and a lack of accountability on the part of the chief.³ The commission made numerous recommendations for improvement in the areas of recruitment, training, monitoring, discipline, and complaint processing. Like the Christopher Commission, the Kolts Commission discovered a department with too many officers who resorted to the use of excessive force, an inadequate disciplinary system, deficient supervision, and inattention to the needs and desires of the community.⁴ The commission recommended reforms in citizen complaint processing, improvements in the disciplinary system, implementation of an early warning system to monitor use of force, increased recruitment to diversify the force, and modifications in the canine policy.

The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights held a hearing in Los Angeles in June 1993 as part of a series of hearings in the project Racial and Ethnic Tensions in American Communities: Poverty, Inequality, and Discrimination. In addition to issues of economic opportunity and discrimination in the media, the Commission examined efforts to eliminate use of excessive force by the LAPD and the LASD. During the hearing, the Commission heard from representatives of the LAPD and the LASD regarding their implementation of the recommendations of the Christopher and Kolts Commission reports. Many witnesses testified that some progress had been made. Much had not been accomplished, however, due to the lack of financial and staffing resources and the need for additional time to evaluate the effectiveness of some recommendations.

Since this Commission's 1993 hearing, public reports indicated that reform efforts were proceeding at the LAPD, particularly in the areas of reduced excessive force complaints, increased diversity in hiring, and implementation of community policing programs; but reforms in significant areas still had not been executed. As of spring 1996, the department had yet to install a sophisticated computerized tracking system for problem officers; excessive force continued to be punished too leniently; and, the amount of civil judgments against the city had not been reduced.⁵ The LASD has generally received better marks for its reform efforts, including a significant reduction in civil judgment awards and complaints of excessive force, and its implementation of a computer monitoring system. As of March 1996, the LASD, however, had made little progress in increasing diversity among its ranks, and women and minorities remained severely underrepresented.⁶

In the midst of these reform efforts, two events shook the Los Angeles area and critically tested the already strained relationship between the city's minority communities and law enforcement. The first involved Detective Mark Fuhrman and the murder trial of O.J. Simpson. During the trial, the defense introduced into evidence tape-recorded interviews of Detective Fuhrman by an aspiring screenwriter. On these tapes, Detective Fuhrman related alleged accounts of discriminatory, abusive, and illegal conduct by himself and other officers of the LAPD. Detective Fuhrman made derogatory comments about minorities and women, and alleged that he and/or other officers routinely singled out African Americans for arrest, planted evidence to convict innocent persons, lied in court to win convictions, and/or used excessive force against suspects.⁷

The Fuhrman tapes reopened wounds in the community, raised new questions about the extent of police brutality in the LAPD, and confirmed for many minority residents of Los Angeles their experiences with police misconduct and brutality. Disclosure of the tapes led to heightened tensions and the threat of civil disobedience. Numerous calls were made for efforts to uncover and end racism and sexism in the department.⁸ The tapes prompted both internal and external investigations into the alleged incidents of excessive force and evidence tampering.

The second incident occurred on April 1, 1996, when two sheriff's deputies from the Riverside County Sheriff's Department were captured on videotape beating two suspected undocumented immigrants. The beating followed a high speed chase after a truck fled from a checkpoint at the border. The videotape shows the deputies beating a man and a woman after other occupants ran from the truck. An audiotape indicates that the beating followed the Mexican nationals' failure to respond to the deputies commands in English to get out of the truck and raise their hands. The audiotape also reveals that one of the law enforcement officers remarked, "bunch of wetbacks, huh?"⁹

Tensions in Los Angeles flared once again after the Riverside incident. It revived serious questions about the use of excessive force, law enforcement's relationship with Los Angeles' immigrant communities, and the interaction between local law enforcement and the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) and the Border Patrol. The incident had come on the heels of increased complaints of law enforcement's treatment of Latino and other immigrant groups. In October 1995, for example, a group from Los Angeles County's Mexican American Bar Association traveled to the Department of Justice (DOJ) headquarters to protest the deaths of 15 Latinos since 1987, each of which involved Los Angeles area police and sheriffs.¹⁰ The DOJ had been alerted previously to allegations of police misconduct and use of excessive force involving the Riverside Sheriff's Department.¹¹ The incident also coincided with the deaths of several suspected undocumented immigrants in vehicle accidents following pursuit by the Border Patrol, and intensified the debate over immigration and border control.¹² Thus, Latino leaders, civil rights groups, and Mexican authorities expressed outrage. Heated exchanges occurred between supporters of the deputies and those protesting the beating, and racial overtones clouded the events, with reported comments such as "these wetbacks got what they deserved."¹³

Both the Furhman tapes and the Riverside incident, as well as the controversy surrounding the Rodney King beating, emphasize the need to review the reform efforts of the LAPD and LASD and each department's efforts to improve its relationship with the varied racial and ethnic communities in Los Angeles. Complicating the tasks of both departments is the increasingly diverse demographic makeup of Los Angeles.

The Changing Demographics of
the Los Angeles Region

California has been a trendsetter for the Nation in a variety of ways for the past three decades. Los Angeles' rapid and profound ethnic transformation is one of the more significant examples of this phenomenon. As the editors of Ethnic Los Angeles have observed, "nowhere can one detect the shape of emerging America better than in L.A., where newcomers to the United States have transformed the country's second largest metropolis...and have set the region on a new course sure to be followed by other urban areas."¹⁴ The LAPD and LASD face a significant challenge in learning to serve and communicate adequately with the growing ethnic minority communities in Los Angeles.

Los Angeles' Mexican population precedes the Anglo presence. Founded in 1781 as a Mexican pueblo, Los Angeles was populated by persons of Indian, Spanish, and African ancestry and others until the United States took possession of the present-day Southwest in 1848. Although the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo guaranteed the rights of Mexicans in the ceded territory, Mexicans rapidly lost their property interests and slipped into a segregated and scorned working class as Anglos outnumbered them and economically and politically dominated the area.¹⁵

From this period through most of its modern existence, Los Angeles attracted newcomers who were mainly white and native born. In 1920, near the end of a great immigration wave, only 17 percent of Angelenos were foreign born, compared with 35 percent of the population of New York. Despite its proximity to Mexico and the ebb and flow of Mexican migration between 1920 and 1965, immigrant Los Angeles remained relatively inconspicuous. More important during these years was the large-scale arrival of African Americans, attracted by the region's then relatively hospitable race relations climate and its burgeoning economy.¹⁶

Then, things began to change. Driven by internal migration to southern California and especially by heavy immigration, the population of the Los Angeles region¹⁷ increased 87 percent from approximately 7,752,000 in 1960 to 14,531,000 in 1990. The population of Los Angeles County increased 47 percent during this period from approximately 6,039,000 to 8,863,000¹⁸ and reached 9,054,000 by 1994.¹⁹ The population of the city of Los Angeles increased 17.6 percent from 1980 to 1992, from approximately 2,969,000 to 3,490,000 according to U.S. Census Bureau data.²⁰ The Los Angeles region has continued to grow, although at a slower 5.5 percent rate of increase, reaching 15.3 million in 1994.²¹ Moreover, the official population projections prepared by the California Department of Finance estimate that the population of the Los Angeles region will increase to nearly 24 million in the year 2020, surpassing New York as the Nation's largest metropolitan region.²²

The contribution of immigration to Los Angeles' dramatic growth is made clear by the significant increase in the proportion of foreign-born residents in the Los Angeles region from 8 percent in 1960 to 27 percent in 1990, adding 3.3 million immigrants in the process. Between 1970 and 1990 the percentage of foreign-born residents in Los Angeles County increased from 11 percent to approximately 33 percent, or 2,895,000 people.²³ In the city of Los Angeles 38.4 percent of the population in 1992 was foreign born.²⁴ For the United States as a whole, 8.7 percent of the population in 1994 was foreign born. From a high of 14.7 percent in 1910, the proportion of foreign born in the United States declined to a low of 4.8 percent in 1970, from which it has steadily increased. California and Los Angeles have absorbed a significant share of immigrants to the United States. California is home to 7.7 million foreign-born persons-more than one-third of all immigrants to the United States and nearly one-quarter of all California residents.²⁵

Recent data on metropolitan areas preferred by immigrants as their intended place of residence indicate that Los Angeles continues to be a magnet for immigrants in the 1990s. Of the nearly 1 million immigrants admitted to the United States in fiscal year 1992, 130,000 identified Los Angeles as their intended place of residence, and another 60,000 selected the California counties of Orange, Ventura, Riverside, and San Bernadino.²⁶ Los Angeles also attracts a large number of undocumented immigrants, "probably more than any other place in the United States," due in substantial part to its proximity to the Mexican border.²⁷ The Los Angeles region accounted for one-third of all the estimated undocumented immigrants in the United States during the 1980 census.²⁸ In 1990, of the 1.8 million who applied for permanent resident status under the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986²⁹ (IRCA), 35 percent resided in Los Angeles County. In the Los Angeles region as a whole there were over 750,000 applicants for legalization.³⁰ Despite the large number of amnesty applications, which temporarily reduced the number of undocumented immigrants living in Los Angeles, the undocumented population continued to grow in the late 1980s and early 1990s.³¹ As of January 1992, it was estimated that there were as many as 1.5 million people who either received amnesty or were still unauthorized residents in Los Angeles.³²

This new wave of massive legal immigration to the United States began with passage of the Hart-Cellar Act³³ in 1965. The 1965 reform significantly altered the immigration system with a few bold strokes. First, it abolished the old country-of-origin quotas, which allotted a small number of admissions to southern and eastern Europe and still smaller quotas to Asia and Third World countries in general. Second, it established two primary criteria for admission to the United States: family ties to citizens or permanent residents or possession of scarce and needed skills. Third, it increased the total numbers of immigrants to be admitted to the United States. Proponents of the Hart-Cellar Act reforms intended for the act to keep immigration to modest proportions. They also calculated that the principal beneficiaries would be southern and eastern Europeans, groups that had been the principal targets of the nativist legislation of the 1920s. But for various reasons, the numbers of immigrants quickly spiraled; 7.3 million immigrants arrived in the United States during the 1980s, an influx second only to the peak of 8.8 million newcomers who arrived between 1900 and 1910. The main beneficiaries of the act proved to be a second, unexpected twist, as newcomers who took advantage of the liberalized system primarily came from Asia, Latin America, and the Caribbean.³⁴

Plainly, Los Angeles has always been a migrant town. But in a very short period, it has changed from a magnet for internal migrants to one for international migrants. Angelenos of Mexican birth constitute the longest-established of the region's immigrant groups. But even among the Mexican born, half came to the United States between 1980 and 1990. Other newcomer groups are equally, if not more heavily tilted toward the recently arrived; 53 percent of the region's Middle Easterners, 59 percent of its Asians, and 70 percent of its Central Americans moved to the U.S. during the 1980s.³⁵ Los Angeles received more immigrants than any other city in the United States during the past several decades. As a result, Los Angeles has become a city of immigrants: roughly 1 in 10 Los Angeles County residents immigrated to the United States after 1985, and roughly 17 percent arrived after 1980.³⁶ Notwithstanding improved methodology for "counting the uncountable,"³⁷ even these figures may underestimate the total immigrant population in Los Angeles, because immigration statistics, as well as census counts of the population, cannot estimate the undocumented immigrant population as accurately as they can the documented newcomers.

Heavy immigration from the Third World, especially Latin America and Asia, during the 1970s and 1980s has also significantly changed the racial and ethnic composition of Los Angeles. Los Angeles now has more people of Mexican, Central American, Asian, and Middle Eastern origin than any other metropolitan area in the United States.³⁸ Demographically speaking, this influx has led some to refer to Los Angeles as the "capital of the Third World."³⁹ Actually, 1990 census data show that neither the city of Los Angeles, Los Angeles County, nor the Greater Los Angeles region now have any ethnic majority, although Hispanics seem likely to hit the 50 percent mark within the foreseeable future.⁴⁰ In the city, approximately 39.9 percent of the population is of Hispanic origin. As for the non-Hispanic population, 37.3 percent of the city's residents are white, 13 percent black, 9.2 percent Asian, 0.3 percent American Indian, and 0.3 percent "other race."⁴¹ In Los Angeles County, 40.8 percent of the population is white non-Hispanic, 37.8 percent Hispanic, 10.6 percent black, 10.2 percent Asian or Pacific Islander, 0.3 percent American Indian, and 0.3 percent "other race non-Hispanic."⁴²

From a metropolitan area that in 1960 was over 80 percent non-Hispanic white, Los Angeles has been transformed into a city that now has a "majority minority" population.⁴³ By 1990, the area's white population had declined to just under half the region's population. Although the area's African American population grew over the two decades between 1970 and 1990, its share hovered at just above 10 percent throughout the period. Still, with 1.1 million persons, African Americans are a sizable minority in the Los Angeles region. Hispanics grew from one-tenth of the area's population in 1960 to one-third in 1990, and Asians increased from 2 to nearly 10 percent. Although they are the smallest ethnic group in the region, American Indians, with 63,000 persons, quadrupled their numbers between 1970 and 1980 and make up the largest Native American concentration in any metropolitan area in the United States. Similarly, Middle Easterners, although a small ethnic group compared with Hispanics and Asians, experienced the most rapid growth of any group, increasing nearly sixfold between 1970 and 1990 from approximately 50,000 to around 300,000.⁴⁴

If the "greater underenumeration of Hispanics could be taken into account, it would be clear that by 1990 there were almost as many Hispanics as non-Hispanic whites in Los Angeles County."⁴⁵ Authors Georges Sabagh and Mehdi Bozorgmehr also note that:

shifts in age structure and differences in fertility have also contributed powerfully to the region's changing ethnic mix. Latinos are now dominant among the region's children and adolescents, a development that reflects their fertility rates. By contrast, non-Hispanic whites make up the bulk of the elderly population. . . if we add Asians and African Americans to Latinos, ethnic minorities made up over 60 percent of youthful Angelenos [in 1990], compared with only 30 percent in 1970.⁴⁶

Similarly, Los Angeles' Asian American population changed considerably between 1970 and 1990, as the number of Asians increased spectacularly from around a quarter of a million to 1.3 million in 1990. In 1970 well over half of Asian Americans in Los Angeles were of Japanese ancestry. During the 1980s, however, the Japanese were the slowest growing group. Chinese were the fastest growing group, while the population of Filipinos, Vietnamese, Koreans, and Asian Indians more than doubled in the 1980s.⁴⁹ By 1990, 25.7 percent of the Asian or Pacific Islander population in Los Angeles County was Chinese, 23 percent Filipino, 15.2 percent Korean, 13.6 percent Japanese, 6.6 percent Vietnamese, and 4.6 percent was Asian Indian.⁵⁰

Immigration is not the only phenomenon driving significant demographic change in the Los Angeles area. According to demographer and sociologist, William Frey, and reporter, Jonathan Tilove, analysis of the 1990 U.S. census "dis-closes that some of America's largest metropolitan areas," including Los Angeles, are experiencing a definite trend in migration within the country best described as "a new, larger form of white flight."⁵¹ In the last half of the 1980s, in the Los Angeles, New York, Boston, Chicago, and Houston metropolitan areas, "for every 10 immigrants who arrived, 9 residents left for points elsewhere. And most of those leaving were non-Hispanic whites."⁵² In addition to this trend of "concentrated minority immigration and distinctly white dispersal," there is an ethnic pattern in migration within the United States. The number one destination for Asian Americans is Los Angeles; for Hispanic Americans it is Miami. Moreover, blacks, like whites, "are also leaving most of the high-immigration metropolitan areas, if not in the same numbers as whites, and their No. 1 destination is Atlanta."⁵³ Whites are not just fleeing the cities for the suburbs; they are leaving "entire metropolitan areas and states-whole regions-for whiter destinations." In California, this "disproportionately white exodus [is] mostly to neighboring states, which are among the whitest in the nation."⁵⁴

Language Diversity in
the Los Angeles Region

Significant immigration from Mexico, Asia, and Latin America has, in addition to diversifying the racial and ethnic makeup of the Los Angeles area, greatly increased the variety of languages spoken in Los Angeles. A further challenge facing the LAPD and LASD, therefore, is the ability to communicate effectively in a wide array of languages with crime victims, witnesses, suspects, and with immigrant populations in the community policing programs seen as central to accomplishment of law enforcement's mission to "serve and protect." As with ethnic transformation, Los Angeles' language diversity offers a glimpse of the challenges that will likely face law enforcement in many urban communities in the coming years. William Stonich, commander of the Professional Standards and Training Division of the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, testified that there are approximately 160 languages spoken in Los Angeles County.⁵⁵ The largest and most rapidly growing language groups in Los Angeles are also the fastest growing in the Nation. Spanish "stands alone in size, establishment, and institutionalization," followed by the rapidly expanding, but still comparatively small Asian language groups.⁵⁶ Table 1.1 illustrates the recent growth of Spanish and Asian languages, whose use in the Los Angeles area roughly doubled in a decade.⁵⁷

In the city of Los Angeles, census statistics indicate that 49.9 percent of the population report speaking a language other than English at home.⁵⁸ Approximately 17.5 percent of the city's population does not speak English well.⁵⁹ In Los Angeles County, 45.4 percent of the population speak a language other than English at home.⁶⁰ Table 1.2⁶¹ shows that this is a rate well above traditionally polyglot New York (29 percent), and over three times the national average (14 percent). Moreover, 25 percent do not speak English well in Los Angeles County, a rate that is nearly twice as high as New York's (13 percent). For the Greater Los Angeles region as a whole, 38 percent of the population speak a language other than English at home and 21 percent do not speak English well.

California, and Los Angeles in particular, not only have high rates of non-English language use, but also comprise a substantial portion of all the non-English speakers in the Nation. California has over one-quarter of the Nation's households in which a language other than English is heard; one-third of the Nation's Spanish speakers; and over a third of those who speak Asian languages.⁶²

In Los Angeles County, 69.4 percent of all those who speak a language other than English at home speak Spanish; 5.7 percent Chinese; 4.2 percent Tagalog; 3.4 percent Korean; 1.7 percent Japanese; 1.4 percent Vietnamese; 1.1 percentFrench or French Creole and 0.8 percent Arabic.⁶³ In the city of Los Angeles, 70.7 percent of the population that speaks a non-English language at home speaks Spanish; 4.1 percent Tagalog; 4.0 percent Korean; 3.6 percent Chinese; 1.5 percent Japanese; 1.3 percent French and 0.7 percent Arabic.⁶⁴ Publicly, Chinese is heard primarily in Chinatown, Korean in Koreatown, and Vietnamese in Little Saigon, but by and large Asian speakers are dispersed throughout Los Angeles. Spanish "is now the dominant language of the eastern half of downtown Los Angeles as well as East Los Angeles and the neighborhoods to the west, up to and including what is officially known as Koreatown."⁶⁵ The traditionally African American, South Central/Watts area is now about half Latino, immigrant and Spanish speaking. Virtually all census tracts in the settled parts of Los Angeles County consist of at least 10 percent of the population who speak a language other than English in the home.⁶⁶

The Census Bureau categorizes a household as "linguistically isolated" if no person over age 14 speaks only English and no person over 14 who speaks a language other than English speaks English "very well." In Los Angeles County 33.6 percent of Spanish-speaking households are linguistically isolated (8.7 percent of all households); 36.4 percent of Asian or Pacific Island language households are linguistically isolated (2.9 percent of all households); and 19.5 percent of all households speaking other languages are linguistically isolated (1.4 percent of all households).⁶⁷ In the city of Los Angeles, 40.5 percent of those who speak Spanish do not speak English well; 16.7 percent of those speaking other Indo-European languages do not speak English well; 27.3 percent of those who speak Asian or Pacific Island languages do not speak English well; and 8.5 percent of those speaking all other languages do not speak English well.⁶⁸ K. S. Park, general counsel for the community organization Korean Immigrant Workers Advocates, testified that in Los Angeles 85 percent of the Korean community is first generation and depends on Korean as the primary language.⁶⁹

The LAPD and the LASD thus face a significant challenge in communicating with the significant portion of city and county residents who do not speak English well, if at all. Research on intergenerational language maintenance and shift indicates that this challenging task would persist over two to three generations, even if there were no immigration from this point forward. For example, the Fishman model of language shift, based initially on the study of European immigrants, posits that:

adult immigrants continue to use their mother tongue in most domains, especially in the home. The ethnic mother tongue is therefore transmitted to the second generation, but these young people grow up using the socially dominant language in most public and private domains. . . .By the time they are adults, this second generation, including children who are ethnically endogamous, tend to shift to the dominant language in all domains, including the home, generally the last domain of ethnic language use. As a result, the third generation has little opportunity to learn the ethnic mother tongue, which becomes an aspect of symbolic ethnicity. . . rather than an active language.⁷⁰

In any case, immigration to the United States shows no signs of halting, and for the purposes of communicating with each new immigrant generation, if not the next generation as well, non-English language speaking ability or availability of translation services will be important to the LAPD and LASD. As David Lopez, associate professor of sociology at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) and chair of its Latin American Studies Program, has noted, "Spanish and other ethnic monolingualism is a characteristic of immigrants, not of entire ethnic communities."⁷³ Therefore, at the very least, to the degree that ethnic groups continue to have large numbers of immigrants among them, the need for language services will continue to increase for the foreseeable future.

Professor Lopez notes that there are, however, clear contrasts between Asian and Latino language patterns. Tables 1.3 and 1.4, taken together, show that immigrants of both groups speak their mother tongues in the home and usually do not attain proficiency in English. A significant minority of Asian immigrants, however, arrive in the United States and continue to function as bilinguals, unlike Latinos. Moreover, among Asians, the shift to monolingualism is nearly universal by the third generation, at which point only about 10 percent of Asians are bilingual. Among the Latino third generation, bilingualism is about four times more common than among Asians, although it is less common than English monolingualism.⁷⁴

Finally, from the data in Table 1.5 it is apparent that the differences in intergenerational language maintenance due to the presence of immigrants in households is substantial. For Mexican American youth, "by far the largest group in Los Angeles,"⁷⁵ only 20 percent in households with no immigrants reported speaking Spanish at home, as opposed to 61 percent in households with one immigrant, and 96 percent in households with two or more immigrants present.

The national origin differences in Table 1.5 support and refine the conclusions drawn from Tables 1.3 and 1.4. Immigrant households (those with two or more immigrants present) overwhelmingly continue to use their ethnic primary language, and their children speak that language at home. Only Filipinos who arrive in the United States largely bilingual have a substantially lower rate of mother-tongue use by their children at home. Among entirely native-born, ethnic households, there is further evidence of a broad Spanish/Asian language difference. Spanish language maintenance is moderately, but distinctly, greater (20 percent) than Asian language maintenance (5-12 percent). The primary conclusion to be drawn from Table 1.5, however, is that the presence of immigrants in the household per se, not generation, is the most powerful predictor of language maintenance and shift.⁷⁶ The future of Asian languages in Los Angeles is thus "totally a function of immigration patterns." Spanish is more secure for two reasons, according to Professor Lopez. It is more tenacious intergenerationally, and large-scale immigration of Spanish-speaking persons is less likely to decline, if only because of the proximity of Los Angeles to Mexico.⁷⁷

Section II: Topical Summary

The changing demographics of Los Angeles pose significant challenges to local law enforcement and highlight the need for diversification and development of cultural awareness, language and other training to improve communication. Testimony before the Commission at its September 1996 hearing focused on the extent to which the LAPD and the LASD have been able to address the previously-noted problems within their departments, and the steps they have taken to serve the diverse population. Chapter 2 of this report assesses the degree to which the Christopher Commission recommendations and other reforms have been implemented by the LAPD and any obstacles impeding or preventing reform efforts. Chapter 3 evaluates the LAPD's progress in addressing allegations of racism and gender bias within the department. Chapter 4 appraises the LASD's progress in implementing the Kolts Commission's recommendations and other reforms, as well as obstacles to future reform of that department. Chapter 5 examines the relationship of local law enforcement with Los Angeles' large immigrant communities. Chapter 6 considers the role of the Federal Government in curbing the use of excessive force by local law enforcement officials through the U.S. Department of Justice's new and expanded authority to seek civil injunctive relief against local law enforcement agencies engaging in a pattern or practice of civil rights violations. The final chapter contains the Commission's findings and recommendations.

¹ Independent Commission on the Los Angeles Police Department, Report of the Independent Commission on the Los Angeles Police Department (Los Angeles, 1991), p. ii (hereafter cited as Christopher Commission Report).

² James G. Kolts & Staff, The Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department: A Report by Special Counsel James G. Kolts & Staff (Los Angeles, 1992), p. 1 (hereafter cited as Kolts Commission Report).

³ Christopher Commission Report, p. vii-xxiii.

⁴ Kolts Commission Report, p. 4.

⁵ Jim Newton, "LAPD Reforms Fall Far Short, Study Charges," Los Angeles Times, May 31, 1996, p. A-1.

⁶ Jim Newton, "Success of Reforms Varies at LAPD, Sheriff's Department," Los Angeles Times, Mar. 10, 1996, p. A-1.

⁷ Fox Butterfield, "Behind the Badge: A Special Report," New York Times, Mar. 2, 1996, p. A-1.

⁸ Hugo Martin, "Panel Proposed to Help LAPD Identify Racist Recruits," Los Angeles Times, Nov. 9, 1995, p. B-10; Bill Boyarsky, "The O.J. Simpson Murder Trial: Warnings of Unrest Bring Angry Reaction," Los Angeles Times, Sept. 13, 1995, p. A-20; Frank del Olmo, "A Postscript, (No) Thanks to Fuhrman," Los Angeles Times, Sept. 4, 1995, p. B-5.

⁹ Jim Newton, "Audiotape of Beating Sparks New Inquiry," Los Angeles Times, Apr. 10, 1996, p. A-3.

¹⁰ Pierre Thomas, "Police Brutality: An Issue Rekindled," The Washington Post, Dec. 6, 1995, p. A-1.

¹¹ Abigail Goldman, Eric Malnic, and Henry Weinstein, "Beatings Spur U.S. Investigation and a National Debate," Los Angeles Times, Apr. 3, 1996, p. A-1.

¹² Tony Perry, Josh Meyer, and Henry Weinstein, "7 Die as Truck Evading Border Agents Crashes," Los Angeles Times, Apr. 7, 1996, p. A-1; Tony Perry, "2 Killed as Van, Border Patrol Vehicle Collide," Los Angeles Times, Apr. 27, 1996, p. A-1.

¹³ "L.A. Chooses Sides: Cops vs. Aliens," U.S. News & World Report, Apr. 15, 1996, p. 10; Tom Gorman, "Don't Condemn, Gates Tells Rally for Deputies," Los Angeles Times, Apr. 16, 1996, p. A-1.

¹⁴ Roger Waldinger and Mehdi Bozorgmehr, "The Making of a Multicultural Metropolis," in Ethnic Los Angeles, eds. Roger Waldinger and Mehdi Bozorgmehr (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1996), p. 4 (hereafter cited as Waldinger and Bozorgmehr, "Multicultural Metropolis").

¹⁵ Vilma Ortiz, "The Mexican-Origin Population: Permanent Working Class or Emerging Middle Class?" in Ethnic Los Angeles, eds. Roger Waldinger and Mehdi Bozorgmehr (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1996), p. 250.

¹⁶ Waldinger and Bozorgmehr, "Multicultural Metropolis," p. 8.

¹⁷ The Los Angeles region consists of Los Angeles County, Ventura County, Orange County, and parts of San Bernadino and Riverside Counties. This area makes up the Census Bureau's Los Angeles Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area (CMSA). Ibid., pp. 5 & n.2, 6.

¹⁸ Georges Sabagh and Mehdi Bozorgmehr, "Population Change: Immigration and Ethnic Transformation," in Ethnic Los Angeles, eds. Roger Waldinger and Mehdi Bozorgmehr (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1996), p. 82, Table 3.1 "Growth of Los Angeles and Other Major Metropolitan Areas, 1960-1990" (citing data from the U.S. Bureau of the Census) (hereafter cited as Sabagh and Bozorgmehr, "Immigration and Ethnic Transformation"). The Los Angeles Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area (PMSA) consists of Los Angeles County. Ibid.

¹⁹ U.S. Bureau of the Census, USA Counties 1994: Los Angeles: General Profile .

²⁰ U.S. Bureau of the Census, Table 3, Cities With 200,000 or More Population Ranked , "Population Growth Rate 1980-1992."

²¹ Sabagh and Bozorgmehr, "Immigration and Ethnic Transformation," p. 83 (citing U.S. Bureau of the Census, Estimates of the Resident Population of States and Counties and Percent Change 4/1/90 to 7/94 (Press release CB94-204, issued 1/18/95)).

²² Sabagh and Bozorgmehr, "Immigration and Ethnic Transformation, pp. 83, 102.

²³ Waldinger and Bozorgmehr, "Multicultural Metropolis," p. 14; 1990 U.S. Census Data: Database C90STF3A, Los Angeles County , Table, "Place of Birth" (hereafter cited as 1990 U.S. Census Data, Los Angeles County).

²⁴ Scott Minerbrook and Jim Impoco, "A Trial of Two Cities," U.S. News & World Report, May 29, 1995, p. 29 (hereafter cited as Minerbrook and Impoco, "Two Cities").

²⁵ U.S. Bureau of the Census, The Foreign-Born Population: 1994 (summary of report P20-486 available from the Census Bureau's Population Division). After California's 7.7 million foreign-born residents, New York ranks second with 2.9 million and Florida third with 2.1 million. Three other States have over 1 million foreign-born residents: Texas, Illinois, and New Jersey. Ibid.

²⁶ Sabagh and Bozorgmehr, "Immigration and Ethnic Transformation," pp. 86, 105 n.16 (citing U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 1992 Statistical Yearbook (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1993), p. 64)). These figures include both adjustments to permanent residence and admissions in fiscal year 1992.

²⁷ Ibid., p. 86.

²⁸ Waldinger and Bozorgmehr, "Multicultural Metropolis," p. 14.

²⁹ Pub. L. No. 99-603, 100 Stat. 3359 (codified in scattered sections of 7, 8, 20, 29, & 42 U.S.C.).

³⁰ Sabagh and Bozorgmehr, "Immigration and Ethnic Transformation," p. 86 (citing U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 1990 Statistical Yearbook (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1991), p. 95).

³¹ Waldinger and Bozorgmehr, "Multicultural Metropolis," p. 14.

³² Sabagh and Bozorgmehr, "Immigration and Ethnic Transformation," p. 86 (citing Manuel Moreno et. al, Impact of Undocumented Persons and Other Immigrants on Costs, Revenues and Services in Los Angeles County (Unpublished Report, Los Angeles County Urban Research Section, 1992), p. 25)). Estimates of the number of undocumented immigrants in the U.S. have varied widely, ranging from 2 to 12 million. Demographers have recently, however, devised a methodology for "counting the uncountable," which has produced estimates on which most immigration researchers can agree. This methodology estimates an undocumented population of 2 to 4 million in the U.S. as of 1980, of whom over half had come from Mexico. Waldinger and Bozorgmehr, "Multicultural Metropolis," p. 11 (citing Robert Warren and Jeffrey Passel, "A Count of the Uncountable: Estimates of Undocumented Aliens Counted in the 1980 United States Census," Demography, vol. 24 (1987), pp. 375-93).

³³ Immigration and Nationality Act Amendments of 1965, Pub. L. No. 89-236, 79 Stat. 911 (codified as amended in scattered sections of 8 U.S.C.).

³⁴ Waldinger and Bozorgmehr, "Multicultural Metropolis," p. 9. See generally, David Reimers, Still the Golden Door: The Third World Comes to America (New York: Columbia University Press, 1985).

³⁵ Waldinger and Bozorgmehr, "Multicultural Metropolis," p. 22.

³⁶ 1990 U.S. Census Data, Los Angeles County, Table "Year of Entry."

³⁷ Waldinger and Bozorgmehr, "Multicultural Metropolis," p. 11 (citing Robert Warren and Jeffrey Passel, "A Count of the Uncountable: Estimates of Undocumented Aliens Counted in the 1980 United States Census," Demography, vol. 24 (1987), pp. 375-93).

³⁸ Sabagh and Bozorgmehr, "Immigration and Ethnic Transformation," p. 86.

³⁹ David Rieff, Los Angeles: Capital of the Third World (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1991).

⁴⁰ The U.S. Bureau of the Census uses the term Hispanic to describe those who classified themselves as "Mexican," "Puerto Rican" or "Cuban" on the census questionnaire, as well as those who indicated that they were of "other Spanish/Hispanic" origin. These are "those whose origins are from Spain, the Spanish-speaking countries of Central America or South America, or the Dominican Republic, or. . . persons identifying themselves generally as Spanish, Spanish-American, Hispanic, Hispano, Latino, and so on." U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1990 Census of Population: General Population Characteristics, California (1990 CP-1-6) (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1992), Appendix B, Definitions of Subject Characteristics, p. B-7. In California, however, Latino is preferred and "the word Hispanic has been barred from the Los Angeles Times, in keeping with the strong feelings of people in that community." Earl Shorris, Latinos: A Biography of the People (Avon Books: New York, 1992), pp. xvi-xvii (italicization in original). In part, this might be because Latino/Latina is Spanish and has gender, whereas Hispanic is an English word meaning "pertaining to ancient Spain." Ibid. When discussing census statistics regarding ethnicity, the term "Hispanic" will be used. In other instances, "Latino" or "Latina" will be utilized, in deference to the preference of the people of the Los Angeles region. In using these terms interchangeably in this report, no difference in meaning is implied.

⁴¹ U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1990 Census of Population: General Population Characteristics, California (1990 CP-1-6) (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1992), Table 6, Race and Hispanic Origin, p. 76; Minerbrook and Impoco, "Two Cities," p. 29. The data reported for all the racial classifications-white, black, American Indian, Asian or Pacific Islander, and "other race"-exclude those who designated themselves as of Hispanic origin. Without this adjustment, statistics by race alone are misleading. A rule known as Statistical Directive 15, adopted by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in 1978, defines race and ethnicity as two different demographic characteristics, classifies Hispanic origin as an ethnic category, and requires Federal agencies like the Census Bureau to fit all of their racial data into the four categories white, black, American Indian, Eskimo, or Aleut, and Asian or Pacific Islander. Latinos or Hispanics are thus not allowed to choose "Hispanic" as a race. Many Hispanics designate white or black on this question, but a small number also pick American Indian or Asian. A significant number of Hispanics, however, do not consider themselves as either black, white, or any other race listed, and thus choose "other race." In 1990 about 10 million people in the U.S. chose this option and 98 percent of these people claimed Hispanic origin on the ethnicity question. In other words, over 40 percent of the Nation's 22 million Hispanics are not willing to identify themselves as either black or white. For an extensive discussion of this phenomenon, see Gabrielle Sandor, "The 'Other' Americans," American Demographics, June 1994, p. 36; Monica Rhor, "Are Hispanics a Race?" Hispanic Outlook, Jan. 5, 1996, p. 12. The Federal Government is considering altering Statistical Directive No. 15. See Interim Notice of Review and Possible Revision of OMB's Statistical Policy Directive No. 15, 60 Fed. Reg. 44674 (1995).

⁴² 1990 U.S. Census Data, Los Angeles County, Table "Hispanic Origin By Race."

⁴³ See Dale Maharidge, The Coming White Minority: California's Eruptions and the Nation's Future (New York: Random House, Inc., 1996) for an account of how four California citizens-white, Latino, African American, and Asian-responded to the seismic shifts in population that have occurred and will intensify in the coming years, as well as a discussion of the significant public policy issues raised by the public's reaction to substantial population change.

⁴⁴ Sabagh and Bozorgmehr, "Immigration and Ethnic Transformation," pp. 87-89.

⁴⁵ Ibid., p. 87. Sabagh and Bozorgmehr note that the estimated undercount of Hispanics in the United States ranges from a 1.9 percent undercount for whites to 7.7 percent for blacks. Ibid., p. 106 n.21 (citing Frank Bean and Marta Tienda, The Hispanic Population of the United States (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1987), p. 58).

⁴⁶ Sabagh and Bozorgmehr, "Immigration and Ethnic Transformation," p. 97.

⁴⁷ Ibid., pp. 88-89.

⁴⁸ 1990 U.S. Census Data, Los Angeles County, Table "Hispanic Origin."

⁴⁹ Sabagh and Bozorgmehr, "Immigration and Ethnic Transformation," p. 89.

⁵⁰ 1990 U.S. Census Data, Los Angeles County, Table "Asian or Pacific Islander." Pacific Islanders are present in Los Angeles County but constitute a very small percentage of the Asian or Pacific Islander population: Samoan 1.3 percent; Hawaiian 0.8 percent; Guamanian 0.6 percent; Tongan 0.2 percent. Ibid.

⁵¹ William H. Frey and Jonathan Tilove, "Immigrants In, Native Whites Out," New York Times, Aug. 20, 1995, Sec. 6, p. 44 (hereafter cited as Frey and Tilove, "Immigrants In, Native Whites Out").

⁵² Ibid.

⁵³ Ibid.

⁵⁴ Ibid.

⁵⁵ Commander William T. Stonich, Professional Standards and Training Division, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, testimony, Racial and Ethnic Tensions in American Communities: Poverty, Inequality and Discrimination, Hearing Before the U.S Commission on Civil Rights, Los Angeles, CA, Sept. 12-13, 1996, vol. 2, p. 261 (hereafter cited as L.A. Hearing).

⁵⁶ David E. Lopez, "Language Diversity and Assimilation," in Ethnic Los Angeles, eds., Roger Waldinger and Mehdi Bozorgmehr (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1996), p. 159 (hereafter cited as Lopez, "Language Diversity").

⁵⁷ Lopez, "Language Diversity," p. 142 (citing U.S. Department of Commerce, 1990 U.S. Census of Population, Social and Economic Characteristics (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1990), p. 266).

⁵⁸ U.S. Bureau of the Census, Table 3, Cities With 200,000 or More Population Ranked , "Percent of Persons Speaking Language Other Than English at Home, 1990." Los Angeles had the fourth highest percentage of people speaking a language other than English at home among cities with 200,000 population or more, trailing only Miami, FL, with 73.3 percent, Santa Ana, CA, with 69.2 percent, and El Paso, TX, with 66.7 percent. Ibid.

⁵⁹ U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1990 Census of Population: Social and Economic Characteristics, California (1990 CP-2-6) (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1992), Table 167, "Language Spoken at Home," p. 856. This class consists of those who report that they speak English "not at all" or "not well." The other two allowable responses for persons speaking a non-English language at home are that they speak English "very well" or "well."

⁶⁰ 1990 U.S. Census Data, Los Angeles County, Table "Language Spoken At Home."

⁶¹ Lopez, "Language Diversity," p. 141 (citing U.S. Department of Commerce, 1990 U.S. Census of Population, Social and Economic Characteristics (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1990), p. 266).

⁶² Ibid.

⁶³ 1990 U.S. Census Data, Los Angeles County, Table "Language Spoken at Home."

⁶⁴ U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1990 Census of Population: Social and Economic Characteristics, California (1990 CP-2-6) (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1992), Table 167, "Language Spoken At Home," p. 856.

⁶⁵ Lopez, "Language Diversity," pp. 142-44.

⁶⁶ Ibid.

⁶⁷ 1990 U.S. Census Data, Los Angeles County, Table "Household Language And Linguistic Isolation."

⁶⁸ U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1990 Census of Population: Social and Economic Characteristics, California (1990 CP-2-6) (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1992), Table 167, "Language Spoken At Home By Ability To Speak English," p. 856.

⁶⁹ K.S. Park, General Counsel, Korean Immigrant Workers Advocates, testimony, L.A. Hearing, vol. 2, p. 220.

⁷⁰ Lopez, "Language Diversity," p. 146 (citing Joshua Fishman, "The Status and Prospects of Bilingualism in the United States." Modern Language Journal, vol. 49 (1965), pp. 143-55; Joshua Fishman, The Sociology of Language (Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 1972)).

⁷¹ Lopez, "Language Diversity," p. 146 (citing David E. Lopez, "Chicano Language Loyalty in an Urban Setting," Sociology and Social Research, vol. 62 (1978), pp. 267-68; David E. Lopez, Language Maintenance and Shift in the United States Today: The Basic Patterns and Their Implications (Los Alamitos, CA: National Center for Bilingual Research, 1982); Calvin Veltman, Language Shift in the United States (The Hague: Mouton Publishers, 1983)).

⁷² Steven I. Locke, Language Discrimination And English-Only Rules in the Workplace: The Case For Legislative Amendment of Title VII, 27 Tex. Tech L. Rev. 33, 45-46 (1996) (quoting Scott Koslow et. al., Exploring Language Effects In Ethnic Advertising: A Sociolinguistic Perspective, 20 J. Consumer Res. 575, 575 (1994)).

⁷³ Lopez, "Language Diversity," p. 139.

⁷⁴ Ibid., p. 152.

⁷⁵ Ibid., p. 153.

⁷⁶ Ibid.

⁷⁷ Ibid., p. 160.