How We Calculate Risk Exposure
Full documentation of the data sources, classification methodology, and time window used to generate all figures on this platform.
Risk Classification Formula
// Exposure Score per Officer
ExposureScore = Σ(SettlementAmount) / TotalCityExposure × 100
// Daily Accrual Rate (City)
DailyRate = TotalExposure / (YearsInDataset × 365)
// National Daily Rate
NationalDailyRate = Σ(AllCityExposure) / (10 × 365)
// Concentration Index
ConcentrationPct = Σ(Top13%OfficerExposure) / TotalExposure × 100
All formulas operate on settlement amounts as documented in official public records. No adjustments, weightings, or editorial modifications are applied. The output is a mathematical representation of documented financial exposure.
Time Window
The 10-year average is used for daily accrual rate calculations to smooth year-over-year variance caused by large single-incident settlements. Individual city windows may be shorter where consent decree data availability is limited.
Source Types
| Source Type | Authority | Data Elements |
|---|---|---|
| Municipal Open Data Portals | City Government | Settlement amounts, case numbers, dates |
| Federal Court Dockets (PACER) | Federal Judiciary | Named officers, case outcomes, amounts |
| Consent Decree Monitor Reports | DOJ / Federal Courts | Compliance status, incident patterns |
| City Budget Documents | Municipal Finance Offices | Aggregate settlement line items |
| FOIA Responses | Law Enforcement Agencies | Officer complaint records, incident reports |
| State Court Records | State Judiciary | Civil settlements, named defendants |
Known Limitations
Incomplete name records: A portion of settlement records in source documents do not include officer names. These records are included in city-level totals but excluded from individual officer exposure calculations.
Settlement vs. judgment: This dataset captures settlement amounts, not jury verdicts. Settlements do not constitute admissions of liability by any party.
Data lag: Settlement records may take 6–18 months to appear in public records after a case resolves. Figures should be considered conservative estimates of total exposure.
Jurisdictional scope: Current dataset covers 9 consent decree cities and 1 baseline comparison jurisdiction (Indianapolis, IN). Jurisdictions without federal oversight may have significant unreported exposure.
Baseline Comparison: Non–Consent Decree Cities
Why Indianapolis is in the dataset
Nine of the ten cities in the PoliceRiskIndex dataset are under active or completed federal or state consent decrees. Indianapolis (IMPD) is the exception — it is included as a baseline comparison jurisdiction, meaning a city with documented settlement exposure but no federal oversight mandate.
The purpose of including a non-consent-decree city is methodological: it allows the dataset to test whether the concentration patterns observed in consent decree cities are artifacts of the oversight environment, or whether they reflect a more general structural pattern in municipal police liability.
The Indianapolis data shows that 51.2% of tracked settlement exposure is attributable to a concentrated group of named officers — consistent with the 76.5% average observed across active consent decree cities. This pattern appears independent of federal oversight status.
Note: PoliceRiskIndex does not draw causal or predictive conclusions from this comparison. The presence of similar concentration patterns does not imply that Indianapolis will enter a consent decree, nor does it constitute a finding of misconduct. All data is reproduced from official public records.
Data Correction Policy
Parties who believe a record has been inaccurately reproduced from its source document may submit a correction request with supporting documentation. Requests must include the specific record in question and a link to the official source document demonstrating the discrepancy.
Correction requests: [email protected]