Oklahoma Victims Compensation Program Disproportionately Denies Funds for Black Victims
Tiras Johnson, age 23, was unarmed when he was shot and killed in Tulsa, Oklahoma. His family was devastated by his death, and they were struggling to pay for Tiras’ funeral. Like many victims’ families, Tiras’ mother applied for financial compensation through the Oklahoma Crime Victims Compensation Act in order to cover his funeral costs, but instead received a surprising response in the mail.
The letter, addressed to Tiras’ mother, Netarsha, explained that her claim was ineligible for funds because of implied contributory conduct -- that is, that the incident “appeared to be gang-related” and “[Tiras] exercised poor judgment by choosing to be a gang member.” All compensation was denied. “We extend our condolences for the loss of your loved one,” it read.
Tiras wasn’t a gang member, for the record, but of far greater importance is that he played no contributory role in his own death. As it turns out, he would be one of many Black victims often denied compensation for the very same crimes as committed against white victims, who did receive compensation.
The Oklahoma Crime Victims Compensation Act is intended to fairly compensate victims, or their surviving families, for expenses incurred “” Eligibility requirements for receiving funds include the existence of sufficient evidence that the compensation wouldn’t benefit the offender (e.g., in a domestic violence case), that the crime was reported within a specified amount of time, and that the victim was not complicit in the crime (which includes the arbitrary rule that one must not be associated with a gang). The fund is managed by the District Attorneys Council, and claims are approved or denied in each District Attorney’s office. Unfortunately, there is evidence to suggest that these eligibility requirements are not applied equally to Black and white victims and their families.
The ACLU Analytics team analyzed data from the District Attorneys Counsel, which oversees the program, to understand if our suspicions about disparate compensation were true. The data included information about the demographics (including race), crime, claims, and claim results of each victim that applied for compensation between late 2008 and early 2019. Sadly, the results were even worse than we expected.
Controlling for type of crime, crime location, and amount of monetary compensation requested, Black victims were 1.6 times more likely to be denied funds entirely than white victims. Further, Black male victims were almost 2 times more likely than white female victims to be denied monetary compensation.
Black Victims of Same Crimes Denied Funds More Often
Denial rates for Black and white victims for each crime category
SHOOTING W/ INTENT TO KILL
CHILD ABUSE
HOMICIDE
44% of Black victims of
homicide were denied funds
compared to 29% of white
victims of homicide
22 pps
17 pps
Denied 15 pct.
74%
points more
63%
52%
46%
44%
29%
OTHER
SEXUAL ASSAULT
ASSAULT
3 pps
12 pps
9 pps
65%
63%
62%
56%
51%
47%
Black Victims
White Victims
Black
White
Black
White
Notes: Crimes with “pending,” “continued,” “rescind” or “withdrawn” statuses were eliminated from analysis.
25 offense types were grouped into 6 crime categories in this graph.
Black Victims of Same Crimes Denied
Funds More Often
Denial rates for Black and white victims of each crime
SHOOTING - INTENT TO KILL
CHILD ABUSE
HOMICIDE
44% of Black victims of
homicide were denied
funds compared to 29% of
white victims of homicide
22 pps
17 pps
Denied 15 pct,
74%
points more
63%
52%
46%
44%
29%
OTHER
SEXUAL ASSAULT
ASSAULT
3 pps
12 pps
9 pps
65%
63%
62%
56%
51%
47%
Black
Victims
White
Victims
Black
White
Black
White
Notes: Crimes with “pending,” “continued,” “rescind” or “withdrawn”
statuses were eliminated from analysis. 25 offense types were grouped
into 6 crime categories in this graph.
Black Victims of Same Crimes
Denied Funds More Often
Denial rates for Black and white victims
of each crime category
SHOOTING - INTENT TO KILL
HOMICIDE
44% of Black victims of
homicide were denied
funds compared to 29%
of white victims of homicide
17 pps
Denied 15 pct.
points more
63%
46%
44%
29%
Black
Victims
White
Victims
White
Black
SEXUAL ASSAULT
ASSAULT
12 pps
9 pps
63%
56%
51%
47%
Black
White
Black
White
CHILD ABUSE
OTHER
3 pps
22 pps
74%
65%
62%
52%
Black
White
Black
White
Notes: Crimes with “pending,” “continued,” “rescind” or
“withdrawn” statuses were eliminated from analysis. 25 offense
types were grouped into 6 crime categories in this graph.
<!--*/
*/
/*-->*/
Black people were disproportionately victims of serious crimes, but especially unlikely to receive compensation. Of just over 2,300 Black victims represented in the dataset with “denied” or “awarded” judgments, over 42% were victims of homicide or shootings with intent to kill. This is compared to just 17% of the nearly 7,250 white victims that requested compensation. Black people were being shot and killed at almost 2.5X the rate of white people, yet being denied compensatory funds more often for their deaths and suffering.
Black People Denied Funds More Often Despite Being 2.5x
More Likely to be Victims of Homicide or Shooting
Percentage of victims of homicides and shootings that were granted or denied
funds by the Oklahoma Victims Fund
50% denied funds
32% denied funds
17%
42%
Black Victims
White Victims
Homicide/Shooting
Other Crime
Notes: Crimes with “pending,” “continued,” “rescind” or “withdrawn” statuses were eliminated from analysis. The category
“homicide/shooting” is made up of any crimes that contained “shooting with intent to kill,” or “homicide” in their descriptions.
Black People Denied Funds More Often
Despite Being 2.5x More Likely to be
Victims of Homicide or Shooting
Percentage of victims of homicides and shootings that
were granted or denied funds by the Oklahoma Victims
Fund
50% denied funds
32% denied funds
17%
42%
Black Victims
White Victims
Homicide/Shooting
Other Crime
Notes: Crimes with “pending,” “continued,” “rescind” or “withdrawn” statuses
were eliminated from analysis. The category “homicide/shooting” is made up of
any crimes that contained “shooting with intent to kill,” or “homicide” in
their descriptions.
Black People Denied Funds
More Often Despite Being 2.5x
More Likely to be Victims of
Homicide or Shooting
Percentage of victims of homicides and
shootings that were granted or denied
funds by the Oklahoma Victims Fund
50% denied funds
32% denied funds
17%
42%
Black Victims
White Victims
Homicide/Shooting
Other Crime
Notes: Crimes with “pending,” “continued,” “rescind” or “withdrawn”
statuses were eliminated from analysis. The category
“homicide/shooting” is made up of any crimes that contained
“shooting with intent to kill,” or “homicide” in their descriptions.
<!--*/
*/
/*-->*/
When looking into reasons why victims were denied funds, Black men, like Tiras, were denied because of “contributory conduct” 43% of the time compared to 31% of white men and 8% of white female victims. More often than not, the people denied funds due to their potential contribution to the crime were victims of homicides or shootings with intent to kill. In fact, when limiting analyses to only these crime types and controlling for other crime factors, Black victims were 1.6 times more likely than white victims to be denied funding due to “contributory conduct,” and male victims of any racial or ethnic background were 4.5 times more likely than female victims to be denied for this reason.
Denial Due to Accused Participation in Crime
Male victims (especially Black male victims) were denied funds due to “contributory
conduct” more often than female victims
50% of denials
43% of denials of funds for
Black men were because of
perceived participation in crime.
40%
30%
20%
Black women were
denied due to “contributory
conduct” almost 2x as often
as white women.
10%
0%
Black
White
Hisp.
Nat. Am.
Other
Black
White
Hisp.
Nat. Am.
Other
Male Victims
Female Victims
Notes: Due to small sample sizes, the racial category “Other” consists of Asian/Asian Pacific Islanders, multiple
races, Native Hawaiians and “Other.”
Denial Due to Accused Participation
in Crime
Male victims (especially Black male victims) were
denied funds due to “contributory conduct” more
often than female victims
50% of denials
43% of denials of funds for
Black men were because of
perceived participation in crime.
40%
30%
Black women were denied
due to “contributory
conduct” almost 2x as often
as white women.
20%
10%
0%
Black
White
Hisp.
Nat. Am.
Other
Black
White
Hisp.
Nat. Am.
Other
Male Victims
Female Victims
Notes: Due to small sample sizes, the racial category “Other” consists of
Asian/Asian Pacific Islanders, multiple races, Native Hawaiians and “Other.”
Denial Due to Accused
Participation in Crime
Male victims (especially Black male
victims) were denied funds due to
“contributory conduct” more often than
female victims
50% of denials
43% of denials of funds
for Black men were
because of perceived
participation in crime.
40%
30%
Black women were
denied due to
“contributory conduct”
almost 2x as often as
white women.
20%
10%
0%
Black
White
Hisp.
Nat. Am.
Other
Black
White
Hisp.
Nat. Am.
Other
Male Victims
Female Victims
Notes: Due to small sample sizes, the racial category “Other”
consists of Asian/Asian Pacific Islanders, multiple races, Native
Hawaiians and “Other.”
<!--*/
*/
/*-->*/
Victim’s Funds should continue to exist and provide compensation to suffering victims and families, but should take a close look at biases and resulting disparate treatment. To begin, it appears the Council is operating under the assumption that if a person is in any way associated with a gang or even speaks about a gang, they are 100% responsible for their own murder, as was the case with Tiras. At the least, this assumption reflects a blame-the-victim mentality that is not reflected in other contexts. Second, we urge the District Attorneys Council to go back and examine the reasons why contributory negligence is cited at far greater levels for Black people than for white people. District Attorneys should be representing the entire county and the Victims Compensation Fund should be available for all victims in Oklahoma.
<!--*/
*/
/*-->*/
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Racial Justice
ACLU Statement on House AI Task Force ReportACLU Statement on House AI Task Force Report
WASHINGTON — Today, the House Task Force on Artificial Intelligence (AI) issued its final report, marking an important step in recognizing the serious risks of discrimination and bias posed by AI systems — particularly in law enforcement’s use of facial recognition technology. The report recognizes that discrimination and bias may arise in AI systems due to their design, training data, or failures by end users. The report also investigates the complex considerations around deepfakes, open AI systems, and free speech, and urges Congress to pass narrow legislation to address concrete harms. In response to the House AI Task Force final report, Cody Venzke, senior policy counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union, issued the following statement: “The ACLU commends the Task Force for recognizing that AI systems are harming people right now through discriminatory outcomes and supercharged surveillance. Curbing those abuses of AI is not a partisan issue, and more concrete action is needed to protect civil rights, while maintaining states’ authority to build on those protections. The Task Force is appropriately cautious when wrestling with issues around deepfakes, open-source AI, digital identity, and other issues, recognizing that legislators should consider a wide array of tailored tools to address real, not speculative, harms while respecting civil rights and civil liberties.” The House Task Force on Artificial Intelligence report can be found here. -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Racial Justice
Human Rights
Why the Fight for Racial Justice is a Human Rights IssueWhy the Fight for Racial Justice is a Human Rights Issue
On International Human Rights Day, the ACLU is advocating for a long-sought after reparatory justice to end the continued abuses against Black and brown communities. -
Press ReleaseOct 2024
National Security
+2 Issues
ACLU Warns that Biden-Harris Administration Rules on AI in National Security Lack Key ProtectionsACLU Warns that Biden-Harris Administration Rules on AI in National Security Lack Key Protections
WASHINGTON — The Biden-Harris administration today released its National Security Memorandum on Artificial Intelligence (AI), establishing guidelines for how the U.S. government uses AI in national security programs, such as counterterrorism, intelligence, homeland security, and defense. The use of AI to automate and expand national security activities poses some of the greatest dangers to people’s lives and civil liberties. Agencies are increasingly exploring the use of AI in decisions about who to surveil, who to stop and search at the airport, who to add to government watchlists, and even who is a military target. While the government’s policy includes some important steps forward — such as requiring national security agencies to better track and assess their AI systems for risks and prohibiting a subset of dangerous AI uses — it falls far short in other critical areas, leaving glaring gaps with respect to independent oversight, transparency, notice, and redress. The policy imposes few substantive safeguards on a wide range of AI-driven activities, by and large allowing agencies to decide for themselves how to mitigate the risks posed by national security systems that have immense consequences for people’s lives and rights. As we have repeatedly seen before, this is a recipe for dangerous technologies to proliferate in secret. “Despite acknowledging the considerable risks of AI, this policy does not go nearly far enough to protect us from dangerous and unaccountable AI systems. National security agencies must not be left to police themselves as they increasingly subject people in the United States to powerful new technologies,” said Patrick Toomey, deputy director of ACLU’s National Security Project. “If developing national security AI systems is an urgent priority for the country, then adopting critical rights and privacy safeguards is just as urgent. Without transparency, independent oversight, and built-in mechanisms for individuals to obtain accountability when AI systems err or fail, the policy’s safeguards are inadequate and place our civil rights and civil liberties at risk.” For years, the American Civil Liberties Union has been urging far stronger safeguards and transparency about the AI tools that national security agencies are deploying, the rules constraining their use, and the dangers these systems pose to fairness, privacy, and due process. -
Press ReleaseOct 2024
Racial Justice
ACLU Comment on the Department of Labor’s AI Guidelines for Employers and VendorsACLU Comment on the Department of Labor’s AI Guidelines for Employers and Vendors
WASHINGTON — Yesterday, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) released a roadmap for artificial intelligence (AI) best practices, designed to ensure that emerging technologies such as AI enhance job quality, benefit workers, and comply with existing employment laws when they are used in the workplace. The best practices, pursuant to President Biden’s executive order on the development and use of AI, include recommendations for AI system developers and employers that prioritize workers’ experiences and empowerment throughout the entire AI lifecycle – from design to use and oversight. These practices also call on employers and developers to create standards and processes to identify and mitigate risks from AI systems, such as threats to health and safety, civil rights, privacy, fair labor rights, and labor organizing prior to a developer marketing them or an employer deploying them, and recommend turning to different systems when sufficient mitigation is not possible. “We applaud DOL for issuing best practices for use of AI that center workers’ empowerment, civil rights, privacy, and safety protections and call on developers and employers to adopt critical guardrails in developing, procuring and using AI systems. Employers and developers should take note, as many have been burying their heads in the sand on their risk of legal liability with respect to AI tools,” said Olga Akselrod, senior staff attorney of the ACLU Racial Justice Program. “Following these best practices for AI can help employers and developers ensure that they do not violate existing civil rights and other employment laws that protect workers.” The best practices also recommend transparency measures through conducting and publishing impact assessments, notice and recourse for impacted workers, and measures to minimize worker displacement. The DOL also stated that employers should minimize electronic monitoring and avoid unnecessary collection or retention of worker data.