Report card
Westfield Police Department
Grade C: Middle fifth of peers
On reported IA volume and discipline severity; see methodology
- Peer group
- Municipal police, 1-14 officers (361 agencies)
- Combined standing
- 57th percentile of peers
- Confidence
- Medium confidence
- small agency; per-officer rates swing widely on a handful of cases
How the grade is built
Three components, each a percentile within the peer group (higher = more reported volume or severity). The combined standing is their weighted mean, re-ranked among peers; the grade is the fifth of the peer group it lands in. Weights are an editorial choice, published on the methodology page.
IA volumeweight 40%
120.8 investigations per 100 officers (multi-year mean)
Internal affairs investigations per 100 reported officers, averaged over the years where the agency reported both figures.
Discipline severityweight 40%
47.1 severity-weighted discipline per 100 officers, 2020-2025
Major discipline records weighted by sanction (termination 4, demotion 3, suspension 2, other 1) per 100 officers.
Allegation severityweight 20%
1.83 mean severity tier (1 low - 4 critical)
Mean severity tier of IA allegations across 2021-2025, using the published tier map; unknown values excluded.
Volume trend
| 2021 | 2022 | 2024 | 2025 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 106.3 | 111.8 | 125 | 140 |
Investigations per 100 reported officers, per year.[2][3][4][5]
The inputs, on the record
Sworn officers, 2025
10[1]
IA investigations, 2025
14[1]
Major discipline records
3
All years, 2020-2025
Terminations
0
All years, 2020-2025
| Westfield PD | 140.0 |
|---|---|
| County median, municipal police (23) | 137.0 |
| NJ median, municipal police (447) | 125.6 |
What this grade can and can't tell you
- The underlying data is self-reported by agencies, one yearly snapshot at a time.
- Allegations are not findings; many complaints end unfounded, exonerated, or not sustained.
- There is no arrest, population, or call-volume denominator in this data, so nothing here is a per-capita misconduct rate.
- A higher internal affairs volume is ambiguous: it can indicate more misconduct, or a more robust oversight and reporting culture. The grade weighs it anyway, because volume is what the record offers; that choice is published, not hidden.
- The grade is one lens. Weights are a transparent editorial choice on the methodology page, and the records are always one click away.
Questions and answers
- What is Westfield Police Department's police report card grade?
- Westfield Police Department receives a grade of C on this site, meaning its reported internal affairs volume and discipline severity place it in the 57th percentile of its peer group (municipal police agencies, 1-14 officers). The grade is analysis, not an official rating, and a higher volume can reflect more misconduct or a stronger reporting culture.
- How is the report-card grade calculated?
- The grade combines three components, each ranked within a peer group of the same agency type and size: internal affairs volume per officer (40%), sanction-weighted discipline severity (40%), and mean allegation severity (20%). The combined standing is re-ranked among peers, and the grade is the fifth of the peer group it falls in. Full method and weights are on the methodology page.
Sources
- [1]New Jersey Internal Affairs Agency Totals, 2021-2025. New Jersey Office of the Attorney General. Sheet "Sheet1", row 2544. Snapshot retrieved 2026-06-09. ↩
- [2]New Jersey Internal Affairs Agency Totals, 2021-2025. New Jersey Office of the Attorney General. Sheet "Sheet1", row 497. Snapshot retrieved 2026-06-09. ↩
- [3]New Jersey Internal Affairs Agency Totals, 2021-2025. New Jersey Office of the Attorney General. Sheet "Sheet1", row 1520. Snapshot retrieved 2026-06-09. ↩
- [4]New Jersey Internal Affairs Agency Totals, 2021-2025. New Jersey Office of the Attorney General. Sheet "Sheet1", row 1005. Snapshot retrieved 2026-06-09. ↩
- [5]New Jersey Internal Affairs Agency Totals, 2021-2025. New Jersey Office of the Attorney General. Sheet "Sheet1", row 2544. Snapshot retrieved 2026-06-09. ↩