SCIA Attachments with Table of Contents

SSCIA_Attachments_All.pdf

2016 Survey of State Criminal Investigative Agencies (SSCIA) on Law Enforcement Use of Force

SCIA Attachments with Table of Contents

OMB: 1121-0357

Document [pdf]

Download: pdf | pdf

Attachments
Attachment 1 – Title 42 Authorization
Attachment 2 – ASCIA letter of support
Attachment 3 – Cognitive testing results
Attachment 4 – Screenshots of online questionnaire
Attachment 5 – SSCIA questionnaire
Attachment 6 – 60-day notice
Attachment 7 – 30-day notice
Attachment 8 – Survey invitation email
Attachment 9 – Thank you email
Attachment 10 – 1st reminder email (from BJS)
Attachment 11 – 2nd reminder email (from ASCIA)
Attachment 12 – Telephone scripts for non-respondents
Attachment 13 – End of study message
Attachment 14 – Letter from Arc’s National Center on Criminal Justice and Disability

DERIVATION
Title I
THE OMNIBUS CRIME CONTROL AND SAFE STREETS ACT OF 1968
(Public Law 90-351)
42 U.S.C. § 3711, et seq.
AN ACT to assist State and local governments in reducing the incidence of crime, to increase the effectiveness,
fairness, and coordination of law enforcement and criminal justice systems at all levels of government, and for other
purposes.
As Amended By
THE OMNIBUS CRIME CONTROL ACT OF 1970
(Public Law 91-644)
THE CRIME CONTROL ACT OF 1973
(Public Law 93-83)
THE JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION ACT OF 1974
(Public Law 93-415)
THE PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICERS’ BENEFITS ACT OF 1976
(Public Law 94-430)
THE CRIME CONTROL ACT OF 1976
(Public Law 94-503)
THE JUSTICE SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1979
(Public Law 96-157)
THE JUSTICE ASSISTANCE ACT OF 1984
(Public Law 98-473)
STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT ASSISTANCE ACT OF 1986
(Public Law 99-570-Subtitle K)
THE ANTI-DRUG ABUSE ACT OF 1988
TITLE VI, SUBTITLE C - STATE AND LOCAL NARCOTICS CONTROL
AND JUSTICE ASSISTANCE IMPROVEMENTS
(Public Law 100-690)
THE CRIME CONTROL ACT OF 1990
(Public Law 101-647)
BRADY HANDGUN VIOLENCE PROTECTION ACT
(Public Law 103-159)
VIOLENT CRIME CONTROL AND LAW ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 1994
(Public Law 103-322)
NATIONAL CHILD PROTECTION ACT OF 1993, AS AMENDED
(Public Law 103-209)
and
CRIME IDENTIFICATION TECHNOLOGY ACT OF 1998
(Public Law 105-251)

BUREAU OF JUSTICE STATISTICS
CHAPTER 46 - SUBCHAPTER III
[TITLE I - PART C]
42 USC § 3731

[Sec. 301.] Statement of purpose

It is the purpose of this subchapter [part] to provide for and encourage the collection and
analysis of statistical information concerning crime, juvenile delinquency, and the
operation of the criminal justice system and related aspects of the civil justice system and
to support the development of information and statistical systems at the Federal, State,
and local levels to improve the efforts of these levels of government to measure and
understand the levels of crime, juvenile delinquency, and the operation of the criminal
justice system and related aspects of the civil justice system. The Bureau shall utilize to
the maximum extent feasible State governmental organizations and facilities responsible
for the collection and analysis of criminal justice data and statistics. In carrying out the
provisions of this subchapter [part], the Bureau shall give primary emphasis to the
problems of State and local justice systems.
42 USC § 3732

[Sec. 302.] Bureau of Justice Statistics

(a) Establishment. There is established within the Department of Justice, under the
general authority of the Attorney General, a Bureau of Justice Statistics (hereinafter
referred to in this subchapter [part] as “Bureau”).
(b) Appointment of Director; experience; authority; restrictions. The Bureau shall be
headed by a Director appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of
the Senate. The Director shall have had experience in statistical programs. The Director
shall have final authority for all grants, cooperative agreements, and contracts awarded by
the Bureau. The Director shall report to the Attorney General through the Assistant
Attorney General. The Director shall not engage in any other employment than that of
serving as Director; nor shall the Director hold any office in, or act in any capacity for,
any organization, agency, or institution with which the Bureau makes any contract or
other arrangement under this Act.
(c) Duties and functions of Bureau. The Bureau is authorized to–
(1) make grants to, or enter into cooperative agreements or contracts with public
agencies, institutions of higher education, private organizations, or private
individuals for purposes related to this subchapter [part]; grants shall be made
subject to continuing compliance with standards for gathering justice statistics set
forth in rules and regulations promulgated by the Director;
(2) collect and analyze information concerning criminal victimization, including
crimes against the elderly, and civil disputes;
(3) collect and analyze data that will serve as a continuous and comparable
national social indication of the prevalence, incidence, rates, extent, distribution,
and attributes of crime, juvenile delinquency, civil disputes, and other statistical
factors related to crime, civil disputes, and juvenile delinquency, in support of
national, State, and local justice policy and decisionmaking;
(4) collect and analyze statistical information, concerning the operations of the
criminal justice system at the Federal, State, and local levels;

(5) collect and analyze statistical information concerning the prevalence,
incidence, rates, extent, distribution, and attributes of crime, and juvenile
delinquency, at the Federal, State, and local levels;
(6) analyze the correlates of crime, civil disputes and juvenile delinquency, by the
use of statistical information, about criminal and civil justice systems at the
Federal, State, and local levels, and about the extent, distribution and attributes of
crime, and juvenile delinquency, in the Nation and at the Federal, State, and local
levels;
(7) compile, collate, analyze, publish, and disseminate uniform national statistics
concerning all aspects of criminal justice and related aspects of civil justice,
crime, including crimes against the elderly, juvenile delinquency, criminal
offenders, juvenile delinquents, and civil disputes in the various States;
(8) recommend national standards for justice statistics and for insuring the
reliability and validity of justice statistics supplied pursuant to this chapter [title];
(9) maintain liaison with the judicial branches of the Federal and State
Governments in matters relating to justice statistics, and cooperate with the
judicial branch in assuring as much uniformity as feasible in statistical systems of
the executive and judicial branches;
(10) provide information to the President, the Congress, the judiciary, State and
local governments, and the general public on justice statistics;
(11) establish or assist in the establishment of a system to provide State and local
governments with access to Federal informational resources useful in the
planning, implementation, and evaluation of programs under this Act;
(12) conduct or support research relating to methods of gathering or analyzing
justice statistics;
(13) provide for the development of justice information systems programs and
assistance to the States and units of local government relating to collection,
analysis, or dissemination of justice statistics;
(14) develop and maintain a data processing capability to support the collection,
aggregation, analysis and dissemination of information on the incidence of crime
and the operation of the criminal justice system;
(15) collect, analyze and disseminate comprehensive Federal justice transaction
statistics (including statistics on issues of Federal justice interest such as public
fraud and high technology crime) and to provide technical assistance to and work
jointly with other Federal agencies to improve the availability and quality of
Federal justice data;
(16) provide for the collection, compilation, analysis, publication and
dissemination of information and statistics about the prevalence, incidence, rates,
extent, distribution and attributes of drug offenses, drug related offenses and drug
dependent offenders and further provide for the establishment of a national

clearinghouse to maintain and update a comprehensive and timely data base on all
criminal justice aspects of the drug crisis and to disseminate such information;
(17) provide for the collection, analysis, dissemination and publication of
statistics on the condition and progress of drug control activities at the Federal,
State and local levels with particular attention to programs and intervention
efforts demonstrated to be of value in the overall national anti- drug strategy and
to provide for the establishment of a national clearinghouse for the gathering of
data generated by Federal, State, and local criminal justice agencies on their drug
enforcement activities;
(18) provide for the development and enhancement of State and local criminal
justice information systems, and the standardization of data reporting relating to
the collection, analysis or dissemination of data and statistics about drug offenses,
drug related offenses, or drug dependent offenders;
(19) provide for research and improvements in the accuracy, completeness, and
inclusiveness of criminal history record information, information systems, arrest
warrant, and stolen vehicle record information and information systems and
support research concerning the accuracy, completeness, and inclusiveness of
other criminal justice record information;
(20) maintain liaison with State and local governments and governments of other
nations concerning justice statistics;
(21) cooperate in and participate with national and international organizations in
the development of uniform justice statistics;
(22) ensure conformance with security and privacy requirement of section 3789g
of this title and identify, analyze, and participate in the development and
implementation of privacy, security and information policies which impact on
Federal and State criminal justice operations and related statistical activities; and
(23) exercise the powers and functions set out in subchapter VIII [part H] of this
chapter [title].
(d) Justice statistical collection, analysis, and dissemination. To insure that all justice
statistical collection, analysis, and dissemination is carried out in a coordinated manner,
the Director is authorized to–
(1) utilize, with their consent, the services, equipment, records, personnel,
information, and facilities of other Federal, State, local, and private agencies and
instrumentalities with or without reimbursement therefor, and to enter into
agreements with such agencies and instrumentalities for purposes of data
collection and analysis;
(2) confer and cooperate with State, municipal, and other local agencies;
(3) request such information, data, and reports from any Federal agency as may be
required to carry out the purposes of this chapter [title];
(4) seek the cooperation of the judicial branch of the Federal Government in

gathering data from criminal justice records; and
(5) encourage replication, coordination and sharing among justice agencies
regarding information systems, information policy, and data.
(e) Furnishing of information, data, or reports by Federal agencies. Federal agencies
requested to furnish information, data, or reports pursuant to subsection (d)(3) of this
section shall provide such information to the Bureau as is required to carry out the
purposes of this section.
(f) Consultation with representatives of State and local government and judiciary. In
recommending standards for gathering justice statistics under this section, the Director
shall consult with representatives of State and local government, including, where
appropriate, representatives of the judiciary.
42 USC § 3733

[Sec. 303.] Authority for 100 per centum grants

A grant authorized under this subchapter [part] may be up to 100 per centum of the total
cost of each project for which such grant is made. The Bureau shall require, whenever
feasible as a condition of approval of a grant under this subchapter [part] , that the
recipient contribute money, facilities, or services to carry out the purposes for which the
grant is sought.
42 USC § 3735

[Sec. 304.] Use of data

Data collected by the Bureau shall be used only for statistical or research purposes, and
shall be gathered in a manner that precludes their use for law enforcement or any purpose
relating to a particular individual other than statistical or research purposes.

Survey of State Criminal Investigative Agencies on Law Enforcement Use of Force
Cognitive Testing
Working with ASCIA, BJS and RTI participated in the ASCIA Use of Force Committee Conference
call on February 10, 2016. At this time, BJS provided a summary on the purposes of the survey
and the type of information it sought to collect. Once the meeting had commenced, six
agencies had volunteered to be involved in the pilot testing: Georgia Bureau of Investigation,
Louisianan State Police, Michigan State Police, Pennsylvania State Police, Tennessee Bureau of
Investigation, and South Carolina Law Enforcement Division. BJS chose to keep the pilot to no
more than five agencies since the universe (N=49) is small. BJS chose the five sites that were
most diverse in practices and based on ASCIA input who would likely provide active feedback.
All but South Carolina were included in the pilot testing.
The initial survey was sent on March 11, 2016. The ASCIA members were given two weeks to
complete the survey and provide feedback. The eight expert reviewers from the five ASCIA
agencies were given an electronic draft of the survey instrument and asked to comment on
question wording, and response categories, as well as overall structure and layout.
Respondents were also advised to time themselves as they went through the survey. Responses
were primarily received as written annotations within the document. All five pilot sites
provided feedback via email on the survey. Once survey responses were obtained, a 60-minute
debriefing call was held on April 1, 2016. During the call, BJS and RTI facilitated discussion on all
the instrument items and reviewed recommended changes. Additional feedback was solicited
on the introduction, question ordering, mode of data collection and reference periods. The
pilot sites unanimously agreed the primary mode should be web survey as they generally use
this mode to collect information from ASCIA members. A number of changes to the survey were
made based on the feedback received (addressed in Part A) and skip patterns were placed in
such a way to ease programming of the web survey. Once the survey was revised, it was sent
back out to the Georgia Bureau of Investigation and Pennsylvania State Police for review as
they provided the most feedback on the initial survey. No other comments were provided.
Results and Revisions
Three key issues were raised by the expert panel. First, the definition of use of force was
unclear and could cause respondents to misreport data. We have addressed this issue by
including a definition on “use of force investigation” on the cover page of the instrument (i.e.,
For the purposes of this survey, a use of force investigation is defined as an investigation that
determines if the use of force was legally justified. The type of force examined may differ
depending on the case) and also moving up the question on the types of use of force cases
investigated immediately after providing counts on the number of cases investigated over a
three year period.
Second, the pilot sites indicated that it was unclear if the questions were referencing all use of
force investigations their agency conducted or just the subset of use of force investigations that
were conducted for other agencies. This issue was resolved by:
1

1. Adding additional clarification to the introduction on the cover: The SSCIA seeks information

about the extent to which criminal investigative agencies are investigating law
enforcement use of force cases for other agencies.
2. Adding additional instructions to various sections in the survey:
a. (Pg. 2) The first set of questions are about the number of use of force cases you have
investigated for YOUR agency (i.e., internal investigations). Include any use of force case
that involved your agency’s personnel even if another law enforcement agency’s personnel
was also involved.
b. (Pg. 3) The remaining set of questions refer to the use of force cases you have
investigated for OTHER law enforcement agencies (i.e., external investigations).
These cases should only involve another law enforcement agency’s personnel. Use of
force cases that also involve your agency’s personnel should be counted in internal
investigations above.
3. Breaking out internal and external counts into two separate sets of questions. We also added in
the ability for agencies to provide an estimate for these counts to reduce burden. We provided
further clarification on how to count cases that may span multiple calendar years.

Original item:
3.

During the following years, how many cases involving law enforcement use of
force did your agency investigate in your state? If none, enter ‘0’.
A. 2013: ___________________
B. 2014: ___________________
C. 2015: ___________________
D. Total (sum of A, B, and C): ____________________ (If total is greater than
1, skip to Question 5)

Changed to:

3. During 2013-2015, how many cases involving use of force did your agency investigate
for YOUR OWN AGENCY (i.e., internal investigations)? If an exact count is not possible,
please provide an estimate. If none, please enter ‘0’. If an investigation spanned more
than one year, count the investigation in the year it began.
Year
Number of Internal Investigations
a. 2013
b. 2014
c. 2015
d. Total (sum of ‘a’ to ‘c’)

[If INTERNAL total = 0 ask Q4; If INTERNAL total 1 or greater, skip to Q5]
6. During 2013-2015, how many cases involving use of force did your agency
investigate for OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES in your state (i.e., external

investigations)? If an exact count is not possible, please provide an estimate. If
none, enter ‘0’. If an investigation spanned more than one year, count the
investigation in the year it began.
Year
Number of External Investigations
a. 2013
b. 2014
c. 2015
d. Total (sum of ‘a’ to ‘c’)

[If EXTERNAL total = 0 ask Q7; If EXTERNAL total 1 or greater skip to Q8]
Third, the pilot sites recommended that the best mode of administration was via the web with
an electronic version suitable for printing (i.e. a corresponding PDF instrument). Based on this
feedback the primary data collection mode will be online but we also offer a downloadable PDF
that can be mailed, faxed or emailed.
Edits and revisions to individual questions were made based on the expert testing.
Originally, there was one follow-up question to #3 to determine why agencies did not
investigate use of force cases. When #3 was broken out by internal vs external cases, we
modified the original question into three new questions. We also added in meaningful skip
patterns based on how Items 3-7 were answered.
Original item:

4. What are the reasons your agency did not investigate any law enforcement use of force cases in
your state from 2013-2015? (Mark all that apply)
□ Our agency did not provide any investigative services
Please explain: _______________________________________________________
□ Our agency was not requested to investigate any of these types of cases
□ Our agency did not have the funding or staff to investigate these types of cases
□ Use of force investigations are not state-mandated
□ Other (please specify): _____________________________________________________
{If Q3.d = ‘0’ and you answered Q4, you do not need to continue the survey}

Changed to and added:

4. What are the reasons your agency did not investigate any use of force cases for your own
personnel from 2013-2015? (Mark all that apply)
a. Our agency did not have any personnel involved in use of force incidents
b. Our agency did not have sufficient funding to investigate use of force cases
c. Our agency did not have sufficient staff to investigate use of force cases

d. Our agency requested another law enforcement agency to conduct use of force
investigations (please specify agency name):
_______________________________________________________________
e. Other (please specify): __________________________________________________
7. What are the reasons your agency did not conduct any use of force investigations for other
agencies in your state from 2013-2015? (Mark all that apply)
a. Our agency did not conduct any on-scene investigations (e.g., only provided forensic
services)
Please explain why: _______________________________________________________
b. Our agency was not requested to investigate any use of force cases
c. Our agency did not have sufficient funding to investigate use of force cases
d. Our agency did not have sufficient staff to investigate these types of cases
e. Use of an external agency for use of force investigations is not state-mandated
f. Other (please specify): _____________________________________________________

[If EXTERNAL total = 0 and agency answers Q7, skip to end]
Furthermore, the pilot sites requested a new item be added in order to clarify how agencies
handle their own use of fore investigations. This was anchored to the questions above:
5. In general, how are cases handled when the use of force incident involves officers/agents from
your own agency? (Mark only one)
a. Cases are investigated by the same regional office that employs the involved officers or
agents
b. Cases are investigated by a different regional office that does not employ the involved
officers or agents
c. Cases are referred to an outside agency for investigation (please specify agency name):
________________________________________________________________________
d. Other (please specify): __________________________________________________

Original question 5 was the most complicated item on the survey and one that we sought much
feedback on in order to ease burden. The pilot sites found the question confusing and were not
sure if they were only supposed to provide the jurisdictions they actually provided services to
or those who they could have provided services to. There was also some confusion in terms of
the time frame since 2013-2015 wasn’t specified and rather past three years. Georgia Bureau of
Investigation answered “all” but this was a 2016 change. Prior to 2016, they would have served
all but Atlanta Police Department. Pennsylvania State Police expressed concern over the
number of agencies they would have to list as they have 1,204 agencies in the state. They
provide services to approximately 75% but would still have to list out 300 agencies they do not
serve.
Original item:
4

5. During the past three years, how many law enforcement agencies in your state did you provide
law enforcement use of force investigative services to? If you serve all local jurisdictions in your
state, please write ‘all’ and go to question 6.
Number of agencies served = _____________________
If your agency DID NOT provide services to the majority of agencies in your state (75% or
more), please provide a list of agencies served. If your agency served 10 or fewer agencies, please
list below. If your agency served more than 10 agencies, please attach a list of the jurisdictions
covered.
If your agency served 10 or fewer agencies, please list:
1. ____________________________________
2. ____________________________________
3. ____________________________________
4. ____________________________________
5. ____________________________________
6. ____________________________________
7. ____________________________________
8. ____________________________________
9. ____________________________________
10. ____________________________________
If your agency provided coverage for the majority of the state (75% or higher), please provide a
list of the jurisdictions that were NOT served. If fewer than 10, provide below. If more than 10,
please attach a list of the jurisdictions not covered.
If your agency did NOT serve 10 or fewer agencies, please list:
1. ____________________________________
2. ____________________________________
3. ____________________________________
4. ____________________________________
5. ____________________________________
6. ____________________________________
7. ____________________________________
8. ____________________________________
9. ____________________________________
10. ____________________________________

This item was significantly revised based on expert feedback. It became clear that the
representatives could give a percentage of the jurisdictions covered in their agency and
describe those that they did not provide services to. It was also advised that we needed to
clarify if we wanted to know only the agencies they did provide services to or those who they
may have assisted but didn’t need assistance from in the three year period.
Changed to:
5

9a. There are approximately <> local and county law enforcement agencies in
your state.
During 2013-2015, approximately what percentage of these agencies did your agency
• actually provide use of force investigative services to OR
• would have provided these services for if they had a qualifying use of force incident?
Law enforcement agencies that would not have requested your agency to investigate a
qualifying use of force incident should not be counted. (Mark only one option that reflects your
best estimate)
□
□
□
□
□
□

0-10%
11-25%
26-50%
51-75%
76-90%
91-100%

9c. Briefly describe the agencies who were NOT INCLUDED in the percent estimate in #9a?
Only consider those who would not have requested your services if they would have had
a qualifying use of force incident. For example, if you serve all but the largest agencies in
your state, please list these largest agencies.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Original question 6 was split into questions 12 and 13. This revision will allow respondents to
indicate if the number of agencies served is likely to increase or if the number of cases is likely
to increase in the next year. The expert panel thought that this distinction was important as the
factors that drive service to additional agencies is different than the factors that drive
additional caseload. We also dropped the “don’t know” after consulting with the survey
development team at RTI, who instructed that this will lead to a large number of folks who will
choose this option.
Original item:

6. In 2016, will the number of jurisdictions you can provide law enforcement use of force
investigative services to decrease, increase, or remain about the same as 2013-2015? Please

assess the number of agencies that you could serve in the state, rather than the number of
agencies that might need services in the next year.
□ Decrease
□ Remain about the same as 2013-2015
□ Increase
□ Don’t know

Changed to:

10. Do you expect the NUMBER OF AGENCIES your agency provides use of force investigative
services to decrease, increase, or stay the same in 2016? Please assess the number of agencies
that you could serve in the state, including agencies that might not have a qualifying use of force
incident in the next year but would request your services.
□ Decrease
□ Increase
□ Stay the same

11. Do you expect the NUMBER OF USE OF FORCE CASES your agency investigates for other law
enforcement agencies to decrease, increase, or stay the same in 2016?
□
□
□

Decrease
Increase
Stay the same

Original question 7 on the types of use for force cases investigated was revised to include more
nuanced response categories. The experts felt that yes/no responses to these questions would
not yield useful information. The response categories were expanded to include “Always”,
“Sometimes,” and “Never”. This item was also moved earlier in the survey. The stem was also
revised. Lastly, some of the definitions were modified to match what the FBI will be collecting in
regards to use of force.
Original item:

Yes

contusions)

Any use of force that resulted in a subject sustaining serious bodily/physical
injury (i.e., substantial risk of death, unconsciousness, lacerations,
broken/fractured bones, gunshot wound)

Any use of force that resulted in a subject’s death
Death of a subject in law enforcement custody not due to officer use of
force (e.g., intoxication, suicide, natural causes)
Level of Force Used by Officer(s)

Any incident involving physical force (i.e., use of any part of the officer’s body
to compel compliance)

Any incident involving less-lethal weapons (i.e., use of some device or

substance, other than a firearm, to overcome a subject’s resistance to the exertion
of the officer’s authority)

Any incident involving the discharge of a firearm at a person that results in
a hit
Any incident involving the discharge of a firearm at a person that does not
result in a hit
Other (please specify):

Changed to:

8. For the 2013-2015 cases investigated for other agencies in your state, how often did they
involve the following?
By Injury Severity
a. Any use of force that did not result in injury
b. Any use of force that resulted in a subject
sustaining minor or moderate bodily/physical
injury (e.g., complaint of substantial pain, minor

Always

Sometimes

Never



Always

Sometimes

Never



swelling, contusions)

c. Any use of force that resulted in a subject
sustaining serious bodily/physical injury (i.e., any

injury that involves a substantial risk of death,
unconsciousness, protracted and obvious
disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the
function of a bodily member, organ, or mental faculty)

d. Any law enforcement use of force that resulted in
a subject’s death
e. Death of a subject in law enforcement custody
which was later found to NOT be due to officer
use of force (e.g., intoxication, suicide, natural
f.

causes)

Death of a subject in jail or prison custody from
use of force
g. Death of a subject in jail or prison custody which
was later found to NOT be due to use of force
(e.g., intoxication, suicide, natural causes)

Level of Force Used by Officer(s)
h. Any incident involving physical force without a
weapon (i.e., use of any part of the officer’s body to
i.

compel compliance)

Any incident involving less-lethal weapons (i.e.,
use of some device or substance, other than a firearm,
to overcome a subject’s resistance to the exertion of
the officer’s authority)

Any incident involving the discharge of a firearm
at or in the direction of a person
k. Other (please specify):



Original question 8 asked agencies if they had provided services to agencies in other states. This
question was only slightly modified to include a sub-question to capture the reason why a SCIA
would not have provide services outside the state. The pilot sites were interested in knowing if
there was prohibition to this practice.
Original item:

8. During the past three years, has your agency provided law enforcement use of force
investigative services to law enforcement agencies in another state? ____ Yes ____ No

If YES:

a. For which states did you provide these services (please list): _____________
______________________________________________________________
b. How many law enforcement agencies were served in these other states?
____________

Changed to:

12. During 2013-2015, did your agency provide any direct use of force investigative services to law
enforcement agencies in another state?
a. Yes

[If YES]:

a. For which states did you provide these services (please list):
______________________________________________________________

b. How many law enforcement agencies were served in these other states?
□

[If NO]:

a. What is the PRIMARY reason you did not provide direct use of force
investigative services to law enforcement agencies in other states? (Mark only
one)
□ Services were not requested during 2013-2015
□ We cannot provide services in other states
□ Other (please specify):
___________________________________________

Response categories in original question 9 were also improved to clarify the intent of the
question. Additional response categories were developed to better represent respondent’s
arrangements with local agencies and different policies.
9

Original item:

9. During the past three years, how did you get involved in a law enforcement use of force
investigation? (Mark all that apply)
□ Our agency’s investigation was requested by the law enforcement agency involved
□ State mandated (Year enacted: _________ )
□ Our agency took its own initiative to undertake investigations
□ Other (please specify): _________________________

Changed to:

13. During 2013-2015, how did your agency get involved in use of force investigations for other law
enforcement agencies? (Mark all that apply)
□
□
□
□
□
□
□

Requested by the law enforcement agency involved but there is no pre-established
formal agreement (e.g. memorandum of understanding)
Our agency has a pre-established formal agreement with the involved agency
Requested/instructed by an outside agency that had no direct involvement in the
incident (e.g. Attorney General’s Office)
Mandated by state statute (Year enacted: _________ )
Mandated by proclamation of governor (Year enacted: _________ )
Our agency took its own initiative to undertake investigations
Other (please specify): _________________________

Question 10 was slightly modified (the not applicable options was placed first) and was retained
under question 14:
14. If there is no current state mandate for your agency to investigate use of force for other law
enforcement agencies, is there legislation pending (i.e., introduced to the legislature) to require
this? (Mark only one)
□
□
□
□

Not applicable--there is a state mandate
Yes
No
Don’t know

Original question 11 asked about the type of evidence collected by SCIAs. The pilot sites felt this
item overlapped with original question 17 (case elements) and did not feel this needed to be
included. It was removed from the survey.
Original question 12 asks SCIAs to report if they also investigate the criminal acts the subject
was engaged in prior to the use of force. SCIAs were particularly interested in this item as it
provides context around caseload. The response categories were changed from yes/no to
“Always,” “Sometimes,” and “Never.” The sub-question that followed those who affirmed they
conducted these types of investigations was also modified—the response categories were
expanded and mirrored what was listed under new items 15a and 15b.

Original item:

12. During the past three years, did your agency ever investigate the criminal offense that may have
occurred immediately prior to the law enforcement use of force? ____ Yes ____ No
IF YES:
What is the primary reason your agency conducted the predicating offense investigation?
(Mark only one)
□ Requested by law enforcement agency involved
□ State mandated
□ Own initiative
□ Other (please specify): ____________________________________________________

Changed to:
15a. During 2013-2015, how often did your agency act as the primary investigative body for the
criminal offense that may have occurred immediately prior to the use of force conducted
by another agency’s personnel (i.e., the predicating offense)?
a. Always
b. Sometimes
c. Never

If ALWAYS or SOMETIMES:
15b. What is the PRIMARY reason your agency was responsible for conducting the
predicating offense investigation? (Mark only one)
□ Requested by the law enforcement agency involved but there is no preestablished formal agreement (e.g., memorandum of agreement)
□ Our agency has a pre-established formal agreement with the involved agency
□ Requested/instructed by an outside agency that had no direct involvement in
the incident (e.g. Attorney General’s Office)
□ Mandated by state statute
□ Mandated by proclamation of governor
□ Our agency took its own initiative to undertake the investigation
□ Other (please specify):
____________________________________________________

Original question 13 response categories were changed from yes/no to “Always,” “Sometimes,”
and “Never.” Some of the response categories were clarified and alphanumeric bullets were
added to the rows.
Original item:

13. During the past three years, how did your agency close out a law enforcement use of force case
once the investigation was complete?
Yes

Provided case findings to prosecutor

Made recommendations as to the legality of the use of force to the prosecutor
Provided case findings to the law enforcement agency involved
Made recommendations as to the legality of the use of force to the law
enforcement agency involved
Made recommendations on whether the use of force was acceptable according to
the law enforcement agency’s policies and procedures
Other (please specify):

Changed to:

16. During 2013-2015, how did your agency close out use of force cases for other law enforcement
agencies once the investigations were complete? (Mark the appropriate box for each row)
a. Provided case findings to the district attorney
b. Made recommendations whether the use of force was legally
justified to the district attorney
c. Provided case findings to the law enforcement agency
involved
d. Made recommendations whether the use of force was legally
justified to the law enforcement agency involved
e. Made recommendations whether the use of force was within
policy to the law enforcement agency involved
f. Other (please specify):

Always

Sometimes

Never

□

Original questions 14 and 15 were re-written to better explore how case files are stored. The
experts indicated that hard copies and electronic copies of documents may be maintained in
both a centrally located repository and in various regional databases. These items were
combined into one item. Additionally, a skip was added so that original item #16 was only asked
of those agencies with an electronic records management system.
Original items:

14. During the past three years, how did your agency store law enforcement use of force case files?
(Mark only one)
□ Electronic case/records management system
□ Paper only
□ Both electronic and paper
15. During the past three years, where were your law enforcement use of force case files stored?
(Mark only one)
□ Centrally located in one place or system
□ Stored in multiple electronic systems
□ Stored in multiple physical locations around the state
□ Other (please specify): __________________________________

Changed to:
17a. During 2013-2015, how were ELECTRONIC records for use of force cases investigated
for other law enforcement agencies stored?
□
□
□

Not applicable--Records are not stored electronically
Stored centrally in one place or system
Stored in multiple electronic systems

17b. During 2013-2015, how were PAPER records for use of force cases investigated for
other law enforcement agencies stored?
□
□
□

Not applicable--Hard copy records are not retained
Stored centrally in one place or system
Stored in multiple locations

[If agency uses electronic records go to Q18, if not skip to Q19]
Original question 16 was modified to in order to clarify that that tracing feature applies to
external cases rather than internal cases. The pilot sites stated that internal cases are
sometimes tracked differently and easier to identify than those cases conducted for other
agencies. It was also suggested we ask if this feature will be implemented in the future.
Original item:

16. Does your system allow you to flag or note when the case involves law enforcement use of
force? ____ Yes
____ No

IF NO:
How would you determine if your past cases involved law enforcement use of force?
________________________________________________________________________
Changed to:

18. During 2013-2015, did your electronic record management system allow you to flag the case
involves use of force conducted by another law enforcement agency?
□ Yes
□ No
[If NO]:
a. How would you determine if your past cases involved law enforcement use of
force?

b. Have you recently implemented or plan on adding a flagging feature to your
record management system?
□ Yes— already implemented after 2015

□
□

Yes—plan to add in the future
No

Original question 17 included modifications to the response categories. These were modified
based on pilot site feedback to better reflect accessibility to the data rather than how the data
is actually stored. Originally, the response categories asked about paper versus electronic
storage but this didn’t enable us to determine how readily available to data would be for
reporting purposes. The pilot sites also suggested adding in a comments box for each data
element to allow SCIAs to note any nuances with their data systems. None of the data element
categories were changed.
Original item:

17. Are the following details available for law enforcement use of force cases investigated by your
agency in the past three years, 2013-2015?

Officer(s) demographics (e.g., sex, race, ethnicity, age)
Officer(s) tenure
Subject demographics (e.g., sex, race, ethnicity, age)
Address of the incident
Date & Time of incident
Reason for initial contact between the subject and
officer (e.g., call for service, vehicle stop, street stop,
warrant service, etc.)
If subject committed any crimes immediately before
the use of force
Type of subject resistance (e.g., barricade self, resist
handcuffing, attempt escape, flee, etc.)
If subject had any physical impairment (e.g., mental
health, intoxication)
Weapon display, threat or use by subject
Type of force utilized by officer(s), including use of
less-lethal weapons
Type of injury sustained by subject
Type of injury sustained by officer(s)
Subject attempt, injure or kill bystander
If officer(s) used firearm, number of shots fired
Number of officer(s) at the incident
If any other law enforcement agencies provided
assistance during the incident
For shooting incidents: If officer(s) used less lethal
techniques before discharging firearm
Criminal legality of the officer(s) involved
Administrative outcome of the officer(s) involved (i.e.,
determination if the officer(s) acted within agency
policy)

No—Not
captured

Yes—stored
electronically

Yes—Stored in
paper files only

Changed to:

19. For cases investigated for other agencies in 2013-2015, how accessible would the following case
elements be?
Not accessible
(data element
not typically
recorded)

Somewhat
accessible
(individual case
files would have
to be consulted to
get this data
element)

Accessible
(data element
can easily be
extracted
electronically
into a
spreadsheet)

a. Officer(s) demographics (e.g.,
sex, race, ethnicity, and age)
b. Officer(s) tenure

□

c. Subject demographics (e.g.,
sex, race, ethnicity, and age)
d. Address of the incident

□

e. Date & Time of incident

□

g.
h.

i.
j.
k.
l.
m.
n.

Reason for initial contact
between the subject and
officer (e.g., call for service,
vehicle stop, or street stop)
Any crimes committed by the
subject immediately before
the use of force
Type of subject resistance
(e.g., barricade self, resist
handcuffing, attempt escape,
or flee)
Subject’s apparent physical
impairment (e.g., mental
health or intoxication)
Weapon display, threat or
use by subject
Type of force utilized by
officer(s), including use of
less-lethal weapons
Type of injury sustained
(including death) by subject
Type of injury sustained
(including death) by officer(s)
Subject attempted, injured or
killed bystander

Comments

o. Number of shots fired (if
officer(s) used firearm(s))
p. Number of officer(s) involved

□

q. Number of officer(s) firing
service weapon
r. Assistance by other law
enforcement agencies during
the incident
s. Use of less lethal techniques
by officer(s) before
discharging firearm in
shooting incidents
t. Criminal outcome for
officer(s) involved (i.e., use of
force was or was not legally
justified)
u. Administrative outcome of
the officer(s) involved (i.e.,
determination if the officer(s)
acted within agency policy)

□

The pilot sites suggested a general comments box at the end of the survey to address any
concerns or aspects of use of force investigations for other agencies. This will be an unvalidated text box.
New item:

20. Are there any other details about your agency’s investigation of use of force incidents that you
would like to share?

Lastly, the thank you text at the end of the survey was retained as original.

ORIGINAL SURVEY SENT TO PILOT SITES
ASCIA Coverage Survey
The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) in cooperation with the Association of State Criminal Investigative
Agencies (ASCIA) and through the Research Triangle Institute (RTI) International is conducting this survey
of ASCIA members to learn about (a) the scope of ASCIA member involvement in local law enforcement
agencies’ use of force investigations, (b) the methods by which ASCIA gets engaged or involved in these
efforts, and (c) the data systems that ASCIA agencies use to record and report on use of force
investigations.
The ASCIA Coverage Survey seeks information about the extent to which criminal investigative agencies
are investigating law enforcement use of force cases. The survey focuses on the past three years (20132015) and asks about the jurisdictions your agency provided law enforcement use of force investigative
services to, number of cases investigated, how your agency becomes involved in these investigations, the
types of information collected, how case information is stored and how cases are closed out. The survey
should be completed by a representative who is most knowledgeable about your agency’s procedures for
handling cases involving law enforcement use of force.
Contact Information
1. Official name of agency: ____________________________________
2. Person completing the form:
□ Name: _________________________________ (First & Last)
□ Title: __________________________________
□ Telephone: (
) ________________________
□ Fax: (
) _____________________________
□ Email: __________________________________

Coverage

3. During the following years, how many cases involving law enforcement use of force did your agency
investigate in your state? If none, enter ‘0’.
□ 2013: ___________________
□ 2014: ___________________
□ 2015: ___________________
□ Total (sum of ‘a’-‘c’): ____________________ (If total is greater than 1, skip to Question 5)
4. What are the reasons your agency did not investigate any law enforcement use of force cases in
your state from 2013-2015? (Mark all that apply)
□ Our agency did not provide any investigative services
Please explain: _______________________________________________________
□ Our agency was not invited to investigate any of these types of cases
□ Our agency did not have the funding or staff to investigate these types of cases
□ Use of force investigations are not state-mandated
□ Other (please specify): _____________________________________________________
{If Q3.d = ‘0’ and you answered Q4, you do not need to continue the survey}

5. During the past three years, how many law enforcement agencies in your state did you provide law
enforcement use of force investigative services to? If you serve all local jurisdictions in your state,
please write ‘all’ and go to question 6.
Number of agencies served = _____________________
If your agency DID NOT provide services to the majority of agencies in your state (75% or
more), please provide a list of agencies served. If your agency served 10 or fewer agencies, please
list below. If your agency served more than 10 agencies, please attach a list of the jurisdictions
covered.
If your agency served 10 or fewer agencies, please list:
11. ____________________________________
12. ____________________________________
13. ____________________________________
14. ____________________________________
15. ____________________________________
16. ____________________________________
17. ____________________________________
18. ____________________________________
19. ____________________________________
20. ____________________________________
If your agency provided coverage for the majority of the state (75% or higher), please provide a
list of the jurisdictions that were NOT served. If fewer than 10, provide below. If more than 10,
please attach a list of the jurisdictions not covered.
If your agency did NOT serve 10 or fewer agencies, please list:
11. ____________________________________
12. ____________________________________
13. ____________________________________
14. ____________________________________
15. ____________________________________
16. ____________________________________
17. ____________________________________
18. ____________________________________
19. ____________________________________
20. ____________________________________
6. In 2016, will the number of jurisdictions you can provide law enforcement use of force investigative
services to decrease, increase, or remain about the same as 2013-2015? Please assess the number of
agencies that you could serve in the state, rather than the number of agencies that might need
services in the next year.

Commented [HS1]: For the pilot sites: You do not need to
attach a list. We are looking primarily for feedback on how
we can best obtain this information with low burden on the
respondent.

□
□
□
□

Decrease
Remain about the same as 2013-2015
Increase
Don’t know

7. During the past three years, identify the types of law enforcement use of force cases that you
investigated in your state?
By Injury Severity
Any use of force that did not result in injury
Any use of force that resulted in a subject sustaining minor or moderate
bodily/physical injury (e.g., complaint of substantial pain, minor swelling, contusions)
Any use of force that resulted in a subject sustaining serious bodily/physical
injury (i.e., substantial risk of death, unconsciousness, lacerations, broken/fractured

Yes

bones, gunshot wound)

Any use of force that resulted in a subject’s death
Death of a subject in law enforcement custody not due to officer use of force
(e.g., intoxication, suicide, natural causes)

Level of Force Used by Officer(s)
Any incident involving physical force (i.e., use of any part of the officer’s body to
compel compliance)

Any incident involving less-lethal weapons (i.e., use of some device or substance,
other than a firearm, to overcome a subject’s resistance to the exertion of the officer’s
authority)

Any incident involving the discharge of a firearm at a person that results in a hit
Any incident involving the discharge of a firearm at a person that does not result
in a hit
Other (please specify):

8. During the past three years, has your agency provided law enforcement use of force investigative
services to law enforcement agencies in another state? ____ Yes ____ No

If YES:

c. For which states did you provide these services (please list): _____________
______________________________________________________________
d. How many law enforcement agencies were served in these other states? ____________

Investigative Processes
9. During the past three years, how did you get involved in a law enforcement use of force
investigation? (Mark all that apply)
□ Our agency was invited by the law enforcement agency involved

□
□
□

State mandated (Year enacted: _________ )
Our agency took its own initiative to undertake investigations
Other (please specify): _________________________

10. If there is no current state mandate for your agency to investigate law enforcement use of force, is
there legislation pending (i.e., introduced to the legislature) to require this? (Mark only one)
□ Yes
□ No
□ Don’t know
□ Not applicable--there is a state mandate
11. For the law enforcement use of force cases that occurred 2013-2015, what sources of information
did you collect?
Incident reports
Officer(s) statement/interviews
Subject(s) statement/interviews
Other on-scene witness statements/interviews
Interviews/statements of (subject) family members
Interviews/statements of (officer) family members
Copy of arrest warrants
Copy of search warrants involving the subject and/or officer
Video recordings from officers’ vehicles
Video recordings from body cameras
Copy of CAD reports
Copy of audio recordings from 911
Copy of radio logs
Copy of EMS Reports
Contact information of EMS staff who responded and/or transported
subject to hospital
Latest firearm qualification record for Officer(s)
Training record for Officer(s)
Internal Affairs and Personnel Files
Copy of the agency’s policy and procedures relative to use of force and
firing of duty weapon
Other Items (please specify)

Yes

12. During the past three years, did your agency ever investigate the criminal offense that may have
occurred immediately prior to the law enforcement use of force? ____ Yes ____ No
IF YES:

What is the primary reason your agency conducted the predicating offense investigation?
(Mark only one)
□ Invited by law enforcement agency involved
□ State mandated
□ Own initiative
□ Other (please specify): ____________________________________________________
13. During the past three years, how did your agency close out a law enforcement use of force case
once the investigation was complete?
Provided case findings to prosecutor
Made recommendations as to the legality of the use of force to the prosecutor
Provided case findings to the law enforcement agency involved
Made recommendations as to the legality of the use of force to the law
enforcement agency involved
Made recommendations on whether the use of force was acceptable according to
the law enforcement agency’s policies and procedures
Other (please specify):

Yes

Case Management
14. During the past three years, how did your agency store law enforcement use of force case files?
(Mark only one)
□ Electronic case/records management system
□ Paper only
□ Both electronic and paper
15. During the past three years, where were your law enforcement use of force case files stored?
(Mark only one)
□ Centrally located in one place or system
□ Stored in multiple electronic systems
□ Stored in multiple physical locations around the state
□ Other (please specify): __________________________________
16. Does your system allow you to flag or note when the case involves law enforcement use of force?
____ Yes ____ No

IF NO:
How would you determine if your past cases involved law enforcement use of force?
________________________________________________________________________
_____

17. Are the following details available for law enforcement use of force cases investigated by your
agency in the past three years, 2013-2015?

No—Not
captured

Yes—Stored
electronically

Yes—Stored in
paper files only

contact Shelley S. Hyland, BJS Program Manager (202-616-1706, [email protected]) or
Azot Derecho, RTI Data Analyst (919-541-7231, [email protected]).

OMB No. XXXX-XXXX; Approval Expires XX/XX/201X

Bureau of Justice Statistics

Survey of State Criminal Investigative Agencies on Law Enforcement Use of Force (SSCIA)
The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) in cooperation with the Association of State Criminal Investigative Agencies (ASCIA) and
through the Research Triangle Institute (RTI) International is conducting this survey of state criminal investigative agencies to
learn about (a) the scope of involvement in other law enforcement agencies’ use of force investigations, (b) the methods by
which these agencies become involved in these efforts, and (c) the data systems that state criminal investigative agencies use to
record and report on use of force investigations for other agencies.
The SSCIA seeks information about the extent to which criminal investigative agencies are investigating law enforcement use of
force cases for other agencies. The survey focuses mainly on the past three calendar years (2013-2015) and asks about the law
enforcement agencies your organization provided use of force investigative services to, the types of use of force investigated,
number of cases investigated, how your agency becomes involved in external investigations, the types of information collected,
how case information is stored and how cases are closed out.

Completion Instructions
•

The survey should be completed by a representative who is most knowledgeable about your agency’s procedures for handling cases
about use of force for other law enforcement agencies.

•

For the purposes of this survey, a use of force investigation is defined as an investigation that determines if the use of force was legally
justified. The type of force examined may differ depending on the case.

•

Please do not leave any items blank. If the answer to a question is unknown or not available, write “DK” in the space provided. If the
answer is not applicable, write “NA” in the space provided. If the answer to a question is none or zero, write “0” in the space provided.

•

Please submit your completed questionnaire by XX XX, 2016.

•

If you have questions about the survey, items on the questionnaire, or how to submit completed responses, please contact the Survey
Team at RTI by email at [email protected] or call the Help Line at XXX-XXX-XXXX (toll free). The Help Line is available from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00
p.m. (EST). When communicating about the survey, please reference your Agency ID.

•

If you have general comments or suggestions for improving the survey, please contact Shelley S. Hyland, Program Manager, Bureau of
Justice Statistics, by phone at 202-616-1706 or by email at [email protected].

•

The Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, as amended (42 USC 3732), authorizes this information collection. Although this
survey is voluntary, we need your participation to make the results comprehensive, accurate, and timely. We greatly appreciate your
assistance. The dataset for this collection will be made available for public download through the National Archive of Criminal Justice
Data. The only identifying information that will be included on the dataset will be the agency name and state.

Contact Information
1. Official name of agency: ____________________________________
2. Person completing the form:
Name: _________________________________ (First & Last)
Title: __________________________________
Telephone: (
) ________________________
Fax: (
) _____________________________
Email: __________________________________
Burden Statement
Federal agencies may not conduct or sponsor an information collection, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information, unless it displays a
currently valid OMB Control Number. Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 53 minutes per response, including time for
reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information.
Send comments regarding this burden estimate, or any other aspects of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to the Director,
Bureau of Justice Statistics, 810 Seventh Street NW, Washington, DC 20531.

Coverage
The first set of questions are about the number of use of force cases you have investigated for YOUR agency
(i.e., internal investigations). Include any use of force case that involved your agency’s personnel even if
another law enforcement agency’s personnel was also involved.
3. During 2013-2015, how many cases involving use of force did your agency investigate for YOUR OWN
AGENCY? If an exact count is not possible, please provide an estimate. If none, please enter ‘0’. If an
investigation spanned more than one year, count the investigation in the year it began.
Year
Number of Internal Investigations
a. 2013
b. 2014
c. 2015
d. Total (sum of ‘a’ to ‘c’)

[If INTERNAL total = 0 ask Q4; If INTERNAL total 1 or greater, skip to Q5]
4. What are the reasons your agency did not investigate any use of force cases for your own personnel
from 2013-2015? (Mark all that apply)
□ Our agency did not have any personnel involved in use of force incidents
□ Our agency did not have sufficient funding to investigate use of force cases
□ Our agency did not have sufficient staff to investigate use of force cases
□ Our agency requested another law enforcement agency to conduct use of force
investigations (please specify agency name):
_______________________________________________________________
□ Other (please specify): __________________________________________________

5. In general, how are cases handled when the use of force incident involves officers or agents from
your own agency? (Mark only one)
□
□
□
□

Cases are investigated by the same regional office that employs the involved officers or
agents
Cases are investigated by a different regional office that does not employ the involved
officers or agents
Cases are referred to an outside agency for investigation (please specify agency name):
___________________________________________________________________________
Other (please specify): __________________________________________________

The remaining set of questions refer to the use of force cases you have investigated for OTHER law
enforcement agencies (i.e., external investigations). These cases should only involve another law
enforcement agency’s personnel. Use of force cases that also involve your agency’s personnel should
be counted in internal investigations above.
6. During 2013-2015, how many cases involving use of force did your agency investigate for OTHER
LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES in your state (i.e., external investigations)? If an exact count is not
possible, please provide an estimate. If none, enter ‘0’. If an investigation spanned more than one
year, count the investigation in the year it began.
Year
Number of External Investigations
a. 2013
b. 2014
c. 2015
d. Total (sum of ‘a’ to ‘c’)

[If EXTERNAL total = 0 ask Q7; If EXTERNAL total 1 or greater skip to Q8]
7. What are the reasons your agency did not conduct any use of force investigations for other agencies
in your state from 2013-2015? (Mark all that apply)
□

□
□
□
□
□

Our agency did not conduct any on-scene investigations (e.g., only provided forensic
services)
Please explain why: _______________________________________________________
Our agency was not requested to investigate any use of force cases
Our agency did not have sufficient funding to investigate use of force cases
Our agency did not have sufficient staff to investigate these types of cases
Use of an external agency for use of force investigations is not state-mandated
Other (please specify): _____________________________________________________

[If EXTERNAL total = 0 and agency answers Q7, skip to end]

8. For the 2013-2015 use of force cases investigated for other agencies in your state, how often did
these cases involve the following?
By Injury Severity
a. Any use of force that did not result in injury
b. Any use of force that resulted in a subject sustaining
minor or moderate bodily/physical injury (e.g.,

Always

Sometimes

Never



Always

Sometimes

Never



complaint of substantial pain, minor swelling, contusions)

c. Any use of force that resulted in a subject sustaining
serious bodily/physical injury (include any injury that

involves a substantial risk of death, unconsciousness,
protracted and obvious disfigurement, or protracted loss or
impairment of the function of a bodily member, organ, or
mental faculty)

d. Any law enforcement use of force that resulted in a
subject’s death
e. Death of a subject in law enforcement custody which
was later found to NOT be due to officer use of force
f.

(e.g., intoxication, suicide, natural causes)

Death of a subject in jail or prison custody from use of
force
g. Death of a subject in jail or prison custody which was
later found to NOT be due to use of force (e.g.,
intoxication, suicide, natural causes)

Level of Force Used by Officer(s)
h. Any incident involving physical force without a weapon
i.

(i.e., use of any part of the officer’s body to compel
compliance)
Any incident involving less-lethal weapons (i.e., use of
some device or substance, other than a firearm, to overcome
a subject’s resistance to the exertion of the officer’s
authority)

Any incident involving the discharge of a firearm at or in
the direction of a person
k. Other (please specify):

9a. There are approximately <> local and county law enforcement agencies in your
state.
During 2013-2015, approximately what percentage of these agencies did your agency
• actually provide use of force investigative services to OR
• would have provided these services for if they had a qualifying use of force incident?
Law enforcement agencies that would not have requested your agency to investigate a qualifying
use of force incident should not be counted. (Mark only one option that reflects your best estimate)
□
□
□
□
□
□

0-10%
11-25%
26-50%
51-75%
76-90%
91-100%

9b. How would you characterize the jurisdiction populations of these agencies in #9a? (Mark all that
apply)
□ Very small (less than 25,000)
□ Small (25,000 – 74,999)
□ Medium (75,000 – 249,999)
□ Large (250,000-999,999)
□ Very large (1,000,000 or more)
9c. Briefly describe the agencies who were NOT INCLUDED in the percent estimate in #9a? Only
consider those who would not have requested your services if they would have had a qualifying use
of force incident. For example, if you serve all but the largest agencies in your state, please list these
largest agencies.
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
10. Do you expect the NUMBER OF AGENCIES your agency provides use of force investigative services
to decrease, increase, or stay the same in 2016? Please assess the number of agencies that you
could serve in the state, including agencies that might not have a qualifying use of force case in the
next year, but would request your services.
□ Decrease
□ Increase
□ Stay the same

11. Do you expect the NUMBER OF USE OF FORCE CASES your agency investigates for other law
enforcement agencies to decrease, increase, or stay the same in 2016?
□ Decrease
□ Increase
□ Stay the same
12. During 2013-2015, did your agency provide any direct use of force investigative services to law
enforcement agencies in another state?
□

Yes
[If YES]:
a. For which states did you provide these services (please list):
______________________________________________________________
b. How many law enforcement agencies were served in these other states?

□

No
[If NO]:
a. What is the PRIMARY reason you did not provide direct use of force
investigative services to law enforcement agencies in other states? (Mark only
one)
□ Services were not requested during 2013-2015
□ We cannot provide services in other states
□ Other (please specify): _________________________________________

Investigative Processes
13. During 2013-2015, how did your agency get involved in use of force investigations for other law
enforcement agencies? (Mark all that apply)
□
□
□
□
□
□
□

Requested by the law enforcement agency involved but there is no pre-established formal
agreement (e.g., memorandum of understanding)
Our agency has a pre-established formal agreement with the involved agency
Requested/instructed by an outside agency that had no direct involvement in the incident
(e.g., Attorney General’s Office)
Mandated by state statute (year enacted: _________ )
Mandated by proclamation of governor (Year enacted: _________ )
Our agency took its own initiative to undertake investigations
Other (please specify): _________________________

14. If there is no current state mandate for your agency to investigate use of force for other law
enforcement agencies, is there pending legislation to require this?
□
□
□
□

Not applicable--there is a state mandate
Yes
No
Don’t know

15a. During 2013-2015, how often did your agency act as the primary investigative body for the criminal
offense that may have occurred immediately prior to the use of force conducted by another
agency’s personnel (i.e., the predicating offense)?
□
□
□

Always
Sometimes
Never
If ALWAYS OR SOMETIMES:
15b. What is the PRIMARY reason your agency was responsible for conducting the
predicating offense investigation? (Mark only one)
□ Requested by the law enforcement agency involved but there is no preestablished formal agreement (e.g., memorandum of understanding)
□ Our agency has a pre-established formal agreement with the involved agency
□ Requested/instructed by an outside agency that had no direct involvement in
the incident (e.g., Attorney General’s Office)
□ Mandated by state statute
□ Mandated by proclamation of governor
□ Our agency took its own initiative to undertake the investigation
□ Other (please specify):
____________________________________________________

16. During 2013-2015, how did your agency close out use of force cases for other law enforcement
agencies once the investigations were complete? (Mark the appropriate box in each row)
a. Provided case findings to the district attorney
b. Made recommendations whether the use of force was legally
justified to the district attorney
c. Provided case findings to the law enforcement agency involved
d. Made recommendations whether the use of force was legally
justified to the law enforcement agency involved
e. Made recommendations whether the use of force was within
policy to the law enforcement agency involved
f. Other (please specify):

Always

Sometimes

Never

□
□

□

Case Management
17a. During 2013-2015, how were ELECTRONIC records for use of force cases investigated for other law
enforcement agencies stored?
□
□
□

Not applicable--Records are not stored electronically
Stored centrally in one place or system
Stored in multiple electronic systems

17b. During 2013-2015, how were PAPER records for use of force cases investigated for other law
enforcement agencies stored?
□
□
□

Not applicable--Hard copy records are not retained
Stored centrally in one place or system
Stored in multiple locations

[If agency uses electronic records go to Q18, if not skip to Q19]
18. During 2013-2015, did your electronic record management system allow you to flag the cases
involving use of force conducted for another law enforcement agency?
□ Yes
□ No
[If NO]:
a. How would you determine if your past cases involved law enforcement use of
force?

b. Have you recently implemented or plan on adding a flagging feature to your
record management system?
□ Yes— already implemented after 2015
□ Yes—plan to add in the future
□ No

19. How accessible are the following elements for use of force cases investigated for other agencies during 20132015? (Mark the appropriate box for each data element)
Not accessible
(data element
not typically
recorded)

Somewhat
accessible
(individual case
files would have
to be consulted to
get this data
element)

Accessible
(data element
can easily be
extracted
electronically
into a
spreadsheet)

a. Officer(s) demographics (e.g.,
sex, race, ethnicity, and age)
b. Officer(s) tenure

□

c. Subject demographics (e.g.,
sex, race, ethnicity, and age)
d. Address of the incident

□

□
□

□

e. Date & Time of incident
f.

g.
h.

j.
k.
l.
m.
n.
o.
p.

Reason for initial contact
between the subject and
officer (e.g., call for service,
vehicle stop, or street stop)
Any crimes committed by the
subject immediately before
the use of force
Type of subject resistance
(e.g., barricade self, resist
handcuffing, attempt escape,
or flee)
Subject’s apparent physical or
mental impairment (e.g.,
mental health, intoxication,
intellectual disability, physical
disability)
Weapon display, threat or use
by subject
Type of force utilized by
officer(s), including use of lesslethal weapons
Type of injury sustained
(including death) by subject
Type of injury sustained
(including death) by officer(s)
Subject attempted, injured or
killed bystander
Number of shots fired (if
officer(s) used firearm(s))
Number of officer(s) involved

Comments

q. Number of officer(s) firing
service weapon(s)
r. Assistance by other law
enforcement agencies during
the incident
s. Use of less lethal techniques
by officer(s) before
discharging firearm in shooting
incidents
t. Criminal outcome for officer(s)
involved (i.e., use of force was
or was not legally justified)
u. Administrative outcome for
the officer(s) involved (i.e.,
determination if the officer(s)
acted within agency policy)

□

20. Are there any other details about your agency’s investigation of use of force cases that you would
like to share?

Thank You!
This concludes the survey. Thank you for your time and participation. BJS and RTI will be analyzing and
disseminating information obtained from this survey through the ASCIA Use of Force Committee
meetings in the coming months. If you have any questions about the survey, please contact Shelley S.
Hyland, BJS Program Manager (202-616-1706, [email protected]) or Azot Derecho, RTI Data
Analyst (919-541-7231, [email protected]).

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 88 / Friday, May 6, 2016 / Notices
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
[OMB Number 1140–0010]

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms
and Explosives; Agency Information
Collection Activities; Proposed
eCollection eComments Requested;
Application To Transport Interstate or
Temporarily Export Certain National
Firearms Act (NFA) Firearms (ATF F
5320.20)
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms and Explosives, Department of
Justice.
ACTION: 30-day notice.
AGENCY:

The Department of Justice
(DOJ), Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms and Explosives (ATF), will
submit the following information
collection request to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for
review and approval in accordance with
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
The proposed information collection
was previously published in the Federal
Register 81 FR 10911, on March 2, 2016,
allowing for a 60-day comment period.
DATES: Comments are encouraged and
will be accepted for an additional 30
days until June 6, 2016.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If
you have additional comments
especially on the estimated public
burden or associated response time,
suggestions, or need a copy of the
proposed information collection
instrument with instructions or
additional information, please contact
Andrew Ashton, Specialist, National
Firearms Act (NFA) Branch, 244 Needy
Road, Martinsburg, WV 25405 at
telephone: 304–616–4541. Written
comments and/or suggestions can also
be directed to the Office of Management
and Budget, Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Attention
Department of Justice Desk Officer,
Washington, DC 20503 or sent to OIRA_
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Written
comments and suggestions from the
public and affected agencies concerning
the proposed collection of information
are encouraged. Your comments should
address one or more of the following
four points:
• Evaluate whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary
for the proper performance of the
functions of the agency, including
whether the information will have
practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the
agency’s estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information,

asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

SUMMARY:

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:20 May 05, 2016

Jkt 238001

including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used;
• Evaluate whether and if so how the
quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected can be
enhanced; and
• Minimize the burden of the
collection of information on those who
are to respond, including through the
use of appropriate automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other
technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology,
e.g., permitting electronic submission of
responses.
Overview of This Information
Collection
1. Type of Information Collection:
Extension, without change, of a
currently approved collection.
2. The Title of the Form/Collection:
Application to Transport Interstate or
Temporarily Export Certain National
Firearms Act (NFA) Firearms.
3. The agency form number, if any,
and the applicable component of the
Department sponsoring the collection:
Form number: ATF F 5320.20.
Component: Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, U.S.
Department of Justice.
4. Affected public who will be asked
or required to respond, as well as a brief
abstract:
Primary: Individuals or households.
Other: None.
Abstract: Certain National Firearms
Act firearms may not be transported
interstate or temporarily exported by
any person, other than a qualified
Federal firearms licensee, without
approval from ATF. The regulation
requires a written request and this form
provides for the regulatory requirements
and may be used as a written request.
5. An estimate of the total number of
respondents and the amount of time
estimated for an average respondent to
respond: An estimated 10,000
respondents will take 10 minutes to
complete the form.
6. An estimate of the total public
burden (in hours) associated with the
collection: The estimated annual public
burden associated with this collection is
3,300 hours.
If additional information is required
contact: Jerri Murray, Department
Clearance Officer, United States
Department of Justice, Justice
Management Division, Policy and
Planning Staff, Two Constitution
Square, 145 N Street NE., Room 3E–
405B, Washington, DC 20530.

PO 00000

Frm 00089

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

27475

Dated: May 3, 2016.
Jerri Murray,
Department Clearance Officer for PRA, U.S.
Department of Justice.
[FR Doc. 2016–10668 Filed 5–5–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–FY–P

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Office of Justice Programs
[OMB Number 1121–NEW]

Agency Information Collection
Activities; Proposed eCollection
eComments Requested; New
Collection: Survey of State Criminal
Investigative Agencies on Law
Enforcement Use of Force
Bureau of Justice Statistics,
Department of Justice.
ACTION: 60-Day notice.
AGENCY:

The Department of Justice
(DOJ), Office of Justice Programs,
Bureau of Justice Statistics, will be
submitting the following information
collection request to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for
review and approval in accordance with
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
DATES: Comments are encouraged and
will be accepted for 60 days until July
5, 2016.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If
you have additional comments
especially on the estimated public
burden or associated response time,
suggestions, or need a copy of the
proposed information collection
instrument with instructions or
additional information, please contact
Shelley Hyland, Statistician, Law
Enforcement Statistics, Bureau of Justice
Statistics, 810 Seventh Street NW.,
Washington, DC 20531 (email:
[email protected]; telephone:
202–616–1706).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Written
comments and suggestions from the
public and affected agencies concerning
the proposed collection of information
are encouraged. Your comments should
address one or more of the following
four points:
—Evaluate whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary
for the proper performance of the
functions of the Bureau of Justice
Statistics, including whether the
information will have practical utility;
—Evaluate the accuracy of the agency’s
estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information,
including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used;
—Evaluate whether and if so how the
quality, utility, and clarity of the
SUMMARY:

E:\FR\FM\06MYN1.SGM

06MYN1

27476

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 88 / Friday, May 6, 2016 / Notices

information to be collected can be
enhanced; and
—Minimize the burden of the collection
of information on those who are to
respond, including through the use of
appropriate automated, electronic,
mechanical, or other technological
collection techniques or other forms
of information technology, e.g.,
permitting electronic submission of
responses.

asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Overview of This Information
Collection
(1) Type of Information Collection:
New collection.
(2) The Title of the Form/Collection:
Survey of State Criminal Investigative
Agencies on Law Enforcement Use of
Force.
(3) The agency form number, if any,
and the applicable component of the
Department sponsoring the collection:
No agency form number at this time.
The applicable component within the
Department of Justice is the Bureau of
Justice Statistics, in the Office of Justice
Programs.
(4) Affected public who will be asked
or required to respond, as well as a brief
abstract: Respondents will be state
criminal investigative agencies (SCIAs).
Abstract: The President’s Task Force on
21st Century Policing called for law
enforcement agencies to use external
and independent criminal investigation
of use of force incidents. In some states,
the criminal investigative agency serves
as the primary body that local and
county law enforcement agencies use as
the independent investigator. However,
it is currently unknown how common
this is nationwide. This survey will be
administered to all state criminal
investigative agencies (SCIAs) in order
to determine the extent to which SCIAs
are investigating use of force cases for
other law enforcement agencies. SCIAs
will be asked about the types of use of
force incidents investigated and the
jurisdictions covered within the state.
The survey will also assess how SCIAs
become involved in these investigations,
how cases are closed, the data systems
that SCIAs use to record and report on
use of force investigations, and the total
number of law enforcement use of force
cases investigated in a three year period.
(5) An estimate of the total number of
respondents and the amount of time
estimated for an average respondent to
respond: An agency-level survey will be
sent to a representative at all 49 SCIAs.
The expected burden placed on these
respondents is about 52.5 minutes per
respondent.
(6) An estimate of the total public
burden (in hours) associated with the

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:20 May 05, 2016

Jkt 238001

collection: The total respondent burden
is approximately 42.9 burden hours.
If additional information is required
contact: Jerri Murray, Department
Clearance Officer, United States
Department of Justice, Justice
Management Division, Policy and
Planning Staff, Two Constitution
Square, 145 N Street NE., 3E.405B,
Washington, DC 20530.
Dated: May 3, 2016.
Jerri Murray,
Department Clearance Officer for PRA, U.S.
Department of Justice.
[FR Doc. 2016–10763 Filed 5–5–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–18–P

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Office of the Secretary
Agency Information Collection
Activities; Submission for OMB
Review; Comment Request;
Hexavalent Chromium Standards for
General Industry, Shipyard
Employment, and Construction
ACTION:

Notice.

The Department of Labor
(DOL) is submitting the Occupational
Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA) sponsored information
collection request (ICR) titled,
‘‘Hexavalent Chromium Standards for
General Industry, Shipyard
Employment, and Construction,’’ to the
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review and approval for
continued use, without change, in
accordance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq. Public comments on the
ICR are invited.
DATES: The OMB will consider all
written comments that agency receives
on or before June 6, 2016.
ADDRESSES: A copy of this ICR with
applicable supporting documentation;
including a description of the likely
respondents, proposed frequency of
response, and estimated total burden
may be obtained free of charge from the
RegInfo.gov Web site at http://
www.reginfo.gov/public/do/
PRAViewICR?ref_nbr=201601-1218-002
(this link will only become active on the
day following publication of this notice)
or by contacting Michel Smyth by
telephone at 202–693–4129, TTY 202–
693–8064, (these are not toll-free
numbers) or by email at DOL_PRA_
[email protected].
Submit comments about this request
by mail or courier to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs,
SUMMARY:

PO 00000

Frm 00090

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL–OSHA,
Office of Management and Budget,
Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW.,
Washington, DC 20503; by Fax: 202–
395–5806 (this is not a toll-free
number); or by email: OIRA_
[email protected]. Commenters
are encouraged, but not required, to
send a courtesy copy of any comments
by mail or courier to the U.S.
Department of Labor-OASAM, Office of
the Chief Information Officer, Attn:
Departmental Information Compliance
Management Program, Room N1301,
200 Constitution Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20210; or by email:
[email protected].
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Michel Smyth by telephone at 202–693–
4129, TTY 202–693–8064, (these are not
toll-free numbers) or by email at DOL_
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This ICR
seeks to extend PRA authority for the
Hexavalent Chromium Standards for
General Industry, Shipyard
Employment, and Construction
information collection requirements
respectively codified in regulations 29
CFR 1910.1026, 1915.1026, and
1926.1126. These regulations require an
Occupational Safety and Health Act
(OSH Act) covered employer subject to
one of the Standards to monitor
employee exposure to hexavalent
chromium, to provide medical
surveillance, and to establish and
maintain accurate records of employee
exposure to hexavalent chromium and
employee medical records. Employers,
employees, physicians, and the
Government use these records to ensure
that exposure to chromium does not
harm employees. OSH Act sections
2(b)(9), 6, and 8(c) authorize this
information collection. See 29 U.S.C.
651(b)(9), 655, and 657(c).
This information collection is subject
to the PRA. A Federal agency generally
cannot conduct or sponsor a collection
of information, and the public is
generally not required to respond to an
information collection, unless it is
approved by the OMB under the PRA
and displays a currently valid OMB
Control Number. In addition,
notwithstanding any other provisions of
law, no person shall generally be subject
to penalty for failing to comply with a
collection of information that does not
display a valid Control Number. See 5
CFR 1320.5(a) and 1320.6. The DOL
obtains OMB approval for this
information collection under Control
Number 1218–0252.
OMB authorization for an ICR cannot
be for more than three (3) years without
renewal, and the current approval for

E:\FR\FM\06MYN1.SGM

06MYN1

45542

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 135 / Thursday, July 14, 2016 / Notices

asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

given that a proposed Consent Decree in
United States v. The Bear’s Club
Founding Partners, Ltd., et al., No. 9:15–
cv–81466–WPD, was lodged with the
United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida on July 7,
2016.
The proposed Consent Decree
concerns a complaint filed by the
United States, on behalf of the United
States Army Corps of Engineers, against
The Bear’s Club Founding Partners,
Ltd., The Bear’s Club Development Co.,
The Bear’s Club Builders LLC, Bear’s
Club Management Corp., Clarendon
Properties Group, Inc., Ivan Charles
Frederickson, Ira Fenton, and Robert B.
Whitley to obtain a civil penalty and
other appropriate relief for violating
section 404 of the Clean Water Act, 33
U.S.C. 1344, by discharging pollutants
without a permit into waters of the
United States. The proposed Consent
Decree resolves these allegations against
the foregoing Defendants by directing
them to pay a civil penalty. The
Defendants have already completed
mitigation sufficient to offset the loss of
aquatic resources caused by the alleged
violations.
The Department of Justice will accept
written comments relating to this
proposed Consent Decree for thirty (30)
days from the date of publication of this
Notice. Please address comments to
Carlos J. Raurell, Assistant United States
Attorney for the United States
Attorney’s Office for the Southern
District of Florida, and Andrew J. Doyle,
Senior Attorney for the United States
Department of Justice, Environment and
Natural Resources Division, P.O. Box
7611, Washington, DC 20044 and refer
to United States v. The Bear’s Club
Founding Partners, Ltd., et al., DJ #90–
5–1–1–20788.
The proposed Consent Decree may be
examined at the Clerk’s Office, United
States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida, 400 North Miami
Avenue, Miami, FL 33128. In addition,
the proposed Consent Decree may be
examined electronically at http://
www.justice.gov/enrd/
Consent_Decrees.html.
Cherie L. Rogers,
Assistant Section Chief, Environmental
Defense Section, Environment and Natural
Resources Division.
[FR Doc. 2016–16597 Filed 7–13–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–15–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:33 Jul 13, 2016

Jkt 238001

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
[OMB Number 1121—NEW]

Agency Information Collection
Activities; Proposed Collection
Comments Requested;
New collection: Survey of State
Criminal Investigative Agencies on Law
Enforcement Use of Force
AGENCY: Bureau of Justice Statistics,
Department of Justice.
ACTION: 30-Day notice.
The Department of Justice
(DOJ), Office of Justice Programs,
Bureau of Justice Statistics, will be
submitting the following information
collection request to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for
review and approval in accordance with
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
This proposed information collection
was previously published in the Federal
Register at 81 FR 27475, on May 6,
2016, allowing for a 60 day comment
period.

SUMMARY:

Comments are encouraged and
will be accepted for 30 days until
August 15, 2016.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If
you have additional comments
especially on the estimated public
burden or associated response time,
suggestions, or need a copy of the
proposed information collection
instrument with instructions or
additional information, please contact
Shelley Hyland, Statistician, Law
Enforcement Statistics, Bureau of Justice
Statistics, 810 Seventh Street NW.,
Washington, DC 20531 (email:
[email protected]; telephone:
202–616–1706). Written comments and/
or suggestions can also be directed to
the Office of Management and Budget,
Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Attention Department of Justice
Desk Officer, Washington, DC 20503 or
sent to OIRA_submissions@
omb.eop.gov.
DATES:

Written
comments and suggestions from the
public and affected agencies concerning
the proposed collection of information
are encouraged. Your comments should
address one or more of the following
four points:
— Evaluate whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary
for the proper performance of the
functions of the Bureau of Justice
Statistics, including whether the
information will have practical utility;
— Evaluate the accuracy of the agency’s
estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information,

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

PO 00000

Frm 00094

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used;
— Evaluate whether and if so how the
quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected can be
enhanced; and
— Minimize the burden of the
collection of information on those
who are to respond, including
through the use of appropriate
automated, electronic, mechanical, or
other technological collection
techniques or other forms of
information technology, e.g.,
permitting electronic submission of
responses.
Overview of This Information
Collection
(1) Type of Information Collection:
New collection.
(2) The Title of the Form/Collection:
Survey of State Criminal Investigative
Agencies on Law Enforcement Use of
Force.
(3) The agency form number, if any,
and the applicable component of the
Department sponsoring the collection:
No agency form number at this time.
The applicable component within the
Department of Justice is the Bureau of
Justice Statistics, in the Office of Justice
Programs.
(4) Affected public who will be asked
or required to respond, as well as a brief
abstract: Respondents will be state
criminal investigative agencies (SCIAs).
Abstract: The President’s Task Force on
21st Century Policing called for law
enforcement agencies to use external
and independent criminal investigation
of use of force incidents. In some states,
the criminal investigative agency serves
as the primary body that local and
county law enforcement agencies use as
the independent investigator. However,
it is currently unknown how common
this is nationwide. This survey will be
administered to all state criminal
investigative agencies (SCIAs) in order
to determine the extent to which SCIAs
are investigating use of force cases for
other law enforcement agencies. SCIAs
will be asked about the types of use of
force incidents investigated and the
jurisdictions covered within the state.
The survey will also assess how SCIAs
become involved in these investigations,
how cases are closed, the data systems
that SCIAs use to record and report on
use of force investigations, and the total
number of law enforcement use of force
cases investigated in a three year period.
(5) An estimate of the total number of
respondents and the amount of time
estimated for an average respondent to
respond: An agency-level survey will be
sent to a representative at all 49 SCIAs.
The expected burden placed on these

E:\FR\FM\14JYN1.SGM

14JYN1

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 135 / Thursday, July 14, 2016 / Notices
respondents is about 53 minutes per
respondent.
(6) An estimate of the total public
burden (in hours) associated with the
collection: The total respondent burden
is approximately 44 burden hours.
If additional information is required
contact: Jerri Murray, Department
Clearance Officer, United States
Department of Justice, Justice
Management Division, Policy and
Planning Staff, Two Constitution
Square, 145 N Street NE., 3E.405B,
Washington, DC 20530.
Dated: July 11, 2016.
Jerri Murray,
Department Clearance Officer for PRA, U.S.
Department of Justice.
[FR Doc. 2016–16641 Filed 7–13–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–18–P

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Office of the Secretary
Agency Information Collection
Activities; Submission for OMB
Review; Comment Request;
Certification by School Official
ACTION:

Notice.

The Department of Labor
(DOL) is submitting Office of Workers’
Compensation Programs (OWCP)
sponsored information collection
request (ICR) revision titled,
‘‘Certification by School Official,’’ to the
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review and approval for use
in accordance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.). Public comments on the
ICR are invited.
DATES: The OMB will consider all
written comments that agency receives
on or before August 15, 2016.
ADDRESSES: A copy of this ICR with
applicable supporting documentation;
including a description of the likely
respondents, proposed frequency of
response, and estimated total burden
may be obtained free of charge from the
RegInfo.gov Web site at http://
www.reginfo.gov/public/do/
PRAViewICR?ref_nbr=201601-1240-012
(this link will only become active on the
day following publication of this notice)
or by contacting Michel Smyth by
telephone at 202–693–4129, TTY 202–
693–8064, (these are not toll-free
numbers) or sending an email to DOL_
[email protected].
Submit comments about this request
by mail or courier to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL–

asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

SUMMARY:

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:33 Jul 13, 2016

Jkt 238001

OWCP, Office of Management and
Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street
NW., Washington, DC 20503; by Fax:
202–395–5806 (this is not a toll-free
number); or by email: OIRA_
[email protected]. Commenters
are encouraged, but not required, to
send a courtesy copy of any comments
by mail or courier to the U.S.
Department of Labor-OASAM, Office of
the Chief Information Officer, Attn:
Departmental Information Compliance
Management Program, Room N1301,
200 Constitution Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20210; or by email:
[email protected].
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Contact Michel Smyth by telephone at
202–693–4129, TTY 202–693–8064,
(these are not toll-free numbers) or
sending an email to DOL_PRA_
[email protected].
Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This ICR
seeks approval under the PRA for
revisions to the Certification by School
Official information collection. In order
to qualify as an eligible dependent for
black lung benefits, a child aged 18- to
23-years must be a full-time student as
described in the Black Lung Benefits
Act, 30 U.S.C. 901 et. seq., and
regulations 20 CFR 725.209. A school
official completes a Certification by
School Official (Form CM–981) to verify
whether a Black Lung beneficiary’s
dependent between the ages of 18 to 23
years qualifies as a full-time student.
This information collection has been
classified as a revision, because of
questions added to Form CM–981 that
provide clearer language on what
information the school registrars need to
provide, i.e. contact information and
expected graduation date and because of
formatting changes. Black Lung Benefits
Act section 426 authorizes this
information collection. See 30 U.S.C.
936.
This information collection is subject
to the PRA. A Federal agency generally
cannot conduct or sponsor a collection
of information, and the public is
generally not required to respond to an
information collection, unless it is
approved by the OMB under the PRA
and displays a currently valid OMB
Control Number. In addition,
notwithstanding any other provisions of
law, no person shall generally be subject
to penalty for failing to comply with a
collection of information that does not
display a valid Control Number. See 5
CFR 1320.5(a) and 1320.6. The DOL
obtains OMB approval for this
information collection under Control
Number 1240–0031. The current
approval is scheduled to expire on July

PO 00000

Frm 00095

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 9990

45543

31, 2016; however, the DOL notes that
existing information collection
requirements submitted to the OMB
receive a month-to-month extension
while they undergo review. New
requirements would only take effect
upon OMB approval. For additional
substantive information about this ICR,
see the related notice published in the
Federal Register on January 21, 2016
(81 FR 3477).
Interested parties are encouraged to
send comments to the OMB, Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs at
the address shown in the ADDRESSES
section within thirty (30) days of
publication of this notice in the Federal
Register. In order to help ensure
appropriate consideration, comments
should mention OMB Control Number
1240–0031. The OMB is particularly
interested in comments that:
• Evaluate whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary
for the proper performance of the
functions of the agency, including
whether the information will have
practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the
agency’s estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information,
including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be
collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the
collection of information on those who
are to respond, including through the
use of appropriate automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other
technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology,
e.g., permitting electronic submission of
responses.
Agency: DOL–OWCP.
Title of Collection: Certification by
School Official.
OMB Control Number: 1240–0031.
Affected Public: State, Local, and
Tribal Governments.
Total Estimated Number of
Respondents: 493.
Total Estimated Number of
Responses: 493.
Total Estimated Annual Time Burden:
82 hours.
Total Estimated Annual Other Costs
Burden: $0.
Dated: July 7, 2016.
Michel Smyth,
Departmental Clearance Officer.
[FR Doc. 2016–16681 Filed 7–13–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–XCK–P

E:\FR\FM\14JYN1.SGM

14JYN1

SUBJECT: Survey of State Criminal Investigative Agencies on Law Enforcement Use of Force
Dear «Salutation» «ContactLastName»:
On behalf of the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) and in cooperation with the Association of State Criminal Investigative
Agencies (ASCIA), I am inviting you to participate in a survey conducted by RTI International. The purpose of the
Survey of State Criminal Investigative Agencies on Law Enforcement Use of Force is to learn about (a) the scope of
involvement in other law enforcement agencies’ use of force investigations, (b) the methods by which these agencies
become involved in these efforts, and (c) the data systems that state criminal investigative agencies use to record and
report on use of force investigations for other agencies. We are inviting all 49 state criminal investigative agencies to
participate in the survey and hope your agency will complete the online survey.
BJS will use the data collected in this survey for research and statistical purposes only, as described in Title 42, USC
§3735 and 3789g. Findings from the survey will be available on the BJS website at http://www.bjs.gov/. Additionally, all
state criminal investigative agencies who participate will receive a copy of the findings.
Your time is valuable and I understand that you receive a number of data requests throughout the year; however, I would
greatly appreciate it if you would take the time to complete our survey. The survey focuses on the past three calendar
years (2013-2015) and asks about the percent of law enforcement agencies your organization could have and did provide
use of force investigative services to, the types of use of force cases investigated, number of cases investigated for your
own agency and other agencies, how your agency becomes involved in external investigations, the types of case
information collected, how case information is stored and how cases are closed out.
You may access the survey at <>, using your agency specific survey access code: <>. You may also
download a copy of the survey from the website in order to view the contents before completing the survey. You are
encouraged to download the survey and share it with others at your agency who might be able to provide some of the
requested information. I ask that you complete the survey by [DATE].
If you have questions about the survey or need to update your contact information (including e-mail address), please
contact Azot Derecho, the RTI data collection task leader, via phone at (800) ###-#### or e-mail at [email protected]. If
you have any general comments about this data collection, please contact Shelley Hyland, BJS Program Manager, at 202616-1706 or [email protected].
Thank you in advance for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,

Jeri M. Mulrow
Acting Director
Bureau of Justice Statistics
Enclosures: ASCIA letter of support

SUBJECT: Survey of State Criminal Investigative Agencies on Law Enforcement Use of Force, THANK
YOU!
Dear «Salutation» «ContactLastName»:
On behalf of the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), Association of State Criminal Investigative Agencies
(ASCIA) and RTI International, I would like to thank you for participating in the Survey of State Criminal
Investigative Agencies on Law Enforcement Use of Force. I truly appreciate your support in completing this
survey. Your participation is vital to the success of this national collection.
This << email>> confirms that we have received your survey and are currently processing the data. RTI will
contact you if we have any questions about the answers your agency has submitted. We anticipate that data
collection will be completed by <>. Once the data have been processed, BJS and RTI will publish a brief
report with key findings and distribute to the participating agencies.
In the meantime, if you have any general comments or questions, please feel free to contact me at 202-616-1706
or [email protected]. If you have questions about the survey or need to update your contact
information (including e-mail address), please contact Azot Derecho, the RTI data collection task leader, via
phone or e-mail at (800) ###-#### or [email protected].
Sincerely,
Shelley S. Hyland, Ph.D.
Program Manager
Bureau of Justice Statistics

SUBJECT: Survey of State Criminal Investigative Agencies on Law Enforcement Use of Force,
REMINDER
Dear «Salutation» «ContactLastName»:
The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) recently e-mailed you a link to a web survey seeking
information about your agency’s involvement in use of force investigations for other local and
county law enforcement agencies for the Survey of State Criminal Investigative Agencies on
Law Enforcement Use of Force.
We have not yet received your completed survey and we ask you to complete the survey by
[DATE]. Your responses are very important. They will allow us to assess the extent to which
state criminal investigative agencies are acting as the primary investigator on law enforcement
use of force cases for other agencies and how prevalent this is nationwide.
Please complete the survey by using the following link: «URL» and entering your agency
specific survey access code «PIN».
If you would prefer to complete the survey on paper, we have attached a PDF version of the
survey to this email. You can email <>, fax <> or mail <> the survey to RTI International.
If you have questions about the survey or have difficulty accessing the website, please contact
Azot Derecho by phone at (###) ###-#### or e-mail at [email protected]. If you have any general
comments about this data collection, please contact me at 202-616-1706 or
[email protected]
On behalf of the Bureau of Justice Statistics, we are grateful for your participation. Thank you
for your time and attention.

Shelley S. Hyland, Ph.D.
Project Manager
Bureau of Justice Statistics

SUBJECT: Survey of State Criminal Investigative Agencies on Law Enforcement Use of Force, SECOND
REMINDER
Dear «Salutation» «ContactLastName»:
Your agency was selected to participate in the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) Survey of State Criminal
Investigative Agencies on Law Enforcement Use of Force. As the Director of the Georgia Bureau of
Investigation and Chair of the Association of State Criminal Investigative Agencies (ASCIA) Use of Force
Investigations Committee, I fully endorse this project.
About a month ago, a survey invitation was e-mailed to you on <> and asked you to respond by
<>. BJS is surveying all 49 state criminal investigative agencies in order to determine the extent to which
our agencies investigate use of force incidents for other law enforcement agencies.
I recognize that you may not have received the previous email messages or that you may not have responded
because of time constraints. I appreciate that your time is limited; however, the reliability of the study directly
depends on the participation of surveyed agencies. The survey includes items that are relevant to all state
criminal investigative agencies and your responses are essential for us to determine the workload that these
cases have brought on our agencies.
You may access the survey by using the following link: «URL» and entering your agency specific survey
access code «PIN».
Please submit your questionnaire by «date». If you have questions about the survey or have difficulty accessing
the website, please contact Azot Derecho, the data collection task leader at RTI International, by phone or email at (800) ###-#### or [email protected]. If you have any general comments about this data collection, please
contact Shelley Hyland, BJS Program Manager, at 202-616-1706 or [email protected].
Sincerely,
Vernon Keenan
Director, Georgia Bureau of Investigation
Chair, ASCIA Use of Force Investigations Committee

Sample Call Script for Nonresponse Telephone Calls
[IF CALL RINGS TO A GATEKEEPER]
Hello, this is <> calling on behalf of the Bureau of Justice Statistics in the U.S.
Department of Justice regarding the Survey of State Criminal Investigative Agencies on Law Enforcement
Use of Force. I am following up on a survey invitation that we sent addressed to <>. May I
speak with <>?
[IF CALL RINGS TO POC]
Hello, this is <> calling on behalf of the Bureau of Justice Statistics in the U.S.
Department of Justice regarding the Survey of State Criminal Investigative Agencies on Law Enforcement
Use of Force. A few weeks ago, we sent you an email message inviting your agency to participate in the
survey. We did not hear back from your agency and I wanted to follow up with you to confirm that you
received the messages that we sent.
Have you received our communications?
[IF YES]
[IF QUESTIONS ABOUT THE SURVEY]
-

The purpose of the survey is to determine the extent to which criminal investigative
agencies are investigating law enforcement use of force cases for other agencies.
The survey focuses on the past three calendar years (2013-2015).
The survey asks about the law enforcement agencies your organization provided use of
force investigative services to, the types of use of force investigated, number of cases
investigated, how your agency becomes involved in external investigations, the types of
information collected, how case information is stored and how cases are closed out.
BJS will use the data collected through this survey only for research and statistical
purposes.
The survey will take approximately 52 minutes to complete.

[OFFER ASSISTANCE TO COMPLETE]
Is there anything I can do to assist you in completing the survey? A paper version is available
if you would prefer to submit the information by mail. Alternatively, I can complete the
survey with you over the phone.
[IF AGENCY SAYS THEY DO NOT INTEND TO RESPOND]
Thank you for letting us know. Would you be willing to share with us why you have chosen
not to participate?
[IF NO]
Let me review the information we have on file for your agency. [REVIEW E-MAIL ADDRESS AND
MAILING ADDRESS.]
Ask for the POC’s preferred method of contact and offer to re-send the information.

SUBJECT: Survey of State Criminal Investigative Agencies on Law Enforcement Use of Force, FINAL
EMAIL
Dear «Salutation» «ContactLastName»:
We have made several attempts to contact you over the past few weeks regarding your participation in the
Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) Survey of State Criminal Investigative Agencies on Law Enforcement Use of
Force. Your agency is extremely important to this national data collection.
I am writing today to let you know that there are only a couple of weeks remaining to complete the survey. We
must receive your response by [DATE] or data on your agency will be excluded from the study results. Your
participation is vital to the success of the survey. The survey asks about the law enforcement agencies your
organization provided use of force investigative services to, the types of use of force investigated, number of
cases investigated, types of information collected, and how case information is stored. It will include items that
are relevant to all state criminal investigative agencies. The reliability of the study’s results directly depends on
the participation of all state criminal investigative agencies; your agency cannot be replaced.
The online survey will remain open until «Date». Please complete the questionnaire by using the following
link: «URL» and entering your agency specific survey access code «PIN».
Alternatively, if you would prefer to complete the survey on paper, we have attached a PDF version of the
survey to this email. You can email <>, fax <> or mail <> the survey
to RTI International.
If you have questions about the operation of the web survey, have difficulty accessing the website, or need
instruction in completing the paper survey, please contact Azot Derecho, the RTI data collection task leader, by
phone or e-mail at (800) ###-#### or [email protected]. If you have any general comments about this data
collection, please contact Shelley Hyland, BJS Program Manager, at 202-616-1706 or
[email protected]. They will be happy to assist you with any questions you might have.
Sincerely,

Jeri M. Mulrow
Acting Director
Bureau of Justice Statistics

MEMO
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
RE:

July 5, 2016
Shelley Hyland
Leigh Ann Davis
BJS Survey of SCIAs Law Enforcement Use of Force

Overview:
The Arc’s National Center on Criminal Justice and Disability® receives funding from the
Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) U.S. Department of Justice and is the first national
effort of its kind to bring together both victim and suspect/offender issues involving
people with intellectual and developmental disabilities (or I/DD) under one roof.
NCCJD’s goal is to build the capacity of the criminal justice system to respond to gaps
in existing services for people with disabilities, focusing on people with I/DD who remain
a hidden population within the criminal justice system with little or no access to
advocacy supports or services. For more information about NCCJD,
see: http://www.thearc.org/NCCJD
NCCJD has assisted on cases where force was used by law enforcement on people
with disabilities, and lawsuits followed claiming misuse of force. Use of force is an
especially important issue when it comes to interacting with people with intellectual or
developmental disabilities (I/DD), because they often have different ways of
communicating that officers are not typically aware of unless they have family members
or friends with an I/DD. Until and unless officers receive appropriate training and
opportunities to really get to know people with I/DD, they are less likely to know how to
successfully use de-escalation techniques, and may even unknowingly contribute to
escalating situations.
Because of this, it is critical that any use of force data gathering process include asking
about varying types of disabilities, and the types of disabilities must be clearly defined.
For example, diagnoses such as mental illness, autism and intellectual disability (with
no particular diagnosis associated with the ID) should be included, and there should be
a clear explanation that mental illness and I/DD are not the same thing. This data is
needed in order to pinpoint how many people with different types of disabilities are
involved in use of force incidents and why. We need to have a better understanding of
how many people with different types of disabilities are involved in use of force issues.
This type of information can help determine where to focus limited resources in training
law enforcement, and where to target training efforts regarding use of force nationally.

Additional comments as requested by BJA:
The collection of use of force data as it pertains to people with disabilities is needed for the
following reasons:
•

•

•
•

•

Individuals with I/DD and mental illness are overrepresented within the criminal justice
system: The Bureau of Justice Statistics indicates that for 2011-2012, over 30% of jail
inmates reported having a ‘cognitive’ disability; 6.5 times higher than the general
population.
Approximately 85-89% of people with I/DD are considered to have a mild disability or to
be high-functioning making it difficult for law enforcement to identify disabilities by visual
cues only
People with I/DD may try to conceal their disability in order to be accepted by others,
creating another barrier to appropriate identification of disabilities.
I/DD is not mental illness, so interventions that work with individuals who have mental
illness may not work with those who have I/DD; requires different identification,
accommodation, support & response processes.
Use of force complications:
o Interactions that may not prove problematic within the general population may
become so involving individuals with I/DD, including statements and waivers.
o Officers are often unprepared for contact with those who have I/DD, leading to
potential ‘use of force’ incidents that could have been avoided with proper
training. Without training, officers can agitate people with I/DD and escalate a
situation, instead of improve it.
o Training for police in relating to people with I/DD is necessary, and by finding out
exactly how many use of force incidents are occurring with people who have
I/DD, that training can be better targeted.
o Police training that contains a mental health component is not likely to specifically
address individuals with I/DD, so it is imperative to include in the survey
questions about what type of disability the person has.
o By collecting data that can be used to train officers, the amount of use of force
incidents will hopefully be reduced.
o It is also important to create better screening/identification tools that can
determine what type of disability the individual has. Current surveys do not
specify is someone has an I/DD versus a mental illness, for example.
o The nuances involved in identifying and understanding people with I/DD, as well
as the subjective, unsettled nature of “use of force” definitions place both those
with I/DD and police officers at risk. By determining the scope of the issue, the
best training will be ensured for police officers.

Please contact Leigh Ann Davis, Director of Criminal Justice Initiatives, with any questions. She
may be reached at 202.534.3727 or [email protected]

File Type	application/pdf
Author	Hyland, Shelley
File Modified	2016-07-18
File Created	2016-07-18