Download:
pdf |
pdfMEMORANDUM
TO:
Robert G. Sovinski
Office of Statistical and Science Policy
Office of Management and Budget
THROUGH:
Melody Braswell
Clearance Officer
Justice Management Division
Rainer S. Drolshagen
Deputy Assistant Director
Criminal Justice Information Services Division
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Amy C. Blasher
Unit Chief
Crime Statistics Management Unit
Federal Bureau of Investigation
FROM:
Cynthia Barnett-Ryan
Survey Statistician
Crime Statistics Management Unit
Federal Bureau of Investigation
DATE:
August 6, 2018
SUBJECT:
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Request for Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) Clearance for developmental
activities associated with the National Use-of-Force (UoF) Data
Collection pilot study under the OMB clearance agreement (OMB
Number 1110-0071).
Background
The National UoF Data Collection provides a mechanism for law enforcement agencies (LEAs)
to report law enforcement uses of force for the purpose of compiling national statistics on these
types of events. Submitting UoF information to the FBI will be voluntary and each LEA will be
responsible for reporting information for their own officers connected to incidents meeting the
criteria of the data collection. Reporting will be made either to a state Uniform Crime Reporting
(UCR) program, a designated UCR program for a particular organization (such as with federal
agencies), or directly to the FBI. Incident information will be reported electronically through a
web application in the Law Enforcement Enterprise Portal (LEEP) or through a bulk submission
of data from the state UCR program or federal domain managers.
Page | 1
The collection and reporting of UoF data will include any UoF that results in:
1. The death of a person due to law enforcement UoF,
2. The serious bodily injury of a person due to law enforcement UoF, or
3. The discharge of a firearm by law enforcement at or in the direction of a person not
otherwise resulting in death or serious bodily injury.
For the purpose of this data collection, the definition of serious bodily injury is based in part on
Chapter 18 United States Code Section 2246 (4) and means, “bodily 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.”
The initial plan for a pilot study of the proposed data collection was published in the Federal
Register on December 30, 2016, outlining its goals to assess both data reliability and data
completeness.
Pilot
The pilot study consisted of two phases. Each phase included a set of target agencies and states
allowing for sufficient data to evaluate intercoder reliability in the application of definitions and
guidance. While survey design “best practices” can be used to inform the process of eliciting
information from individuals providing law enforcement statistics for the UCR Program, the data
collection is more similar to an extensive process of content analysis. Information captured
within law enforcement records and narratives serve as the basis for the statistical information
forwarded to the FBI. The challenge for the FBI UCR Program is to communicate coding
schemes based upon a common set of definitions. Instructions and manuals, as well as training
modules and curricula, were developed and served to help guide individuals at LEAs to translate
their local records into a uniform manner. While basic instructions were provided during the
pilot study, the results of the pilot study identified concepts with less consensus across locations
and types of LEAs for the future development of in-depth instructions, manuals, training
modules, and curricula.
Phase I
The activities of the first phase of the pilot focused on a prospective comparison of reported
incidents submitted in the UoF data collection through the data collection tool on LEEP to the
original records voluntarily provided by the reporting agency to the FBI. Those recruited
agencies agreed to participate in the pilot study and understood local records would be forwarded
to the FBI upon submission of statistical information to the UoF data collection tool. The local
case information was redacted of any personally identifiable information prior to its forwarding
to the FBI, and the FBI destroyed all local records upon completion of the pilot study.
Selection of the Agencies
The targeted agencies for participation in the pilot study included three groups of agencies, while
also accepting agencies of any size who voluntarily approached the FBI to provide their
information:
Page | 2
The largest local LEAs with a workforce of 750 or more sworn officers were targeted.
The group of the largest agencies included at least 68 agencies across 23 states based on
information submitted to the UCR Program. Each state/local agency was approached
through their UCR Program Manager for their voluntary agreement to provide data for
submission to the UoF data collection and participate in the pilot study activities.
The FBI identified state UCR programs to participate on a voluntary basis.
All four Department of Justice (DOJ) LEAs were asked for voluntary participation.
These state UCR Programs were selected based upon the results of the canvass of the states
during pre-testing and subsequent conversations with state representatives about the pilot study.
These identified states represented UCR programs using the data collection tool on LEEP to
manage the data collection for their UCR Programs.
It was expected in Phase I there would be sufficient data to meet one of the pilot objectives to
evaluate intercoder reliability in the application of definitions and guidance. The FBI estimated
up to 90 incidents to be reviewed from the set of target LEAs, which also involved interaction
with UCR programs. Incident reports released to the FBI through December 31, 2017 from the
participating agencies totaled 135. The FBI anticipated there would be additional incidents
reported by the participating pilot agencies beyond December 31, 2017, due to an average lag
time of approximately 35 days from the date of the incident to the final release of the incident
report to the FBI National UoF Data Collection pilot.
Actual participation of pilot agencies resulted in 98 agencies enrolled in the pilot study. Of the
98 agencies, 24 fit the targeted group of agencies with 750 sworn officers or more and three DOJ
agencies were also reflected. The remaining agencies provided additional diversity of agency
size and type allowing for the FBI to further understand issues impacting data quality. (See
Table 1.)
Page | 3
Table 1. Agencies Participating in the UoF Pilot Study
City
County
State
Tribal
College or
University
Federal
Other
Total
State Programs
Initial
Telephone
Contact
Agencies
Enrolled
Agencies
Withdrew
Final
Agency
Enrollment
750+
sworn
officer
44
23
4
1
1
52
34
24
2
1
5
8
6
0
0
46
26
18
2
1
19
4
1
0
0
Less
Than 750
sworn
officers
or
unknown
27
22
17
2
1
4
1
78
12
3
2
117
--
0
0
19
--
3
2
98
--
0
0
24
--
3
2
74
--
Reports
through
State
UCR
Program
Directly
Report to
the FBI
23
9
14
0
0
23
17
4
2
1
3
1
50
--
0
1
48
--
Objectives
The objective of Phase I review was to ascertain whether the agencies were applying the
definitions and using the provided instructions in a uniform manner. In particular, the records
comparison investigated the application of the legal definition of “serious bodily injury” and the
coder’s understanding of how the definition could be operationalized. The records review and
comparison also identified problematic areas where instructions needed more detail or more
training should be provided to agencies. The data was also used in the planning of the second
phase of the pilot involving site visits to a subset of agencies. Finally, the FBI worked with state
UCR Program Managers in the pilot states to identify any potential problems with local and state
record-keeping which impeded the ability to provide the UoF information to the FBI. Phase I of
the pilot study began July 1, 2017 and was scheduled to conclude on September 30, 2017.
However, those agencies actively participating in Phase I of the pilot study were asked to
continue providing any supporting documentation for incidents entered in the second half of the
pilot study to ensure a minimum of 90 incidents for analysis.
Initial Assessment
The Phase I assessment consisted of an administrative review and data quality review. As a
prelude to the review of local agency records, the FBI asked each LEA specific questions about
their participation in the National UoF Data Collection. The intent was to assess their
understanding of and capabilities to comply with data collection guidelines. This occurred upon
the submission of the first incident to the National UoF Data Collection pilot. Agencies which
opted to participate in the pilot study were provided an overview of the intent of the collection
and expressed an interest in wanting to assist the FBI with its development. In addition,
information regarding the reasons for refusal were systematically recorded and reviewed for
agencies opting not to participate in the pilot. This data was analyzed for detectable patterns by
type of agency, region, or any other agency characteristic.
Page | 4
Following review of the LEA’s provided documentation on the UoF incident, the FBI
independently and blindly completed the fields in the Incident, Subject, and Officer sections of
the data collection. The FBI assisted with assessing whether data collection guidelines were
consistently interpreted and applied. The FBI will share a copy of the pilot study report with all
participating agencies following OMB approval.
Informal Feedback Received During Pilot Study
In addition to reported data, interactions with participating pilot agencies also revealed issues
which could affect participation and reporting in the National UoF Data Collection. These were
roughly summarized into two categories:
Concerns, problems, or difficulties experienced during enrollment, including the data
collection system, or Portal
Ambiguous questions or instructions related to the data collection itself
Some concerns arose regarding the security constraints involved in hosting the data collection
portal on a restricted-access system. Currently, LEEP passwords expire after 90 days. If not
accessed for 35 days, LEEP accounts are disabled, and if users do not access their LEEP account
within 90 days, they are deemed inactive. Mitigations to these concerns include the LEEP
Program Office approving the extension of password expirations to 365 days and account
inactivity to 120 days. While these changes are not yet approved, they are forthcoming. Once
agencies and individuals gained access to LEEP, additional impediments regarding the
enrollment in the National UoF Data Collection Portal application itself were identified. Several
LEAs had to work around firewall issues that would have otherwise prevented their
access. Some agencies had trouble identifying the correct originating agency identifier (ORI)
used for UCR reporting. The FBI UCR Program established a UoF Help Desk with a dedicated
phone number (304-625-9998) and email address () allowing all
participants to request assistance with these technical impediments.
User feedback indicated the Portal is user-friendly and intuitive. The FBI not only developed a
user-friendly web form for UoF incident entries, but also included an entire management process
to delegate control of the entries, modifications, deletions, and submissions to the host agency.
This business process incorporates the ability of state UCR programs opting to manage their
participating local agencies to establish accounts, run reports to determine information such as
agencies who have not reported for the month and agencies who have submitted pending data
values, manage the flow of data by providing a quality review prior to release of data to the FBI
for use and publication, and modify user accounts as necessary as employees join or leave the
agency. The frequently asked questions (FAQs), Quick Guides, and help videos included were
reported to be useful. There were some suggestions for improvement of certain aspects of the
Portal functionality. For example, one agency indicated they did not like the method to manually
remove any additional agency involvement by ORI. This design choice was made purposely
since the FBI would not know which agency data to delete. This design ensures state UCR
managers concur with the removal of select agencies if a LEA changed its mind about multiple
agency involvement. Better explanations and messaging in the Portal to direct users to these
help documents may mitigate some of these concerns. The FAQ page will be made more easily
identifiable and has been prioritized to improve the facilitation of this information.
Page | 5
Other concerns or questions from agencies were related to the data collection itself. Agencies
had questions about the relationship between the National UoF Data Collection and the existing
UCR Law Enforcement Officers Killed or Assaulted Program or the Death in Custody Reporting
Act requirements. In addition, agencies still experienced confusion stemming from other
definitions provided by local or state sources. When these questions arose, the FBI took the
opportunity to address any concerns by explaining the differences or pointing to documentation
and FAQs available in LEEP which provided clarifying explanations. Such correspondence was
documented and included in future documents and guidance. Help documents and FAQs are
kept up to date based on continuous feedback.
Finally, agencies provided specific information on categories appearing to be missing from lists
(such as types of force or injury). More commonly, agencies sought clarification on whether a
particular incident was within the scope of the collection or which agency was expected to be the
primary reporting agency when multiple LEAs responded to an event with law enforcement UoF.
These clarifications were noted as areas for further guidance to be provided to LEAs within the
supporting help documentation and FAQs.
Methodology
The FBI employed a common intercoder reliability measure known as Cohen’s kappa to quantify
agreement between two independent coders. The first set of coded responses consisted of the
information entered into the National UoF Data Collection by the original agency. The second
set of coded responses reflected the consensus of the FBI UCR Program on the responses to the
same set of questions based on information from the original records of the reporting agency
voluntarily forwarded to the FBI. Cohen’s kappa provided a direct comparison between the two
sets of responses which also provided an adjustment for the likelihood responses could agree at
random. The measure was used to identify particular questions with low reliability requiring
more specific instructions and guidance in order to improve data quality.
The overall objectives of the Phase I of the pilot study were:
To measure the extent LEAs exhibit a consistent interpretation of the variables in the
National UoF Data Collection with the FBI as measured by the intercoder reliability
measure of Cohen’s kappa.
To measure the extent LEAs exhibit a consistent interpretation of serious bodily injury as
measured by intercoder reliability between FBI and agency.
For the FBI to make corresponding recommendations regarding coding schemes and
definitions.
To identify what additional concepts may need to be explored with the subset of LEAs
for Phase II.
To systematically record reasons for refusals to participate in the pilot study.
To work with UCR Program Managers in the pilot states to identify any potential
problems with record-keeping impeding the ability to provide the UoF information to the
FBI.
Page | 6
Reliability Analysis
The responses to the data collection on incidents from pilot agencies were compared to those
provided by the UCR Program. The goal was to identify questions with low reliability for
further exploration and targeted for greater explanation in instructions and FAQs, as well as
possible adjustment of response categories. All Cohen’s kappa coefficients are listed in
Appendix A. However, only those questions which are considered to have moderate, weak,
minimal or no agreement will be discussed in this paper.
The Cohen’s kappa coefficients between .60 and .79 have moderate agreement among raters;
coefficients between .40 and .59 have weak agreement; and coefficients less than .39 have
minimal to no agreement1. Of the possible 85 questions/response categories, 21 had no valid
Cohen’s kappa coefficient due to the lack of variation in the data. These are areas the FBI will
monitor as the data collection matures. In addition, questions on age, sex, and race/ethnicity for
both officers and subjects were not evaluated. These questions are currently using recommended
language and response categories used by federal statistical programs.
Questions with Moderate Agreement
Overall, there were 20 questions/response categories with moderate agreement (Cohen’s kappa
coefficients ranging from .60 to .79). These 20 questions can be further divided into incidentlevel, subject-level, and officer-level information. Out of 15 incident-level questions, 7 exhibited
moderate agreement, while 13 of the 49 subject-level questions showed similar results. Of the
21 officer-level questions, 2 questions had Cohen’s kappa coefficients between .710 and .633.
Table 2. Incident-level Questions with Moderate Agreement
Question
Time of the incident
Location type of the incident
What was the reason for initial contact
between subject(s) and officer(s)?
Did the officer approach the subject(s)?
Total number of officers who actually
applied force during the time of the
incident…
Number of officers from your agency who
actually applied force during the time of
incident…
Total number of other agencies involved…
1
Kappa
0.655
0.691
0.708
0.823
0.615
0.625
0.708
McHugh, Mary L. “Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic,” Biochemia Medica, (Zagreb) 2012 Oct; 22(3): 276-282.
Page | 7
Table 3. Subject-level Questions with Moderate Agreement
Question
Kappa
Was there an apparent or known impairment in the mental or physical
condition on the subject?
Alcohol
Was the threat by the subject(s) perceived by the officer(s) to be directed to
the officer or to another party?
What resistance or weapon was or believed to be involved?
Resisted
Barricade
Firearm
At any time during the incident, was the subject armed or believed to be
armed with a weapon (other than hands, fists, or feet)?
Type(s) of force used by law enforcement connected to serious bodily injury
or death of the subject
Electronic
Baton
Projectile
Blunt Object
Physical
What were the subject’s injuries received as a direct consequence of the use
of force by law enforcement?
Severe Laceration
0.754
0.615
0.633
-0.690
0.695
0.683
0.758
-0.754
0.662
0.662
0.662
0.661
-0.648
Table 4. Officer-level Questions with Moderate Agreement
Question
Was the officer injured during the incident that
precipitated the use of force?
What were the officer’s injuries during the incident that
precipitated the use of force (select all that apply)?
Other Major Injury
Kappa
0.710
-0.663
The cognitive testing conducted prior to the pilot indicated agencies concluded the time force
was used by officers to be the best measure of the time of the incident. It was also indicated in
the cognitive testing agencies would often have to estimate this time based upon information
provided in the incident narrative. Further analysis suggests the findings related to time of
incidents may be a result of this estimation of the time for both raters showing, on average,
approximately three minutes’ difference between the two raters.
Differences measured between the FBI rater and the local agency raters on total number of
officers tended to show local agencies reported more officers than the FBI rater (11 of 19
incidents). This finding is consistent with anecdotal conversations with pilot agencies and site
visits. Representatives from agencies were more apt to include any officer who potentially could
be involved in a use-of-force incident regardless of whether the officer’s actions could be
Page | 8
directly tied to the injury. This finding appears to be consistent for the question about other
agencies involved in the incident.
Questions with Weak Agreement to No Agreement
Of the 85 questions/response categories within the data collection, only nine had a Cohen’s
kappa coefficient lower than .50. These questions/response categories with weak to no
agreement appear to be mostly concentrated on information collected about the subject and, to a
lesser extent, the officer. The two questions about height and weight of the officer have a high
amount of missing data (50.6 percent of cases for both questions), which may contribute to the
low reliability findings.
Table 5. Subject-level Questions with Weak Agreement
Question
Was there an apparent or known impairment in the mental or physical
condition on the subject: Drug
What resistance or weapon was or believed to be involved
Physical
Noncompliance
What were the subject’s injuries received as a direct consequence of the use
of force by law enforcement
Possible Internal Injuries
Other Major Injury
Kappa
0.583
-0.558
0.427
-0.490
0.492
Table 6. Officer-level Questions with Weak Agreement
Question
Height of the officer
Weight of the officer
Kappa
0.572
0.509
Table 7. Subject-level Questions with Minimal to No Agreement
Question
What resistance or weapon was or believed to be involved
Escape/Flee
Verbal
Kappa
-0.370
0.179
Page | 9
Table 8. Reliability Analysis by Region, Agency Size, and Agency Type for Key Variables
Injury to Subject
Region
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
Federal
Size
750+ Officer
LT 750
Officers
Agency type
City
County
Tribal
State
Federal
Subject Resistance
Possible
Internal
Injury
Other
Major
Injury
Escape/Flee
Verbal
Hands/Fists/Feet
Other
Passive
Resistance
-**
**
1.000
**
-**
1.000
**
**
-0.333
0.270
0.379
0.720
-0.385
**
0.151
**
-1.000
**
0.521
**
-0.385
0.603
0.304
0.720
0.66
**
0.388
**
0.573
0.459
**
**
0.308
0.233
**
0.244
0.658
**
**
**
**
1.000
**
**
**
**
0.315
0.459
1.000
**
0.720
0.123
0.220
**
**
**
0.836
0.117
**
**
**
0.506
0.348
**
**
0.720
**Cohen’s kappa Coefficient was a constant
Low levels of agreement for subject-level questions appear to be concentrated in types of passive
resistance or other questions which capture broad types of injuries. However, this finding may
be a result of variation in the understanding and use of these categories across regions and types
of agencies (see Table 8). The six subject-level response categories with the poorest reliability
were further analyzed by region, size of LEA, and the type of LEA. In many cases, there is a
tendency for these particular response categories to be used by certain areas of the country or
certain types of agencies. It is unknown at this time if this indicates an underlying preference or
assumption by the agency or if incidents are fundamentally different depending upon where the
incident occurs. However, the FBI will continue to monitor the data collection for opportunities
to improve guidance and training.
The response categories for types of resistance continue to be poor for city and county agencies.
Both the tribal and federal agencies reflect a common understanding and usage of the four types
of resistance analyzed in this section.
Assessment of Item-level Nonresponse
As of December 31, 2017, 159 incidents were entered by agencies participating in the Pilot
Study as works in progress and/or submitted for review by the managing agency. As of
December 31, 2017, 135 of these incidents have been released to the FBI. For the month of July,
59 agencies provided a Zero Report indicating no incidents meeting the criteria of the National
UoF Data Collection occurred. For the month of August, 60 agencies submitted a Zero Report.
For the month of September, 59 agencies submitted a Zero Report. Moving into Phase 2, for the
month of October, 53 agencies submitted a Zero Report. For the month of November, 50
agencies submitted a Zero Report. For the month of December, zero agencies had submitted a
Zero Report on December 31, 2017; however, LEAs are unable to provide a zero report for a
Page | 10
given month until the first of the following month. The FBI encourages agencies to make a good
faith effort to submit data by the 15th of the following month. It should be noted LEAs are not
limited to a specific timeframe in which retroactive data submissions will be accepted.
Therefore, throughout the pilot study, agencies were constantly updating monthly submissions.
For four of six months, the response rate for agencies was above 80 percent. The declining
participation of the final two months could be attributed to the timing of such reports at a time
when personnel have been out of the office for the holidays.
Table 9: Pilot Agencies by Response Type as of December 31, 2017
Month
July
August
September
October
November
December*
Incident
Report
17
18
16
19
13
2
Zero Report
Nonresponse
59
60
59
53
50
0
10
8
11
14
23
84
Response
Rate
88.4
90.7
87.2
83.7
73.3
2.6*
*Reports are still incomplete at this time. Agencies are encouraged to provide data by the 15th of every month and may
experience an average lag of 35 days.
Additional follow up occurs monthly via reminder emails, phone calls, and pop-up notifications
within the portal to prompt agencies to complete their monthly submissions and has been very
successful in achieving responses. A supplementary report was run on January 23, 2018 to
assess the success of the FBI’s follow up regarding data submissions post December 31, 2017.
As detailed in the table below, the response rate for all six months improved, with five of the six
months now having a response rate above 80 percent, demonstrating the FBI’s mitigation
strategy is improving the response rate.
Table 10: Monthly Response Rate Percent Improvements
Month
July
August
September
October
November
December*
Incident
Report
20
20
20
22
16
15
Zero Report
Nonresponse
63
60
60
57
59
52
3
6
6
7
11
19
Response
Rate
96.5
93.0
93.0
91.9
87.2
77.9
Percent
Improvement
+8.4
+2.3
+5.8
+8.2
+13.9
+75.3
Nearing the conclusion of Phase I, contacts with the agencies were reduced in order to give
sufficient time for preparations for the site visits during Phase II. Once the site visits resumed,
the FBI requested the agency records from any submitted incident occurring between July 1 and
September 30, 2017. If pilot agencies were willing to provide agency records for any submitted
incidents occurring October 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017, the FBI did accept it for quality
review. Seventy-seven of the ninety-eight enrolled pilot agencies were deemed complete
regarding data submission requirements. Eighteen agencies provided partial data throughout the
six-month pilot study. Monthly data submissions were entered into the portal. For purposes of
the pilot study only, the FBI also requested LEAs to provide hardcopy documentation to perform
a blind quality review of the UoF incident data entered into the portal. This will not be a
Page | 11
requirement for the nationwide collection. Five of the eighteen agencies were unable to provide
any of this documentation, although they did provide portal incident submissions. Their inability
to provide this documentation was not dependent on the incident type, but rather revolved around
ongoing investigations, as well as agency policies which precluded the release of hardcopy
documentation without subpoena. The FBI does not anticipate these factors affecting an
agency’s ability to participate in the data collection. Five of the eighteen agencies did provide 16
out of 27 requested hardcopies. Reasons provided for the incomplete hardcopy submissions
included miscommunications and not realizing they had not been provided. The remaining eight
agencies which provided partial data were missing a month or more of data submissions. While
the monthly submissions provided were Zero Reports, the missing monthly data submission(s)
could not be assumed to also be a Zero Report. Therefore, the FBI is unsure if these agencies
would have provided hardcopy documentation if needed. Reasoning provided for missing
monthly submissions included forgetting to submit, due to this pilot study being a new and
collateral duty. Three agencies did not provide data at all. One of these agencies was locked out
of their LEEP account and did not re-establish access. One agency did not backfill the position
of the sole point of contact responsible for UoF reporting when the individual accepted another
position. One agency was nonresponsive to all efforts of communication by the FBI. Given the
lag times observed by FBI staff between the date of the incident and the initial entry of statistical
data, the FBI expected the response rate to improve. Additional follow-up with these agencies
was conducted to ensure the maximum response rate was achieved, and the FBI will continue to
work with pilot agencies to provide reminders to complete reports for the final two months of the
pilot study. The FBI will continue to monitor paradata, such as legal and collective bargaining
agreements or how agencies assign the task of completing the data collection, for example, to
gain greater understanding of the elements that could lead to nonresponse and suggest “best
practices” for agencies participating in the data collection.
Information learned from analysis of submitted incidents was further explored during the Phase
II site visits. An area of focus for the FBI centers around agency nonresponse related to response
rates and potential impediments which could prevent LEAs from being able to provide data to
this collection. The National UoF Data Collection allowed agencies to set pending values to a
temporarily missing value. Once an agency resolves a pending data element through
investigation, they have the ability to then modify the submitted incident report to reflect the
change. Early analysis focused on any patterns associated with these values to gain insight into
which parts of the data collection may be problematic for participating agencies. The most
common data elements reported pending were officer height and officer weight. The FBI found
LEAs willingly utilized the pending value option, which increased monthly response rates and
allowed them to provide data in a more timely fashion. LEAs indicated some unwillingness to
submit an incident report if an investigation was still open and the pending value option was not
available. Its accessibility allows agencies to confidently report UoF instances to the FBI
monthly, which at a minimum provides an overview of how many deaths, serious bodily injuries,
and firearm discharges at a person are occurring.
Assessment of Unit-level Nonresponse
In mid-2016, the FBI began engagement with 69 agencies affiliated with the Major Cities Chiefs
Association and 91 agencies associated with the Major County Sheriff’s Association, utilizing
their conferences as platforms to communicate with LEAs about the pilot study. Interested
Page | 12
agencies were asked to provide contact information. Initially, 78 LEAs expressed an interest in
participation via these conferences. Of these, 57 agencies verbally agreed to participate in the
pilot study during preliminary phone conversations and twenty-one declined. Of the 57
preliminary verbal commitments, 49 agencies finalized their enrollment, leaving 29 agencies
who declined. Some declined participation in Phase I of the pilot study due to agency policy
mandating they not release documents related to the incident without subpoena. The request for
these documents was only relevant to the pilot study and will not be requested for the nationwide
collection. One agency decided not to participate due to reporting requirements to the state and
fear of duplication of efforts. An additional 68 agencies voluntarily contacted the FBI to enroll
in the pilot study. The total number of pilot agencies was 117. Following enrollment and the
launch of the pilot study, 19 of these agencies then requested to withdraw from the pilot study.
Therefore, the FBI moved forward with 98 enrolled agencies (see Table 1). Thus, 60 percent of
enrolled pilot agencies contacted the FBI and expressed interest in participating in this study
voluntarily.
Of the 19 agencies who requested to withdraw, 10 stated after reviewing requirements for the
pilot study and examining their current workload, they now wished to utilize the pilot period
term to become familiar with the portal application and develop a process to participate in the
nationwide collection upon approval. Three agencies indicated their intention was to enter the
portal application to view nationwide UoF data. Data provided in the portal application is only
visible to the submitting agency and managing agency if applicable. Since these three agencies
did not intend to enter UoF data, there was no data for them to view. Three agencies were
inadvertently enrolled manually due to these agencies being satellite detachments under similar
ORIs to their larger intended counterpart. Two agencies were state UCR programs who were
inadvertently enrolled as both a managing agency and a local agency. Although these two
agencies agreed to manage the data for their local agencies, they did not intend to enter agency
data themselves. One agency lost their sole point of contact to another position and never
backfilled this task. Despite the withdraw requests and initial declines, many agencies indicated
they fully support this initiative even if they were not able to participate in the enhanced
reporting requirements of the pilot study and have said they will participate in the nationwide
collection.
Phase II
LEAs participating in Phase I served as the sampling frame for Phase II. Phase II was an
extension of the records review and comparison with targeted, on-site visits to a sample of
agencies. The FBI worked with the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) in the development of a
statistically-defensible sampling strategy. LEA participation in this phase was also voluntary
and occurred during a three-month time period following the conclusion of Phase I.
Selection of agencies
The original set of agencies recruited for the first phase served as a basis for the selection of
agencies in the second phase. The FBI also continued to accept agencies providing data
voluntarily to the data collection.
The activities of Phase II were primarily centered on an extension of the records review and
comparison with targeted, on-site visits with a sample of pilot agencies. Due to the small
Page | 13
numbers of incidents submitted to the data collection and the wide dispersion of pilot agencies,
the FBI used a purposefully-chosen sample of agencies for on-site visits by FBI personnel. The
FBI, in consultation with the BJS, selected six agencies in four locations to represent key areas of
variation and diversity for reporting agencies. There were three major metropolitan police
departments and two county agencies. In addition, a state agency with primary responsibility for
reporting data for all agencies in the state was also included.
Objectives
The primary objective of the on-site visits was to understand factors which contributed to the
level of underreporting of within-scope incidents—especially those with serious bodily injury or
firearm discharges. The on-site visits also allowed for an assessment of local record-keeping
capabilities. While this did not allow for an estimate of the level of underreporting by agencies,
the information and insight gained from the on-site visits allowed the FBI to develop appropriate
responses to mitigate those effects.
As with Phase I, the on-site reviews were conducted by the FBI, which reviewed all records for
the months of July 2017 to September 2017 at five of the six LEAs connected to UoF incidents
maintained by the sampled agency. A sampling strategy was utilized with one LEA due to a
record count in excess of 400. Every fourth record was reviewed. Due to the agency’s slow
computer system, 75 records were reviewed in total. The primary purpose of these reviews was
to assess whether incidents recorded by the local agency meeting the criteria of the National UoF
Data Collection were appropriately reported to the FBI data collection. This included instances
of either underreporting or over-reporting—especially for those incidents not resulting in a
fatality. Phase II of the pilot study lasted three months and began three months after the onset of
the National UoF Data Collection.
The objectives of Phase II were:
To ascertain factors which contributed to either underreporting or over-reporting of
incidents
To assess whether any incidents occurred which should have been reported to the
National UoF Data Collection, based upon the definition of serious bodily injury or
firearm discharges, but were not.
To further explore factors negatively impacting the reliable recording of characteristics of
incidents of law enforcement UoF as measured in the National UoF Data Collection.
To allow for an assessment of local-record-keeping capabilities and testing of any
possible adjustments made to the language of instructions and data elements or changes
to the data collection which may have been implemented during Phase I.
Assessment
The Phase II site visits consisted of an administrative review and a data quality review.
Administrative Review
The FBI learned how the local LEA and UCR program managed incidents involving law
enforcement UoF through a semi-structured interview with key staff involved with the reporting
of UoF incidents to the National UoF Data Collection. The goal was to ascertain any factors
Page | 14
which contributed to the misreporting of incidents—especially those based on the data collection
of serious bodily injury or firearm discharges. Also, the FBI sought to learn if the LEA was
accurately interpreting the intent of a specific question or implemented any new guideline(s) as a
result of findings from Phase I. (See Appendix B for the set of questions used.)
Existing LEA Processes
The FBI determined through Phase II interviews the majority of LEAs have an existing process
to employ when a UoF incident occurs. If a Taser or OC (oleoresin capsicum) spray is used, the
fire department or emergency medical services responds. Typically, an incident is reviewed
through the chain of command and is then delivered to the training unit, inspection unit, and/or
internal affairs. The FBI found if a subject complained excessive force was used, internal affairs
was involved across all six agencies. One of the agencies participating in the site visits had an
outdated information system which contributed to difficulty in tracking UoF incidents. For states
with an investigative body employing an amount of oversight of local agency activities, such as
an investigative bureau, these agencies are only used to investigate UoF incidents at the request
of the local agency involved. The FBI found some states have a 95 percent request rate;
however, these investigative bureaus do not investigate firearm discharges. Following the FBI’s
site visits, one of these investigative bureaus communicated they will be looking to delegate the
majority of the UoF data collection to the local agency. The FBI recommends other investigative
bureaus with similar responsibilities utilize this process as well to place the responsibility of the
data completeness in the hands of the data owner.
Implementation of UoF Processes
Regarding steps put in place to implement additional processes to accommodate LEA
participation in the National UoF Data Collection pilot study, some LEAs are creating new
electronic flags to track these incidents in their existing systems. In addition, the FBI found
some agencies originally planned to have the same civilian employees responsible for their UCR
reporting handle their UoF reporting. However, they quickly learned civilian employees do not
tend to have access to this information and their current UCR process could not be used.
Therefore, the majority of individuals placed in roles to enter and review UoF data were sworn
personnel.
Based on the six LEAs the FBI visited, five currently employ a UoF form and are willing to
modify this form to capture all data elements requested by the FBI. The FBI did find through
anecdotal conversations early in the project smaller agencies may not have electronic systems in
place to capture UoF information. It was assumed in those cases agencies would choose to
utilize the portal application to manage their data. Larger agencies may already have systems in
place and the FBI needs to determine how our data system interacts with theirs. Despite agency
size, LEAs may choose to utilize either the portal application or bulk submission, as long as the
agency has the ability to implement the technical necessities to bulk submit. Again, five of the
six LEAs the FBI visited used a manual process to review each law enforcement UoF to
determine if any incidents fall within the scope of this collection. This can be time consuming as
these agencies are working on technical implementations to pull information based on injury
type to alleviate the need for manual reviews.
Page | 15
Overall, the FBI found most incidents with serious bodily injury are documented with the LEA.
The challenge resides in locating the information on the incident and ensuring it is not lost.
Based on the agencies visited, the FBI would expect to find one to five sworn individuals tasked
with UoF within a LEA, although it is not uncommon for an agency to utilize just one employee.
Some LEAs did outline their current duties to follow the Commission on Accreditation for Law
Enforcement Agencies process. LEAs are still seeking guidance regarding how to respond to the
Death in Custody Reporting Act and the National UoF Data Collection. Since the Department of
Justice has not provided this guidance, the FBI will continue to communicate with LEAs to
distinguish the difference.
Time Elapsed Prior to Entry
Regarding the first entry of UoF information, the FBI found the majority of LEA pilot
participants can enter data once there is a positive identification on the subject. In many cases,
LEAs may file a report within 24 hours of an incident. Depending on supervisory review, some
LEAs may take up to two weeks to file a report. The FBI did notice in many cases firearm
discharges have a separate reporting process than death or serious bodily injury. These gaps in
communication were noted by LEAs who of their own accord declared a need to streamline the
information sharing process to ensure timely entries. The FBI is encouraging complete counts
and entries within the UoF system within 30 days of occurrence.
Multiple Agency Involvement
LEAs were split down the middle regarding if they will only investigate their own law
enforcement officers during instances where multiple agencies become involved with the same
UoF incident. Of the LEAs which only investigate their own law enforcement officers, they
noted they would only know the supplemental agency’s name and would not readily know the
ORI or case number used by other agencies. The FBI’s solution is to create a look-up table to
the portal application, which can supply this information. Typically, the primary LEA
investigates the incident at hand and supplies an investigative package to the supplemental
agency containing the needed information. Regarding instances involving investigative bureau
agencies within the state, these agencies are only invited to assist with investigations by the
primary agency involved.
Defining and Interpreting Serious Bodily Injury and UoF
Some LEAs indicated to the FBI they had no issues interpreting and applying the definition for
serious bodily injury, as it fit their current definition for aggravated battery; however, many
LEAs did have questions regarding the verbiage used to define serious bodily injury. These
questions revolved around how to define loss of consciousness, scarring, disfigurement, and
mental faculty. LEAs were particularly curious of how to qualify the severity of a scar, as well
as loss of consciousness. LEAs also questioned the timeframe for protracted injuries and
expressed a concern about collecting contagious disease exposure.
LEAs did express the need to further clarify if foot pursuits, vehicle pursuits, and stop sticks
played into the scope of the UoF collection. One agency in particular expressed their agency
viewed routine responses from law enforcement, such as foot pursuits and vehicle pursuits to not
apply to the scope of the UoF definition; however, if an officer took offensive action toward a
subject and caused injury, this would apply to the scope of the UoF definition. Another agency
Page | 16
indicated the serious bodily injury definition states “involves a substantial risk” and does not
qualify a result needs to occur, whereas the UoF definition states “results in” the death or serious
bodily injury of a person.
Unclear Data Elements
LEAs communicated to the FBI specific data elements they felt were unclear throughout the
collection questionnaire. These data elements included specifics surrounding location type,
impairment, reason for initial contact, perceived threat, and full time work hours. LEAs
expressed a concern with utilizing some of the National Incident-Based Reporting System
(NIBRS) location types, such as a residence home not encapsulating the same context as an
apartment complex indicating they have a need, but are incapable, to capture areas known to be
higher in crime, such as multi-family living. In addition, LEAs did not feel there was a
commensurate location type to describe private property, such as a yard. LEAs also questioned
if they should report the dispatch location or the location in which the UoF took place if the two
happened to differ.
The majority of LEAs were unclear as to why the height and weight of an officer was requested,
stating this information is rarely kept up to date and is also not readily accessible. The FBI also
received some questions regarding the screener question asking for an indication of whether a
death, serious bodily injury, or firearm discharge occurred when more than one result occurred
with one subject. LEAs reiterated some of the requested information would not be easily
accessed by civilian employees. Furthermore, LEAs also suggested additional data elements to
be included for specific questions, such as urinating/defecating on an officer as a selection for
injury type to officer and a subject using a vicious animal as a weapon toward an officer.
LEAs questioned how to determine the number of subjects involved in a UoF incident regarding
hostages and bystanders. LEAs also questioned if accidental firearm discharges which occurred
while cleaning a weapon qualified for the UoF collection. These incidents were never within the
scope of this collection, but due to inquiries from LEAs, the FBI is providing clarifying language
to address this within the supporting help documentation and FAQs. Furthermore, LEAs have
requested clarification regarding the definition of a firearm to explain if objects such as rubber
bullets, cannons, bean bags, and flash bangs are to be included.
Data Elements Likely to be Pending or Never Available
LEAs pinpointed a few data elements which would likely be submitted as pending on an initial
submission. These data elements included charges to the subject, height and weight of the
subject, injuries to the subject, impairment, and mental health. The FBI determined, due to
investigative processes, LEAs may not be able to provide these details up to one year following
an incident. LEAs did suggest adding minor injury types to the officer fields in order to correctly
capture the context of the events which took place. For instance, the FBI currently asks for
injuries sustained by the officer(s); however, the selections available revolve around serious
bodily injury. LEAs have requested minor injuries be included so as not to misconstrue the
officer(s) were unharmed when in fact they may have been, just not in a serious nature. Finally,
the majority of LEAs did indicate the height and weight of the officer(s) would likely never be
available for submission due to the difficulty in locating it and the inaccuracy of this data field,
stating most officers do not measure their height and weight post-academy.
Page | 17
Federal Task Forces
One agency questioned how UoF reporting would be handled when one of their local officers
involved in a UoF incident holds a position on a federal task force. They had recently
experienced a situation where one local officer used force while performing task force duties
within their local jurisdiction. The LEA was unsure if they were responsible for reporting this
incident or if the federal agency would be responsible and requested guidance.
LEA Nonresponse
The FBI determined there was a commonality among the justifications provided by LEAs who
communicated they were unable to participate in the pilot study. Commonalities included
concerns regarding current workload and limited time, as well as legal concerns regarding
sharing copies of incident reports for the independent and blind quality analysis of Phase I by the
FBI.
Data Quality Review
The FBI reviewed all available UoF incidents recorded by five of the six LEAs from July 1, 2017
to September 30, 2017. A sampling strategy was utilized with one LEA due to a record count
exceeding 400. Every fourth record was reviewed. Due to the agency’s slow computer system,
75 records were reviewed in total. Incidents were reviewed as they related to the application of
National UoF Data Collection definitions of within-scope incidents. The FBI discovered zero
instances in which a LEA had entered a UoF data element erroneously resulting in
underreporting or overreporting upon this review. (See Appendix C for proposed data collection
instrument.)
Discussion and Response to Findings
The FBI was able to draw several conclusions from the findings obtained from the National UoF
Data Collection pilot study. These findings touch upon aspects related to participation and
undercounting, as well as gaining more reliable information.
Participation and Undercounting of Incidents
As a new administrative data collection, the FBI anticipates the National UoF Data Collection
will have initial issues with unit nonresponse. The FBI, in partnership with the national law
enforcement organizations and its points-of-contact in each state, will be targeting recruitment
and enrollment of agencies once formal approval to begin the data collection is received. The
FBI’s goal is to achieve a minimum of 80 percent participation weighted by the number of sworn
law enforcement officers employed by participating agencies by the renewal of the data
collection. If the FBI has achieved between 60 and 80 percent participation, the FBI will
conduct a nonresponse bias study in order to assess the causes and impact of missing respondents
on the ability to provide national estimates. If by the next Information Collection Renewal
period the FBI is unable to achieve at least 60 percent weighted participation rate for the
National UoF Data Collection, the FBI will request a one-year extension to allow for it to assess
the data collection strategy and determine if other modes may provide better estimates of law
enforcement use of force (for example, using a sample of agencies).
Overall, participants in the pilot study described an existing process to capture this information
Page | 18
and could be used as the basis of the National UoF Data Collection. One agency did
communicate they do not have a process in place at this time, and become aware of these events
if a complaint is made by the general public regarding law enforcement UoF. They are working
to restructure their workflow to ensure this information is delivered accurately and timely to the
appropriate individuals for reporting. Participation in this collection appears to be driving these
agencies to streamline their business processes and provide training to their employees.
Significant differences between agencies were noted in the timeframe needed for the
investigative and review process. Some agencies are well streamlined and complete these tasks
within 30 days, whereas others can take four months to one year to complete. The FBI is
encouraging complete counts and entries within the UoF system within 30 days of occurrence.
Due to this recommendation, it is likely many agencies may need to submit incidents with
pending values. This is consistent within the Phase I findings. Out of 135 incidents released to
the FBI during the pilot study, 114 of them, or 84 percent, contained at least one pending value.
Due to lengthy investigative processes, the FBI recognizes it may take a LEA up to one year to
reconcile these pending data elements.
Some LEAs have expressed they currently are working with older computer systems. Overall
the FBI did not find any indication which would cause concern in which nonfatal incidents
related to serious bodily injuries would not be documented with the LEA. The challenge lies in
locating the information and ensuring it is not lost for entry into the National UoF Data
Collection. One agency in Phase II of the pilot study stated their intention to update their
technology at a future date, although budget constraints currently make this difficult. Therefore,
while incidents like these are collected in many cases, they may be scattered throughout different
sections of the agency, making this information difficult to track. The FBI has found current
mitigations by agencies are to request monthly data reports and manually determine if any within
scope UoF incidents did occur.
In order to address this challenge, the FBI is implementing two mitigation strategies. The first
centers on better use of technology to assist agencies with managing this task. For example, the
FBI developed a report query within the portal application which will allow LEAs to obtain all
UoF incidents submitted on their behalf containing a pending value. State UCR Programs and
LEAs can better track any pending values for resolution at a later date for inclusion in updated
analyses and publications.
The second approach to mitigate the challenge of developing solid procedures to capture
information on UoF is continued engagement with the major law enforcement organizations. For
example, the International Association of Chiefs of Police voluntarily developed a model policy
regarding UoF reporting for their members. The model policy can be used as the basis of
developing new policy by any LEA looking to set up a similar process to record UoF incidents.
The FBI’s ongoing engagement with the major law enforcement organizations can ensure there
are opportunities to encourage better, more complete reporting.
Throughout its six-month duration, the FBI also received inquiries from participating agencies
regarding officer UoF resulting in injury. These agencies were concerned with maintaining the
context of the incident. Since there are occasions where officer UoF is used, but it is unclear if
Page | 19
the officer caused the sustained injury or if it was a pre-existing condition, these agencies were
unclear as to how they should answer this question. In addition, if multiple officers were
involved in the UoF and one injury was sustained by the subject, agencies were unclear as to
how to ascertain which officer may have caused the injury. The UoF Task Force2 recommends
loosening the requirement in which the officers’ actions are known to have caused the injury and
requests agencies report any officers who used force, regardless of confirming the cause of
injury, to the collection.
Reliability of the Data Collection
The results of both Phase I and Phase II analysis indicate several data elements which require
further clarification in order to apply response categories in a consistent manner. More
specifically, there are response categories within injury categories for both subject and officer,
types of force applied to the subject, location type, and the role of federal task forces. Beyond
these specific areas, there was a small list of additional areas for clarification which were
generally supported by the reliability analysis as well.
These questions were provided to the UoF Task Force for review and recommended course of
action. The FBI and the UoF Task Force determined the majority of these questions would not
have existed had the LEA accessed the help documentation readily accessible on the UoF portal
application and special interest group. These documents include FAQs, help videos, user
manuals, and quick help guides. Conversations with pilot study participants showed LEAs did
not attempt to locate them. Therefore, the FBI’s mitigation strategy is to further communicate
and clarify the location of these documents to LEAs. Please see Appendix D for proposed
language.
The development of the data collection tool uses an agile process which will easily accommodate
changes to the collection tool identified from the pilot study. A dedicated technical team is
under contract to ensure the FBI is able to react quickly to these potential changes or any future
needs for the data collection.
Revision to the Question on Resistance or Weapon Encountered
Given the high number of unused response categories on the question about the subject’s
resistance or use of weapon encountered by the officer, and the moderate to weak agreement on
those categories used, the use of weapons by the subject were combined to two categories from
the original five, as well as combining two forms of passive resistance into one category. The
category of “firearm” is still proposed as a separate category due to the high visibility of those
incidents and the need to be able to compare the instances in which a subject used a firearm to
other types of incidents. By combining categories, the revised question will provide a more clear
division between active aggression and passive resistance categories (Please see Q21 and Q21a
in Appendix F – National UoF Data Collection “Notational” Questionnaire).
2
The UoF Task Force is comprised of 13 representatives of the law enforcement community, including the major
law enforcement organizations, as well as local, state, tribal, and federal representation. The UoF Task Force has
provided vital insight into law enforcement data collections and concepts regarding UoF.
Page | 20
Revision to Questions on Injury
As part of a set of pre-testing activities conducted by the FBI, the FBI solicited participation in a
cognitive testing questionnaire from the 280 participants in the FBI National Academy in
residence at the FBI training facility in Quantico, VA on November 30, 2016. The FBI National
Academy is a 10-week training program of leaders and managers of state, local, county, tribal,
military, federal, and international law enforcement agencies. These 280 potential participants
represented the total roster of the FBI National Academy class in residence at the FBI training
facility on November 30, 2016.
The questions on the cognitive testing instrument were developed to identify areas where there
might not be a common understanding of the same terminology—including the ability to discern
what injuries would be considered “serious” according to the definition used in the National UoF
Data Collection. The original injury question used in the pilot study reflected categories of
injury consistently interpreted as “serious” injuries by the law enforcement officers in the pretesting. However, during the pilot, there were reliability problems with two injury
categories: “possible internal injury” and “other major injury.” Guidance on these categories
was provided in the help documentation based upon conceptual association detected for certain
injuries detected through factor analysis of the results of the pre-testing. However, the FBI did
not receive any questions about these categories from the pilot participants, though it was also
noted during interviews during the site visits that participants seldom used the help
documentation due to the intuitive nature of the data collection tool.
The FBI additionally explored the manner in which injury is included in publicly-released data
sets on law enforcement uses of force available through the Police Data Initiative (PDI)
(www.policedatainitiative.org). As released on the PDI website, there are 24 agencies which
release use-of-force data through the initiative, and 11 of those agencies release information on
subject injury. All but 3 agencies aggregate that information into two “yes or no” questions of
“was the subject injured?” and “was the subject hospitalized?” However, these agencies do not
seem to assess whether the injury was “serious” as defined by the National UoF Data collection.
Given the specificity of the definition of serious bodily injury in the National UoF Data
Collection, proceeding with a simple yes/no question would not be advised and could make it
difficult for the FBI to assess if there is over-reporting based upon an erroneous understanding of
the scope of the collection. While it is still uncertain if better guidance on the application of data
response categories could ensure reliable interpretation of injuries, the FBI proposes revising the
question to address the following:
A minor adjustment to the language in the question to reflect that injury is based upon
observation of the law enforcement agency rather than any further medical diagnosis
Inclusion of additional descriptive information including the criteria of either medical
intervention or hospitalization to guide the respondent to provide serious injury rather
than any injury. This language along with included guidance also clarifies that standard
medical evaluation which may be conducted by law enforcement as a part of the
assessment of the subject’s fitness for arrest and detention would not automatically
include the injury to the scope of collection.
Page | 21
Focusing on broad aggregate categories of injury would minimize the risk of inconsistent
application of the injury categories. As more is known about law enforcement
interpretation and assessment of injury, these categories can be proposed for
disaggregation at a later date.
In addition, the following list provides an overview of the types of questions on the
categorization of injury and how to apply the categories provided:
Requests for more clarification on unconsciousness.
Questions about the timeframe for protracted injuries.
Questions about how to indicate contagious disease exposure.
In the case of protracted disfigurement and scarring, the UoF Task Force is advising LEAs to
place emphasis on the term ‘protracted’, meaning the disfigurement and/or scarring would not be
temporary or minor, but rather gross in nature and immediately recognizable as serious. The
FBI’s revision to the language in the injury questions to include the phrase, “requiring medical
intervention or hospitalization” should address the uncertainty related to these categories.
Height and Weight
Findings from the National UoF Data Collection pilot study revealed the following pertaining to
data elements officer height and officer weight:
During the development phase of the data collection, research with the law enforcement
community indicated officer height and weight and subject height and weight would be a
key component of describing contextual information on incidents of law enforcement
UoF resulting in a fatality, a serious bodily injury, or the discharge of a firearm at or in
the direction of a person.
However, the most common data elements reported pending during the pilot study were
officer height and officer weight.
The majority of LEAs indicated height and weight of an officer was not readily
accessible, and rarely kept updated when available.
Based on these findings, the FBI recommends closely monitoring the reporting of officer height
and officer weight over the next three years to determine whether valid measures for these data
elements would be reported. The FBI recommends monitoring the item nonresponse rate of
officer height and officer weight. The FBI will provide to OMB annual item nonresponse rates
for officer height and weight at the renewal. If the level of reporting of nonmissing data over the
next three years does not reach 80 percent complete or better, the FBI will remove data elements
officer height and officer weight from the collection when it is brought for renewal. In addition,
any publication of item measures that do not reach a response rate of 80 percent or better would
be for the purposes of reporting data quality and completeness measures.
Although subject height and subject weight are also data elements included in the National UoF
Data Collection, the terms of this clearance are specifically focused on officer height and officer
weight, as these were the data elements most commonly subject to item nonresponse throughout
the pilot study. However, if it is ultimately determined data elements officer height and officer
Page | 22
weight should be removed after the three year monitoring period, the FBI will consider removing
subject height and subject weight given the decreased utility of the information without similar
information for the officer.
Type of Force
Agencies also requested clarification on whether certain incidents involving only physical
contact (hands/fists/feet) and routine foot and vehicle pursuits would be reportable under the
provided scope of this collection. The FBI recommends if there is an officer instituted action in
response to resistance in which the officer makes physical contact with their own body or
another object with the subject to be UoF. Conversely, routine foot and vehicle pursuits in which
the officer does not purposefully take action to cause an injury would not be reported.
Furthermore, LEAs questioned how to determine the number of subjects involved in a UoF
incident regarding hostages and bystanders. LEAs should report only the intended targets
regarding law enforcement UoF and not hostages and bystanders.
Additional clarification for types of force response categories would include the addition of a
response category for a choke hold and a more precise definition of firearm. LEAs requested
clarification regarding the definition of a firearm to explain if objects such as rubber bullets,
cannons, bean bags, and flash bangs are to be included. The FBI recommends utilizing the
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives definition of a firearm (see Appendix D).
Location Type
LEAs did not feel there was a commensurate location type to describe private property, such as a
yard. LEAs also questioned if they should report the dispatch location or the location in which
the UoF took place if the two happened to differ. Through cognitive testing which occurred prepilot, law enforcement indicated to the FBI it would be preferred to report the location in which
the UoF incident took place. Their decision was based on the fact officers may be dispatched to
a location for hours throughout a standoff situation in which UoF is not necessary for quite some
time. This finding is more difficult to address because the National UoF Data Collection uses
the same location types as NIBRS. The FBI will take under advisement concerns about NIBRS
data elements; however, more research is needed at this time. To fully address this concern, both
UoF and NIBRS data collections should be reviewed for the possible inclusion of additional
response categories.
Federal Task Forces
An agency questioned how UoF reporting would be handled when one of their local officers
involved in a UoF incident holds a position on a federal task force. The UoF Task Force
recommends the local LEA report any law enforcement UoF which occurs within their own
jurisdiction while the officer is performing duties for the federal task force. If the law
enforcement UoF occurs outside of the local LEA’s jurisdiction, the federal agency responsible
for the task force would report the incident. If the local LEA indicates to the federal agency
responsible for the task force they do not wish to participate in the National UoF Data
Collection, the federal agency responsible for the task force would report all UoF incidents that
occur by the officer acting on behalf of the task force regardless of jurisdiction. Regardless of
the above, the parent agency may always retain the right to submit qualifying UoF incidents to
the National UoF Data Collection for their personnel regardless of location of the incident by so
Page | 23
stating when joining a federal task force.
Remaining Minor Clarifications
The following list includes suggestions for clarification. These suggestions are also generally
supported by the reliability analysis in Phase I of the pilot study.
Regarding impairment, LEAs indicated at the time of the UoF incident, they may only be
able to describe observed behavior and not provide a confirmative result. The FBI will
clarify the current question allows for the LEA to indicate possible impairment of the
subject is based on perception of behavior.
LEAs requested the FBI narrow the scope of perceived threat asking if the intention was
to report the perceived threat by the officer, or the perceived threat by witnesses.
Some LEAs did indicate their officers work variable schedules and may not log 35 hours
per week, but do log 160 hours per month to equal a full time employee.
Regarding the reason for initial contact, the FBI recommends the reason for the initial
dispatch to be provided. For instance, if an officer is dispatched to a traffic accident and
other events take place warranting UoF, the agency would still report the traffic accident
as the reason for initial contact.
Publication from Pilot Study and Terms of Clearance
At the conclusion of the pilot study, the FBI will release a report following OMB approval, at the
request of law enforcement, detailing the results of its pilot study data collection and analysis.
The results from the pilot study will be released to the public and will consist of primarily three
sections. The first section will provide the results of the on-site assessment regarding
underreporting and completeness, as well as an assessment of the reliability of reported data
from the Phase I records review. All results in this section will be pooled, and no individual
agency will be identified. The second section will provide results of the analysis of nonresponse
and missing data—to include refusals to participate in the pilot study. This section will also
identify whether a need clearly exists for a nonresponse bias study and a proposed methodology
for the study. Again, all results will be pooled, and no individual agency will be identified in the
second section. As the pilot study only has two phases, the third section of the report will detail
the data collection policies and procedures which will assist with maintaining data quality and
completeness as a permanent and final data collection. The third section will also detail any ongoing collaboration and partnership between the FBI and the BJS to achieve and maintain a highlevel of data quality. Finally, an optional fourth section will list basic agency-level counts of
reported data from all participating agencies as a showcase of item completeness and quality. In
addition to the public report, the FBI will provide opportunities for the participating agencies in
the two phases of the pilot study to hear the results directly and ask questions. This will occur
through teleconferences.
Terms of Clearance
The FBI recognizes the importance of response rates and population coverage for the ability of
the National UoF Data Collection to generate valid national estimates of the UoF by police
officers. After consultation with OMB, FBI agrees to the following terms of clearance
Page | 24
describing the quality standards which will apply to the dissemination of the results. For the
purpose of these conditions, “coverage rate” refers to the total law enforcement officer
population covered by UoF. In addition, “coverage rate” will be considered on both a state-bystate basis, as well as a national scale. “Key variables” include subject injuries received and type
of force used. Item non-response refers to the percent of respondents that either do not answer
the question associated with a key variable or answer “unknown and unlikely to ever be known.”
For the first year of collection,
1) If the coverage rate is 80 percent or greater and the item non-response is 30 percent or
less, then no conditions apply to the dissemination of the results.
2) If the coverage rate is between 60 percent and 80 percent or the item non-response is
greater than 30 percent, then the FBI will not release counts or totals, but may release
ratios or percentages.
3) If the coverage rate is between 40 percent and 60 percent, then the FBI may release only
the response percentages for the key variables across the entire population and for
subpopulations which represent 20 percent or more of the total population.
4) If the coverage rate is less than 40 percent, the FBI will not disseminate results.
In subsequent years, if any combination of conditions three and four are met for three
consecutive years, or if condition four is met for two consecutive years, then the FBI will
discontinue the collection and explore alternate approaches for collecting the information, for
example by working cooperatively with the Bureau of Justice Statistics to expand their current
efforts to collect information on deaths in custody, to include law enforcement.
Page | 25
Appendix A—Complete Results of Reliability Analysis and Missing
Data
Table 11. Full Results of Reliability Analysis, Incident-level Questions
Screener Question - Fatality
Screener Question - Serious Injury
Screener Question - Firearm
Discharge
Date of the incident
Time of the incident
Location type of the incident
What was the reason for initial
contact between subject(s) and
officer(s).
If the use of force was in response
to report or observance of unlawful
or suspicious activity, report up to
3 offenses
Kappa
Pending
Unknown
No
Response
0.950
0.919
---
---
---
0.929
0.863
0.655
0.691
---1.9
---0.0
---0.6
0.708
3.1
0.0
0.0
*
*
*
*
Did the officer approach the
subject(s)?
Was this an ambush incident?
0.823
**
2.5
11.7
0.6
0.0
0.6
0.6
Was a supervisor or a senior officer
acting in a similar capacity present
or consulted prior to when force
was used in the incident?
1.000
14.2
0.6
0.6
Total number of officers who
actually applied force during the
time of the incident…
0.615
6.2
0.0
0.0
Number of officers from your
agency who actually applied force
during the time of incident…
0.625
5.6
0.0
0.0
Total number of subjects that died
or received serious injury as a
result of a law enforcement use of
force, or, in the absence of death or
serious injury, received the
discharge of a firearm at or in their
direction…
-0.005
3.1
1.9
0.0
0.708
0.0
0.0
0.0
Total number of other agencies
involved…
* Did not analyze due to the sparse nature of the data.
**No Cohen’s kappa Coefficient was calculated due to the results being constant
Page | 26
Table 12. Full Results of Reliability Analysis, Subject-level Questions
Age of the subject at time of incident
Sex of subject
Race and ethnicity of subject (select all that
apply)
Height of subject (report actual or estimated
range of values)
Weight of subject (report actual or estimated
range of values)
Was there an apparent or known impairment in
the mental or physical condition on the subject
Drug
Alcohol
Mental Impairment
Was the threat by the subject(s) perceived by the
officer(s) to be directed to the officer or to
another party
Did the subject resist the officer(s)
What resistance or weapon was or believed to be
involved
Escape/Flee
Resisted
Barricade
Chemical
Edge Weapon
Electronic
Firearm
Physical
Display Weapon
Vehicle
Body Fluids
Throwing
Verbal
Noncompliance
Passive Resistance
At any time during the incident, was the subject
armed or believed to be armed with a weapon
(other than hands, fists, or feet)
Type(s) of force used by law enforcement
connected to serious bodily injury or death of the
subject
Firearm
Electronic
Explosive
Chemical
Baton
Projectile
Blunt Object
Kappa
---
Pending
4.3
0.6
Unknown
1.8
0.0
No
Response
0.6
0.6
Estimated
6.1
--
--
1.8
3.1
0.0
--
0.803
11.0
6.7
0.6
7.4
0.885
12.3
7.4
0.6
9.2
0.754
0.583
0.615
1.000
0.0
----
0.6
----
0.0
----
-----
0.633
**
10.4
4.9
0.0
0.0
0.6
0.6
---
-0.370
0.690
0.695
**
0.852
1.000
0.683
0.558
0.383
0.822
**
**
0.179
0.427
**
2.5
----------------
0.0
----------------
-----------------
-----------------
0.758
9.2
0.6
0.6
--
-0.866
0.754
**
**
0.662
0.662
0.662
3.1
--------
0.0
--------
---------
---------
Page | 27
Physical
Canine
Other
What were the subject’s injuries received as a
direct consequence of the use of force by law
enforcement
Broken Bones
Gunshot
Loss of Teeth
Loss of Body Parts
Possible Internal Injuries
Severe Laceration
Canine bite
Unconsciousness
Cardiac Event
Other Major Injury
Death
None
Kappa
0.661
0.864
**
Pending
----
Unknown
----
No
Response
----
Estimated
----
-0.808
0.879
**
**
0.490
0.648
0.928
1.000
**
0.492
0.923
0.823
6.1
-------------
1.8
-------------
0.0
-------------
--------------
**No Cohen’s kappa Coefficient was calculated due to the results being constant
Table 13. Full Results of Reliability Analysis, Officer-level Questions
Age of officer at time of incident
Sex of the officer
Race and ethnicity of the officer (select all that
apply)
Height of the officer
Weight of the officer
Officer’s years of service as a law enforcement
officer (total tenure)
Does the officer work full-time (35 or more
hours per week)
Was the officer on duty at the time of the
incident
Was the officer readily identifiable by clothing
or insignia at the time of the incident
Did the officer discharge a firearm at or in the
direction of a person during the incident
Was the officer injured during the incident that
precipitated the use of force
What were the officer’s injuries during the
incident that precipitated the use of force (select
all that apply)
Broken Bones
Gunshot
Kappa
---
Pending
27.6
0.8
Unknown
---
No
Response
11.8
0.4
-0.572
0.509
5.8
50.6
50.6
2.3
---
0.0
0.6
0.6
0.915
30
--
11.8
**
2.7
16.3
0.8
1.000
1.2
0
0.8
1.000
4.7
0
0.8
0.943
0.4
2.3
0.8
0.710
5.1
0
0.8
-1.000
0.885
1.2
---
0.8
---
0.0
---
Page | 28
Loss of Teeth
Loss of Body Parts
Possible Internal Injury
Severe Laceration
Canine
Unconsciousness
Other Major Injury
Death
Kappa
**
**
**
**
**
**
0.663
**
Pending
---------
Unknown
---------
No
Response
---------
**No Cohen’s kappa Coefficient was calculated due to the results being constant
Page | 29
Appendix B—Interview Questions with Key Personnel during Site Visit
Questions on process
Can you tell me a little bit about your process to review the UoF by sworn officers in
your agency? What kinds of incidents are subject to review? Who is involved? What is
the timetable for these reviews?
What, if any, process have you implemented for the collection of information for the
National UoF Data Collection? How many people do you have assigned? What are the
typical duties of these individuals? Are they sworn or civilian? Who reviews the
information? Who typically enters the information?
How much time elapses before the first entry of information?
In situations involving multiple agencies, how does this process change? Are there
certain pieces of information typically exchanged?
Questions on the definitions
[After reading the definition of serious bodily injury] What scenarios have you
confronted which would fit this definition?
Where do you see difficulties applying this definition?
Questions on the collected information
[After providing a list of data elements as reference] Are there any data elements in this
list which were unclear or confusing when you tried to provide the information?
Which data elements are likely to be reported as “pending” upon the first submission?
Why? When could the information usually be changed?
Are there answers to any data elements which would never be available from your
agency? Why?
Did you find any instructions on the Portal site? If so, did you use them?
Page | 30
Appendix C—Analysis of Local Records for Site Visit
Analysis of Agency Information
Tracking number: __________
Q1.
What type of incident is this?
Q2.
Fatality ( to Q2)
Serious Bodily Injury ( to Q3)
Firearm Discharge without Injury or Fatality ( to Q5)
Other ( to Q6)
What was the cause of death, if noted? (e.g., gunshot wound) Not noted
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
( to Q7)
Q3.
What was the injury, if noted? (e.g., broken leg) Not noted
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
( to Q7)
Q4.
How was the severity of the injury described?
Not noted
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
( to Q7)
Page | 31
Q5.
Who was the intended target? Not noted
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
( to Q7)
Q6.
What were the circumstances leading to the recording and review of this incident? (e.g.,
officer drew weapon; officer used Taser without injury)
Not noted
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Q7.
Basic counts:
Number of subjects: __________
Not noted
Number of total officers involved: _________
Not noted
Number of agency’s officers involved: _________
Not noted
Number of agencies involved: ___________
Not noted
(if multiple agencies involved, is the ORI & Case # recorded? Yes
Q8.
Was this incident reported to the National UoF Data Collection?
Q9.
No)
Yes
No
Is there anything else about this incident which might be relevant for discussion?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Page | 32
Appendix D—Proposed Instructions to Address Findings
Below are clarifications made to the proposed instructions to address findings from the pilot
study:
A firearm will be defined as:
(3) The term ‘‘firearm’’ means (A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is
designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an
explosive; (B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon; (C) any firearm muffler or
firearm silencer; or (D) any destructive device.
If there is an officer instituted action in response to resistance in which the officer makes
physical contact with their own body or another object it is considered UoF. Conversely, routine
foot and vehicle pursuits in which the officer does not purposefully take action to cause an injury
would not be reported.
Q4.
Location of the incident
Please identify your best estimate of the location of the UoF event causing injury, death,
or the location of firearm discharge either by its address, approximate location (i.e., street
intersection, neighborhood), or by geographic coordinates (latitude/longitude). The
agency can provide one or the other. Both are not necessary.
When providing the geospatial data in longitude and latitude (geographic coordinates),
please provide or transform the data in the North American Datum of 1983 or NAD83
coordinate system.
If information is unknown because the investigation is still incomplete, record pending
further investigation.
If the information is not known and is unlikely to ever be known, record unknown and is
unlikely to be known.
Q10. Total number of officers who applied actual force during time of incident.
Include only those officers who were present at any time during the contact between
officer(s) and the subject, and who directly engaged at least one subject with a use of
force. This number should include any officer regardless of whether they are employed
by your agency. Please report all officers who used force, regardless of confirming if an
injury was sustained or not. UoF is defined as actions by a law enforcement officer
resulting in a fatality, serious bodily injury to a person, or the discharge of a firearm at or
in the direction of a person. For the purpose of this data collection, the definition of
serious bodily injury is based in part on 18 United States Code 2246 (4) and means,
“bodily 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.”
Q11. Number of officers from your agency who applied actual force during time of
Page | 33
incident.
Include only those officers employed by your agency who were present at any time
during the contact between officer(s) and the subject, and who directly engaged at least
one subject with a use of force. Please report all officers who used force, regardless of
confirming if an injury was sustained or not. UoF is defined as actions by a law
enforcement officer resulting in a fatality, serious bodily injury to a person, or the
discharge of a firearm at or in the direction of a person. For the purpose of this data
collection, the definition of serious bodily injury is based in part on 18 United States
Code 2246 (4) and means, “bodily 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.”
This number should be equal to or less than the number reported in Question 10.
Your agency will report information for each one of these officers. So, the number of
officer segments will be equal to this number.
Q21. What resistance or weapon was involved?
A weapon can generally include, but are not limited to, firearm; BB or pellet gun; knife;
other cutting instrument or edged weapon; electronic control weapon; explosive device;
blunt instrument; chemical agent (e.g. acid, gasoline, pepper or OC (oleoresin capsicum)
spray, etc.). Under certain circumstances motor vehicles or other objects could also be
considered weapons if used or displayed in a threatening manner. Please mark all
categories that apply.
Passive Resistance is indicated when the subject is not complying with an officer’s
commands and is uncooperative, but is taking only minimal physical action to prevent an
officer from placing the subject in custody and taking control. Examples include:
standing stationary and not moving upon lawful direction, falling limply and refusing to
use their own power to move (becoming “dead weight”), holding onto a fixed object, or
locking arms to another during a protest or demonstration.
If information is unknown because the investigation is still incomplete, record pending
further investigation.
If the information is not known and is unlikely to ever be known, record unknown and is
unlikely to be known.
Q23. Type(s) of force used connected to serious bodily injury or death (Select all that
apply)
The purpose of this question is to record any weapons or force used by law enforcement
that were known or believed to have resulted in serious bodily injury or death of the
subject. In addition, firearm should be recorded if it was discharged by an officer at or in
the direction of the subject regardless of whether the subject was struck. (3) The term
‘‘firearm’’ means (A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is
designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an
explosive; (B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon; (C) any firearm muffler or
Page | 34
firearm silencer; or (D) any destructive device. Accidental discharges while cleaning a
weapon are not to be reported. Agencies should deem all injuries caused by a firearm to
be serious.
Multiple types of use of force used by law enforcement may be recorded.
Blunt instruments can include ASP, flashlight, baton, or other objects used to strike an
individual.
Hands/fists/feet can include physical restraint and pressure points.
If there is an officer instituted action in response to resistance in which the officer makes
physical contact with their own body or another object it is considered UoF. Conversely,
routine foot and vehicle pursuits in which the officer does not purposefully take action to
cause an injury would not be reported. For example, if a subject injures themselves while
fleeing an officer, but the officer did not make physical contact with the subject, the
incident would not be reported.
If information is unknown because the investigation is still incomplete, record pending
further investigation.
If the information is not known and is unlikely to ever be known, record unknown and is
unlikely to be known.
The following information was readily available for LEAs to reference; however, based on pilot
study findings, agencies did not find it. The FBI will utilize the notifications function within the
portal application to communicate where this training information can easily be found:
Q24. What were the subject’s injuries? (Select all that apply)
The purpose of this question is to record the subject’s injuries observed sustained by the
subject as a result of the use of force by law enforcement.
Please record all gunshot wounds regardless of whether they are penetrating or grazing as
gunshot wound.
Please record all instances of unconsciousness regardless of its duration or length of time.
Examples for possible internal injury
• Internal bleeding
• Brain damage
• Concussion
• Coma
• Paralysis
Examples for Other Major Injury
• Neck injury
• Eye damage
• Burns
Page | 35
The term “medical intervention” does not include routine evaluation of the subject to
determine fitness for arrest or detention by an emergency medical technician or medical
staff at a medical facility.
If the subject sustained multiple injuries, please mark all that apply. If the subject died,
death should be the only value recorded.
If information is unknown because the investigation is still incomplete, record pending
further investigation.
If the information is not known and is unlikely to ever be known, record unknown and is
unlikely to be known.
Q31. Does the officer work full-time (160 35 or more hours per month week)?
The current LEOKA definition of a law enforcement officer is as follows:
“All local county, state, and federal law enforcement officers (such as municipal, county
police officers, constables, state police, highway patrol, sheriffs, their deputies, federal
law enforcement officers, marshals, special agents, etc.) who are sworn by their
respective government authorities to uphold the law and to safeguard the rights, lives, and
property of American citizens. They must have full arrest powers and be members of a
public governmental law enforcement agency, paid from government funds set aside
specifically for payment to sworn police law enforcement organized for the purposes of
keeping order and for preventing and detecting crimes, and apprehending those
responsible.”
Further guidance may be gleaned from the following criteria used by the LEOKA
Program:
Officers who meet all of the following criteria:
o Wear/carry a badge (ordinarily)
o Carry a firearm (ordinarily)
o Be duly sworn and have full arrest powers
o Be a member of a public governmental law enforcement agency and be paid
from government funds set aside specifically for payment to sworn law
enforcement
o Be acting in an official capacity, whether on or off duty, at the time of
incident
Exceptions to the above-listed criteria:
o Individuals who are serving as a law enforcement officer at the request of a
law enforcement agency whose officers meet the current collection criteria
o Special circumstances will be reviewed by LEOKA staff on a case-by-case
basis to determine inclusion
Page | 36
o Include military and civilian police and law enforcement officers of the
Department of Defense (DoD), while performing a law enforcement
function/duty, who are not in a combat or deployed (sent outside of the United
States for a specific military support role mission) status. This includes DoD
police and law enforcement officers who perform policing and criminal
investigative functions while stationed (not deployed) on overseas bases, just
as if they were based in the United States.
The definition of full time includes officers who work 160 35 or more hours per month
week.
If information is unknown because the officer is unavailable for interview or if the
information should become available after investigation, record pending further
investigation.
If the information is not known and is unlikely to ever be known, record unknown and is
unlikely to be known.
Q34. Did the officer discharge a firearm?
Accidental firearm discharges which occur while cleaning the weapon do not apply to
this collection.
If information is unknown because the officer is unavailable for interview or if the
information should become available after investigation, record pending further
investigation.
If the information is not known and is unlikely to ever be known, record unknown and is
unlikely to be known.
Q35. Was the officer injured (serious or minor)?
The purpose of this question is to assess whether the officer sustained any bodily injury
as a result of his or her interaction with one or more of the subjects. Serious bodily injury
is based in part on 18 United States Code 2246 (4) and means, “bodily 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.” However, this question will allow for the reporting of apparent
minor injuries as well.
The term “medical intervention” does not include routine evaluation of the officer after
the incident by an emergency medical technician or medical staff at a medical facility.
If information is unknown because the officer is unavailable for interview or if the
information should become available after investigation, record pending further
investigation.
Page | 37
If the information is not known and is unlikely to ever be known, record unknown and is
unlikely to be known.
Page | 38
Appendix E—National Use-Force Data Collection
Incident Information
The following questions ask for details about the incident as known by your agency currently. If
information is still being assessed, please indicate “pending further investigation.” You will be
able to update the information at a later time. All data elements must have a valid response
indicated in order to save the incident information.
Q1.
Q2.
Q3.
Q4.
Q5.
Q6.
Q6a.
Q6b.
Q7.
Q8.
Q9.
Q10.
Q11.
Q12.
Q13.
Date of the incident
Time of the incident
Agency Case Number
Location of the incident
Location type of the incident
The FBI will take under advisement concerns about NIBRS data elements. More
research is needed at this time.
What was the reason for initial contact between subject(s) and officer(s)?
If the UoF was in response to report or observance of unlawful or suspicious activity,
report up to 3 offenses
Reported NIBRS Incident Number or local incident number
Did the officer approach the subject(s)?
Was this an ambush incident?
Was a supervisor or a senior officer acting in a similar capacity present or consulted prior
to when force was used in the incident?
Total number of officers who actually applied force during the time of the incident…
Number of officers from your agency who actually applied force during the time of
incident…
Total number of subjects that died or received serious injury as a result of a law
enforcement UoF, or, in the absence of death or serious injury, received the discharge of
a firearm at or in their direction…
If the incident involved officers who used force from multiple law enforcement agencies,
please provide ORIs and case numbers for the local UoF reports at the other agencies…
Subject Information
Please complete the following set of questions from this section for each individual who was
subject to force that resulted in death, severe bodily injury, or a firearm discharge applied by
officers from your agency
Subject Sequence Number ______
Q14.
Q15.
Q16.
Q17.
Q18.
Q19.
Age of the subject at time of incident
Sex of subject
Race and ethnicity of subject (select all that apply)
Height of subject (report actual or estimated range of values)
Weight of subject (report actual or estimated range of values)
Did the subject’s behavior indicate to the officer that there could be drug impairment,
alcohol impairment, or a mental condition involved? Was there an apparent or known
impairment in the mental or physical condition on the subject
Page | 39
Q19a. Please indicate which conditions apply
Q20. Was the threat by the subject(s) perceived by the officer(s) to be directed to the officer or
to another party
Q21. Did the subject resist the officer(s)?
Q21a. What resistance or weapon was or believed to be involved
The FBI will be blunt object to the weapon choices revising the response categories for
this question.
Q22. At any time during the incident, was the subject armed or believed to be armed with a
weapon (other than hands, fists, or feet)
Q23. Type(s) of force used by law enforcement connected to serious bodily injury or death of
the subject
Q24. What were the subject’s injuries received as a direct consequence of the UoF by law
enforcement
Officer Information
Please complete the following set of questions from this section for each officer who actually
applied force that resulted in death, serious bodily injury, or discharged a firearm at or in the
direction of a person in the course of this incident from your agency. Do not include any
officers who were assisting or present; did not apply force; or applied force that did not meet the
criteria as specified above. All data elements must have a valid response indicated in order to
save the incident information.
Officer Sequence Number ________
Q25.
Q26.
Q27.
Q28.
Q29.
Q30.
Q31.
Q32.
Q33.
Q34.
Q35.
Q35a.
Age of officer at time of incident
Sex of the officer
Race and ethnicity of the officer (select all that apply)
Height of the officer
Weight of the officer
Officer’s years of service as a law enforcement officer (total tenure)
Does the officer work full-time (35 or more hours per week)?
Was the officer on duty at the time of the incident
Was the officer readily identifiable by clothing or insignia at the time of the incident
Did the officer discharge a firearm at or in the direction of a person during the incident?
Was the officer injured during the incident that precipitated the UoF
What were the officer’s injuries during the incident that precipitated the UoF (select all
that apply)
Q35b. NIBRS (or local) incident number of report detailing assault or homicide of law
enforcement officer.
Page | 40
Appendix F—National UoF Data Collection “Notional” Questionnaire
Attachment 2—National Use-of-Force Data Collection “Notional” Questionnaire
This questionnaire is being provided to allow for an easy review of questions and possible
response values. The data collection itself, however, will use a web form reflected in
Attachment 1.
Page | 41
National Use-of-Force Data Collection
The National Use-of-Force Data Collection is a component of the Uniform Crime Reporting
Program that is used by law enforcement agencies to report a law enforcement use of force that
results in a fatality, serious bodily injury to a person, or the discharge of a firearm at or in the
direction of a person.
The definition of serious bodily injury is based in part on 18 United States Code 2246 (4) and
means “bodily 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.”
Multiple conditions can be indicated only if multiple subjects were involved.
Did this incident result in…? (Select all that apply.)
The death of a person due to law enforcement use of force?
The serious bodily injury of person due to law enforcement use of force?
The discharge of a firearm by law enforcement at or in the direction of a person that did
not otherwise result in death or serious bodily injury?
If you were able to select any of the above categories, please proceed to Q1 under the
Incident Information on the next page.
Page | 42
Incident Information
The following questions ask for details about the incident as known by your agency currently. If
information is still being assessed, please indicate “pending further investigation.” You will be
able to update the information at a later time. All data elements must have a valid response
indicated in order to save the incident information.
Agency ORI for reported incident (Required) ____________________
Q3.
Agency Case Number (This number is requested to assist in tracking Incident Reports
through the data collection. It will not be released in its original format to the public)
___________________________________________
Q1.
Date of the incident (mm/dd/yyyy) __________________
Q2.
Local tTime of the incident (24-hour time HHMM) __________________
Q3.
Agency Case Number (This number is requested to assist in tracking Incident Reports
through the data collection. It will not be released in its original format to the public)
___________________________________________
Q4.
Location of the UoF incident
Address (include street address/intersection, city, state, and ZIP Code)
__________________________________________________________________
____
__________________________________________________________________
____
Latitude/longitude x-coordinate: ________________ y-coordinate
_______________
Pending further investigation
Unknown and is unlikely to ever be known
Q5.
Location Ttype of the incident (Please select one category that best fits.)
Abandoned/Condemned Structure
Air/Bus/Train Terminal
Amusement Park
Arena/Stadium/Fairgrounds/Coliseum
ATM (Automated Teller Machine) Separate from Bank
Auto Dealership New/Used
Bank/Savings and Loan
Bar/Nightclub
Camp/Campground
Church/Synagogue/Temple/Mosque
Page | 43
Commercial/Office Building
Community Center
Construction Site
Convenience Store
Daycare Facility
Department/Discount Store
Dock/Wharf/Freight/Modal Terminal
Drug Store/Doctor’s Office/Hospital
Farm Facility
Field/Woods
Gambling Facility/Casino/Race Track
Government/Public Building
Grocery/Supermarket
Highway/Road/Alley/Street/Sidewalk
Hotel/Motel/Etc.
Industrial Site
Jail/Prison/Penitentiary/Corrections Facility
Lake/Waterway/Beach
Liquor Store
Military Installation
Park/Playground
Parking/Drop Lot/Garage
Rental Storage Facility
Residence/Home
Rest Area
Restaurant
School–College/University
School–Elementary/Secondary
Service/Gas Station
Shelter–Mission/Homeless
Shopping Mall
Specialty Store
Tribal Lands
Other
Pending further investigation
Unknown and is unlikely to ever be known
Page | 44
Q6.
What was the reason for initial contact between the subject(s) and the officer(s)? (Please
select one)
Q6a.
Response to unlawful or suspicious activity [Skip to Q6a and Q6b]
Medical, mental health, or welfare assistance
Routine patrol other than traffic stop
Traffic stop
Warrant service
Service of a court order
Mass demonstration
Follow up investigation
Other
Pending further investigation
Unknown and is unlikely to ever be known
If the use of force was in response to report or observation of “unlawful or
suspicious activity,” what were the most serious observed offenses committed by
the subject prior to or at the time of the incident?
Offense #1 _______________
Offense #2 _______________
Offense #3 _______________
Pending further investigation
Unknown/Not reported
Q6b.
The National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) or incident number of
report detailing criminal incident information on the subject
_______________________________________
Pending further investigation
Unknown/Not reported
Q7.
Did the officer approach the subject(s)?
Q8.
Yes
No
Pending further investigation
Unknown and is unlikely to ever be known
Was this an ambush incident?
Yes
No
Pending further investigation
Unknown and is unlikely to ever be known
Q9.
Was a supervisor or a senior officer acting in a similar capacity present or consulted prior
to when force was used in the incident?
Page | 45
Yes
No
Pending further investigation
Unknown and is unlikely to ever be known
If the incident involved officers who used force from multiple law enforcement agencies,
please provide the total number of other agencies involved. ____
Q13.
Please provide ORIs and case numbers for the local use-of-force reports at the other
agencies.
ORI
_____________________________
_____________________________
_____________________________
_____________________________
Q10.
CASE NUMBER_________
____________________________
____________________________
____________________________
____________________________
Total number of officers who actually applied force during the time of incident ____
Pending further investigation
Unknown and is unlikely to ever be known
Q11. Number of officers from your agency who actually applied force during the time of
incident ____
Pending further investigation
Unknown and is unlikely to ever be known
Q12.
Total number of subjects that died or received serious bodily injury as a result of a law
enforcement use of force, or, in the absence of death or serious bodily injury, received the
discharge of a firearm at or in their direction ____
Pending further investigation
Unknown and is unlikely to ever be known
Page | 46
Q13.
If the incident involved officers who used force from multiple law enforcement agencies,
please provide ORIs and case numbers for the local use-of-force reports at the other
agencies.
ORI
_____________________________
_____________________________
_____________________________
_____________________________
CASE NUMBER_________
____________________________
____________________________
____________________________
____________________________
Page | 47
Subject Information
Please complete the following set of questions from this section for each individual who was
subject to force that resulted in death, severe bodily injury, or a firearm discharge applied by
officers from your agency in the course of this incident. Do not include any witnesses or
bystanders who were not the subject of force applied by law enforcement. All data elements
must have a valid response indicated in order to save the incident information.
Q12.
Total number of subjects that died or received serious bodily injury as a result of a law
enforcement use of force, including the discharge of a firearm at or in their direction
________
Pending further investigation
Unknown and is unlikely to ever be known
Subject Sequence Number __________
Q15.
Sex of subject
Q16.
Race and ethnicity of subject (select all that apply)
Q14.
Male
Female
Pending further investigation
Unknown/Not reported
Hispanic or Latino
American Indian or Alaska Native
Asian
Black or African American
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
White
Pending further investigation
Unknown/Not reported
Age of subject at time of incident
________ years oldTO _______ Estimated
Pending further investigation
Unknown and is unlikely to ever be known
Q15.
Sex of subject
Male
Female
Pending further investigation
Unknown/Not reported
Page | 48
Q16.
Race and ethnicity of subject (select all that apply)
Hispanic or Latino
American Indian or Alaska Native
Asian
Black or African American
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
White
Pending further investigation
Unknown/Not reported
Q17.
Height of subject (report actual or estimated range of values)
______ Ffeet ______ Iinches TO ______ Feet ______ Inches
Estimated
Pending further investigation
Unknown and is unlikely to ever be known
Q18.
Weight of subject (report actual or estimated range of values) (lbs)
____ TO _____ pounds
estimated
Pending further investigation
Unknown and is unlikely to ever be known
Q19. Did the subject’s behavior indicate to the officer that there could be drug impairment,
alcohol impairment, or a mental condition involved? Was there an apparent or known
impairment in the mental or physical condition of the subject?
Yes [Go to Q19a]
No
Pending further investigation
Unknown and is unlikely to ever be known
Q19a. Please indicate which conditions apply (Select all that apply)
Q20.
Mental health condition
Alcohol impairment
Drug impairment
Pending further investigation
Unknown and is unlikely to ever be known
Was the threat by the subject(s) perceived by the officer(s) to be directed to the officer or
to another party?
Officer
Another party
Both the officer and others
Pending further investigation
Unknown and is unlikely to ever be known
Page | 49
Q22.
At any time during the incident, was the subject armed or believed to be armed with a
weapon (other than hands, fists, or feet)?
Q21.
Yes
No
Pending further investigation
Unknown and is unlikely to ever be known
Did the subject resist the officer(s)?
Yes [Go to Q21a]
No
Pending further investigation
Unknown and is unlikely to ever be known
Q21a. What resistance or weapon was or believed to be involved? (Select all that apply)
Q22.
Attempted to escape or flee from custody
Resisted being handcuffed or arrested
Barricading self
Using a chemical agent (acid, gasoline, pepper or OC (oleoresin capsicum)
spray, etc.) against an officer or another
Using an edged weapon against an officer or another
Using an electronic control weapon against an officer or another
Using a blunt object against an officer or another
Using a firearm against an officer or another
Using another weapons (such as chemical agent, edged weapon, electronic
control weapon, or blunt object) against an officer or another
Using hands/fist/feet against an officer or another
Displaying a weapon at an officer or another
Directing a vehicle at an officer or another
Intentionally spitting or bleeding on an officer
Throwing an article or object at an officer
Making verbal threats
Failing to comply to verbal commands or other types of passive resistance
Other types of passive resistance
Pending further investigation
Unknown and is unlikely to ever be known
None
At any time during the incident, was the subject armed or believed to be armed with a
weapon (other than hands, fists, or feet)?
Yes
No
Page | 50
Pending further investigation
Unknown and is unlikely to ever be known
Q23.
Type(s) of force used by law enforcement connected to serious bodily injury or death of
the subject (Select all that apply)
Firearm
Electronic control weapon (Taser®)
Explosive device
Chemical agent/Pepper or OC (oleoresin capsicum) spray
Baton
Impact projectile
Blunt instrument/flashlight
Hands-fists-feet
Canine
Other
Pending further investigation
Unknown and is unlikely to ever be known
Page | 51
Q24.
What were the subject’s injuries received as a direct consequence of the use of force by
law enforcement? (Select all that apply)
Gunshot wound (including minor or grazing wounds)
Unconsciousness (regardless of duration)
Serious injury requiring medical intervention or hospitalization
Apparent broken bones
Gunshot wound
Loss of teeth
Loss or partial loss of finger, toe, arm, leg, etc.
Possible internal injury
Severe laceration/puncture wound
Canine bite
Unconsciousness
Possible cardiac event
Other major injury
Death
None
Pending further investigation
Unknown and is unlikely to ever be known
Page | 52
Officer Information
Please complete the following set of questions from this section for each officer who actually
applied force that resulted in death, serious bodily injury, or discharged a firearm at or in the
direction of a person in the course of this incident from your agency. Do not include any
officers who were assisting or present; did not apply force; or applied force that did not meet the
criteria as specified above. All data elements must have a valid response indicated in order to
save submit the incident information.
Q10.
Total nNumber of officers who actually applied force during the time of this incident
______
Pending further investigation
Unknown and is unlikely to ever be known
Q11. Number of officers from your agency who actually applied force during the time of
incident _______
Pending further investigation
Unknown and is unlikely to ever be known
Officer Sequence Number __________
Q26.
Sex of the officer
Q27.
Male
Female
Pending further investigation
Unknown/Not reported
Race and ethnicity of the officer (select all that apply)
Hispanic or Latino
American Indian or Alaska Native
Asian
Black or African American
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
White
Pending further investigation
Unknown/Not reported
Q25.
Age of officer at time of incident ____ years old
Q26.
Sex of the officer
Pending further investigation
Page | 53
Q27.
Male
Female
Pending further investigation
Unknown/Not reported
Race and ethnicity of the officer (select all that apply)
Hispanic or Latino
American Indian or Alaska Native
Asian
Black or African American
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
White
Pending further investigation
Unknown/Not reported
Q28.
Height of the officer _____ Ffeet _______ Iinches Pending further investigation
Q29.
Weight of the officer ___________ pounds
Q30.
Officer’s years of service as a law enforcement officer (total tenure)
___________ years
Pending further investigation
Q31.
Does the officer work full-time (16035 or more hours per monthweek)?
Q33.
Yes
No
Pending further investigation
Unknown and is unlikely to ever be known
Was the officer readily identifiable by clothing or insignia at the time of the incident?
Q32.
Pending further investigation
Yes
No
Pending further investigation
Unknown and is unlikely to ever be known
Was the officer on duty at the time of the incident?
Yes
No
Pending further investigation
Unknown and is unlikely to ever be known
Q33.
Was the officer readily identifiable by clothing or insignia at the time of the incident?
Page | 54
Q34.
Did the officer discharge a firearm at or in the direction of a person during the incident?
Q35.
Yes
No
Pending further investigation
Unknown and is unlikely to ever be known
Yes
No
Pending further investigation
Unknown and is unlikely to ever be known
Was the officer injured during the incident that precipitated the use of force (serious or
minor)?
Yes [Go to Q35a and Q35b]
No
Pending further investigation
Unknown and is unlikely to ever be known
Q35a. What were the officer’s injuries during the incident that precipitated the use of
force (select all that apply)
Apparent Minor Injuries
Apparent broken bones
Gunshot wound (including minor or grazing wounds)
Serious injury requiring medical intervention or hospitalization
Loss of teeth
Loss or partial loss of finger, toe, arm, leg, etc.
Possible internal injury
Severe laceration/puncture wound
Canine bite
Other Apparent Minor Injuries
Unconsciousness
Other major injury
Death
Pending further investigation
Unknown and is unlikely to ever be known
Page | 55
Q35b. NIBRS (or local) incident number of report detailing assault or homicide of law
enforcement officer
_______________________________________
Pending further investigation
Unknown/Not reported
Page | 56
| File Type | application/pdf |
| File Modified | 2018-08-06 |
| File Created | 2018-08-06 |