The purpose of the study was to investigate how and why injuries occur to police and citizens during use of force events. The research team conducted a national survey (Part 1) of a stratified random sample of United States law enforcement agencies regarding the deployment of, policies for, and training with less lethal technologies. Finalized surveys were mailed in July 2006 to 950 law enforcement agencies, and a total of 518 law enforcement agencies provided information on less lethal force generally and on their deployment and policies regarding conducted energy devices (CEDs) in particular. A total of 292 variables are included in the National Use of Force Survey Data (Part 1) including items about weapons deployment, force policies, training, force reporting/review, force incidents and outcomes, and conducted energy devices (CEDs). Researchers also collected agency-supplied use of force data from law enforcement agencies in Richland County, South Carolina; Miami-Dade, Florida; and Seattle, Washington; to identify individual and situational predictors of injuries to officers and citizens during use of force events. The Richland County, South Carolina Data (Part 2) include 441 use-of-force reports from January 2005 through July 2006. Part 2 contains 17 variables including whether the officer or suspect was injured, 8 measures of officer force, 3 measures of suspect resistance, the number of witnesses and officers present at each incident, and the number of suspects that resisted or assaulted officers for each incident. The Miami-Dade County, Florida Data (Part 3) consist of 762 use-of-force incidents that occurred between January 2002 and May 2006. Part 3 contains 15 variables, including 4 measures of officer force, the most serious resistance on the part of the suspect, whether the officer or suspect was injured, whether the suspect was impaired by drugs or alcohol, the officer's length of service in years, and several demographic variables pertaining to the suspect and officer. The Seattle, Washington Data (Part 4) consist of 676 use-of-force incidents that occurred between December 1, 2005, as 15 variables, including 3 measures of officer force, whether the suspect or officer was injured, whether the suspect was impaired by drugs or alcohol, whether the suspect used, or threatened to use, physical force against the officer(s), and several demographic variables relating to the suspect and officer(s). The researchers obtained use of force survey data from several large departments representing different types of law enforcement agencies (municipal, county, sheriff's department) in different states. The research team combined use of force data from multiple agencies into a single dataset. This Multiagency Use of Force Data (Part 5) includes 24,928 use-of-force incidents obtained from 12 law enforcement agencies from 1998 through 2007. Part 5 consists a total of 21 variables, including the year the incident took place, demographic variables relating to the suspect, the type of force used by the officer, whether the suspect or officer was injured, and 5 measures of the department's policy regarding the use of CEDs and pepper spray. Lastly, longitudinal data were also collected for the Orlando, Florida and Austin, Texas police departments. The Orlando, Florida Longitudinal Data (Part 6) comprise 4,222 use-of-force incidents aggregated to 108 months -- a 9 year period from 1998 through 2006. Finally, the Austin, Texas Longitudinal Data (Part 7) include 6,596 force incidents aggregated over 60 months- a 5 year period from 2002 through 2006. Part 6 and Part 7 are comprised of seven variables documenting whether a Taser was implemented, the number of suspects and officers injured in a month, the number of force incidents per month, and the number of CEDs uses per month.

This study developed interval-level measurement scales for evaluating police officer performance during real or simulated deadly force situations. Through a two-day concept mapping focus group, statements were identified to describe two sets of dynamics: the difficulty (D) of a deadly force situation and the performance (P) of a police officer in that situation. These statements were then operationalized into measurable Likert-scale items that were scored by 291 use of force instructors from more than 100 agencies across the United States using an online survey instrument. The dataset resulting from this process contains a total of 685 variables, comprised of 312 difficulty statement items, 278 performance statement items, and 94 variables that measure the demographic characteristics of the scorers.

This study examined the amount of force used by and against law enforcement officers and more than 50 characteristics of officers, civilians, and arrest situations associated with the use of different levels of force. An important component of this multijurisdiction project was to employ a common measurement of elements of force and predictors of force. Data were gathered about suspects' and police officers' behaviors from adult custody arrests in six urban law enforcement agencies. The participating agencies were the Charlotte-Mecklenburg (North Carolina) Police Department, Colorado Springs (Colorado) Police Department, Dallas (Texas) Police Department, St. Petersburg (Florida) Police Department, San Diego (California) Police Department, and San Diego County (California) Sheriff's Department. Data collection began at different times in the participating departments, so the total sample included arrests during the summer, fall, and winter of 1996-1997. Forms were completed and coded for 7,512 adult custody arrests (Part 1). This form was used to record officer self-reports on the characteristics of the arrest situation, the suspects, and the officers, and the specific behavioral acts of officers, suspects, and bystanders in a particular arrest. Similar items were asked of 1,156 suspects interviewed in local jails at the time they were booked following arrest to obtain an independent assessment of officer and suspect use of force (Part 2). Officers were informed that some suspects would be interviewed, but they did not know which would be interviewed or when. Using the items included on the police survey, the research team constructed four measures of force used by police officers -- physical force, physical force plus threats, continuum of force, and maximum force. Four comparable measures of force used by arrested suspects were also developed. These measures are included in the data for Part 1. Each measure was derived by combining specific actions by law enforcement officers or by suspects in various ways. The first measure was a traditional conceptual dichotomy of arrests in which physical force was or was not used. For both the police and for suspects, the definition of physical force included any arrest in which a weapon or weaponless tactic was used. In addition, police arrests in which officers used a severe restraint were included. The second measure, physical force plus threats, was similar to physical force but added the use of threats and displays of weapons. To address the potential limitations of these two dichotomous measures, two other measures were developed. The continuum-of-force measure captured the levels of force commonly used in official policies by the participating law enforcement agencies. To construct the fourth measure, maximum force, 503 experienced officers in five of the six jurisdictions ranked a variety of hypothetical types of force by officers and by suspects on a scale from 1 (least forceful) to 100 (most forceful). Officers were asked to rank these items based on their own personal experience, not official policy. These rankings of police and suspect use of force, which appear in Part 3, were averaged for each jurisdiction and used in Part 1 to weight the behaviors that occurred in the sampled arrests. Variables for Parts 1 and 2 include nature of the arrest, features of the arrest location, mobilization of the police, and officer and suspect characteristics. Part 3 provides officer rankings on 54 items that suspects might do or say during an arrest. Separately, officers ranked a series of 44 items that a police officer might do or say during an arrest. These items include spitting, shouting or cursing, hitting, wrestling, pushing, resisting, fleeing, commanding, using conversational voice, and using pressure point holds, as well as possession, display, threat of use, or use of several weapons (e.g., knife, chemical agent, dog, blunt object, handgun, motor vehicle).

The aim of this study was to provide a systematic empirical assessment of three basic organizational premises of Community-Oriented Policing (COP). This study constructed a comprehensive data set by synthesizing data available in separate national data sets on police agencies and communities. The base data source used was the 1999 Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics (LEMAS) survey [LAW ENFORCEMENT MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATIVE STATISTICS (LEMAS), 1999 (ICPSR 3079)], which contained data on police organizational characteristics and on adoption of community-oriented policing procedures. The 1999 survey was supplemented with additional organizational variables from the 1997 LEMAS survey [LAW ENFORCEMENT MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATIVE STATISTICS (LEMAS), 1997 (ICPSR 2700)] and from the 1996 Directory of Law Enforcement Agencies [DIRECTORY OF LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES, 1996: [UNITED STATES] (ICPSR 2260)]. Data on community characteristics were extracted from the 1994 County and City Data Book, from the 1996 to 1999 Uniform Crime Reports [UNIFORM CRIME REPORTING PROGRAM DATA. [UNITED STATES]: OFFENSES KNOWN AND CLEARANCES BY ARREST (1996-1997: ICPSR 9028, 1998: ICPSR 2904, 1999: ICPSR 3158)], from the 1990 and 2000 Census Gazetteer files, and from Rural-Urban Community classifications. The merging of the separate data sources was accomplished by using the Law Enforcement Agency Identifiers Crosswalk file [LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY IDENTIFIERS CROSSWALK [UNITED STATES], 1996 (ICPSR 2876)]. In all, 23 data files from eight separate sources collected by four different governmental agencies were used to create the merged data set. The entire merging process resulted in a combined final sample of 3,005 local general jurisdiction policing agencies. Variables for this study provide information regarding police organizational structure include type of government, type of agency, and number and various types of employees. Several indices from the LEMAS surveys are also provided. Community-oriented policing variables are the percent of full-time sworn employees assigned to COP positions, if the agency had a COP plan, and several indices from the 1999 LEMAS survey. Community context variables include various Census population categories, rural-urban continuum (Beale) codes, urban influence codes, and total serious crime rate for different year ranges. Geographic variables include FIPS State, county, and place codes, and region.

This national survey was designed to collect information on police departmental policies and practices pertaining to the use of physical force--both deadly and less than lethal--by law enforcement officers. A further objective was to investigate the enforcement of these policies by examining the extent to which complaints of policy violations were reviewed and violations punished. Additionally, the survey sought to determine the extent to which departments kept records on the use of force, and to collect from those agencies that recorded this information data relating to how frequently officers used force, the characteristics of officers who did and did not have complaints filed against them, and the training of recruits on the appropriate use of force. The study also provides data on citizen complaints of excessive force, the disposition of those complaints, and litigation concerning allegations of excessive force. Additional variables provide agency size, demographic characteristics, and workload.

As part of the development of an information base for subsequent policy initiatives, the National Institute of Justice sponsored a nationwide survey of police psychologists to learn more about the characteristics of officers who abuse force, the types of measures police psychologists recommend to control police violence and the role of police psychologists in preventing and identifying individual police officers at risk for use of excessive force. Police personnel divisions in 50 large cities were contacted for names and addresses of the police psychologists who provided services to their departments. Data were collected using a telephone interview protocol that included 61 questions. In this study, excessive force was defined as a violation of a police department's use-of-force policy by an incumbent officer that was serious enough to warrant a referral to the police psychologist. Background information collected on respondents included years with the department, years as a police psychologist, if the position was salaried or consultant, and how often the psychologist met with the police chief. A battery of questions pertaining to screening was asked, including whether the psychologist performed pre-employment psychological screening and what methods were used to identify job candidates with a propensity to use excessive force. Questions regarding monitoring procedures asked if and how police officer behavior was monitored and if incumbent officers were tested for propensity to use excessive force. Items concerning police training included which officers the psychologist trained, what types of training covering excessive force were conducted, and what modules should be included in training to reduce excessive force. Information about mental health services was elicited, with questions on whether the psychologist counseled officers charged with excessive force, what models were used, how the psychologist knew if the intervention had been successful, what factors limited the effectiveness of counseling police officers, characteristics of officers prone to use excessive force, how these officers are best identified, and who or what has the most influence on these officers. General opinion questions asked about factors that increase excessive force behavior and what services could be utilized to reduce excessive force.

The purpose of this study was to synthesize the extant problem-oriented policing evaluation literature and assess the effects of problem-oriented policing on crime and disorder. Several strategies were used to perform an exhaustive search for literature fitting the eligibility criteria. Researchers performed a keyword search on an array of online abstract databases, reviewed the bibliographies of past reviews of problem-oriented policing (POP), performed forward searches for works that have cited seminal problem-oriented policing studies, performed hand searches of leading journals in the field, searched the publication of several research and professional agencies, and emailed the list of studies meeting the eligibility criteria to leading policing scholars knowledgeable in the the area of problem-oriented policing to ensure relevant studies had not been missed. Both Part 1 (Pre-Post Study Data, n=52) and Part 2 (Quasi-Experimental Study Data, n=19) include variables in the following categories: reference information, nature and description of selection site, problems, etc., nature and description of selection of comparison group or period, unit of analysis, sample size, methodological type, description of the POP intervention, statistical test(s) used, reports of significance, effect size/power, and conclusions drawn by the authors.

The primary objective of this study was to formulate evidence-based lessons on recruitment, retention, and managing workforce profiles in large, United States police departments. The research team conducted a national survey of all United States municipal police agencies that had at least 300 sworn officers and were listed in the 2007 National Directory of Law Enforcement Administrators. The survey instrument was developed based on the research team's experience in working with large personnel systems, instruments used in previous police staffing surveys, and discussions with police practitioners. The research team distributed the initial surveys on February 27, 2008. To ensure an acceptable response rate, the principal investigators developed a comprehensive nonresponse protocol, provided ample field time for departments to compile information and respond, and provided significant one-on-one technical assistance to agencies as they completed the survey. In all, the surveys were in the field for 38 weeks. Respondents were asked to consult their agency's records in order to provide information about their agency's experience with recruiting, hiring, and retaining officers for 2006 and 2007. Of the 146 departments contacted, 107 completed the survey. The police recruitment and retention survey data were supplemented with data on each jurisdiction from the American Community Survey conducted by the United States Census Bureau, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation Uniform Crime Reports. The dataset contains a total of 535 variables pertaining to recruitment, hiring, union activity, compensation rates, promotion, retirement, and attrition. Many of these variables are available by rank, sex and race.

Between 2008 and 2009, the research team gathered survey data from 458 members of the community (Part 1), 312 police officers (Part 2), and 804 individuals who had voluntary contact (Part 3), and 761 individuals who had involuntary contact (Part 4) with police departments in Dallas, Texas, Knoxville, Tennessee, and Kettering, Ohio, and the Broward County, Florida Sheriff's Office. The surveys were designed to look at nine dimensions of police performance: delivering quality services; fear, safety, and order; ethics and values; legitimacy and customer satisfaction; organizational competence and commitment to high standards; reducing crime and victimization; resource use; responding to offenders; and use of authority. The community surveys included questions about police effectiveness, police professionalism, neighborhood problems, and victimization. The officer surveys had three parts: job satisfaction items, procedural knowledge items, and questions about the culture of integrity. The voluntary police contact and involuntary police contact surveys included questions on satisfaction with the way the police officer or deputy sheriff handled the encounter.