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).

This study examined the impact on police trainees of the Phoenix Regional Training Academy's curriculum. The academy's basic training program integrates community policing and problem-oriented policing across the curriculum. A multiple-treatment single-case design was used to study 446 police recruits from 14 successive academy classes that began basic training classes between December 1995 and October 1996. The Police Personnel Survey, adapted from Rosenbaum, Yeh, and Wilkinson (1994), Skogan (1994, 1995), and Wycoff and Skogan (1993), was administered to officers in the study on four separate occasions. This instrument was designed to take repeated measures of police officer attitudes and beliefs related to various dimensions of the job, including job satisfaction, community policing, problem-solving policing, traditional policing, the role of the police, relations with the community, and multicultural sensitivity.

This study was designed to describe the types and amount of force used by and against the police in Montgomery County, Maryland, for the seven years between January 1993 and December 1999. The researchers collected data from the Montgomery County Police Department's Use of Force Reports and arrest records for this time period. Part 1 contains data obtained from the Use of Force Reports, including information about the characteristics of the force used, injuries and medical treatment, characteristics of the officer and citizen involved, and the time and date of the incident. Part 2 contains data from the arrest records, including variables for location, time, and date of the arrest, the most serious charge, and demographic characteristics of the officer and arrestee. Part 3 contains aggregate data, including rate of force by different arrest characteristics, that were derived from the data in Parts 1 and 2.

This study gathered data on police use of force in Metro-Dade, Florida, and Eugene and Springfield, Oregon. The study differed from previous research in that it addressed the level of force used by the police relative to the suspect's level of resistance. The data for Metro-Dade (Part 1) were collected from official Metro-Dade Police Department Control of Persons Reports from the last quarter of 1993 and all of 1994 and 1995. The Eugene and Springfield dataset (Part 2) was created from items in the Police Officers' Essential Physical Work Report Form, which was completed by members of the Eugene and Springfield, Oregon, Police Departments during April 1995. The dataset includes all police-citizen contacts, rather than being limited to the use-of-force situations captured by the Metro-Dade data. In Part 1 (Metro-Dade Data), information on the subject includes impairment (i.e., alcohol and drugs), behavior (i.e., calm, visibly upset, erratic, or highly agitated), level of resistance used by the subject, types of injuries to the subject, and types of force used by the subject. Information on the officer includes level of force used, medical treatment, and injuries. Other variables include ethnic match between officer and the subject and relative measures of force. Demographic variables include age, gender, race, and ethnicity of both the subject and the officer. In Part 2 (Oregon Data), information is provided on whether the officer was alone, how work was initiated, elapsed time until arrival, reasons for performance, perceived mental state and physical abilities of the suspect, amount and type of resistance by the suspect, if another officer assisted, perceived extent of effort used by the suspect, type of resistance used by the suspect, if the officer was knocked or wrestled to the ground, if the officer received an injury, level of effort used to control the suspect, types of control tactics used on the suspect, whether the officer was wearing tactical gear, how restraint devices were applied to inmate, time taken to get to, control, resolve, and remove the problem, how stressful the lead-up time or the period following the incident was, if the officer worked with a partner, types of firearm used, and if force was used. Demographic variables include age, gender, weight, and height of both the suspect and officer, and the officer's duty position.

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.

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.

The purpose of the study was to conduct a process and outcome evaluation of the Homicide Clearance Project in the Phoenix, Arizona Police Department. The primary objective of the Homicide Clearance Project was to improve homicide clearance rates by increasing investigative time through the transfer of four crime scene specialists to the homicide unit. In 2004, the Phoenix Police Department received a grant from the Bureau of Justice Assistance providing support for the assignment of four crime scene specialists directly to the department's Homicide Unit. Responsibilities of the crime scene specialists were to collect evidence at homicide scenes, prepare scene reports, develop scene diagrams, and other supportive activities. Prior to the project, homicide investigators were responsible for evidence collection, which reduced the time they could devote to investigations. The crime scene specialists were assigned to two of the four investigative squads within the homicide unit. This organizational arrangement provided for a performance evaluation of the squads with crime scene specialists (experimental squads) against the performance of the other squads (comparison squads). During the course of the evaluation, research staff coded information from all homicides that occurred during the 12-month period prior to the transfers (July 1, 2003 - June 30, 2004), referred to as the baseline period, the 2-month training period (July 1, 2004 - August 31, 2004), and a 10-month test period (September 1, 2004 - June 30, 2005). Data were collected on 404 homicide cases (Part 1), 532 homicide victims and survivors (Part 2), and 3,338 records of evidence collected at homicide scenes (Part 3). The two primary sources of information for the evaluation were investigative reports from the department's records management system, called the Police Automated Computer Entry (PACE) system, and crime laboratory reports from the crime laboratory's Laboratory Information Management System (LIMS). Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3 each contain variables that measure squad type, time period, and whether six general categories of evidence were collected. Part 1 contains a total of 18 variables including number of investigators, number of patrol officers at the scene, number of witnesses, number of crime scene specialists at the scene, number of investigators collecting evidence at the scene, total number of evidence collectors, whether the case was open or closed, type of arrest, and whether the case was open or closed by arrest. Part 2 contains a total of 37 variables including victim characteristics and motives. Other variables in Part 2 include an instrumental/expressive homicide indicator, whether the case was open or closed, type of arrest, whether the case was open or closed by arrest, number of investigators, number of patrol officers at the scene, number of witnesses, and investigative time to closure. Part 3 contains a total of 46 variables including primary/secondary scene indicator, scene type, number of pieces of evidence, total time at the scene, and number of photos taken. Part 3 also includes variables that measure whether 16 specific types of evidence were found and the number of items of evidence that were collected for 13 specific evidence types.

DATASET DESCRIPTION This dataset contains offense incidents where any physical contact with a subject was made by an officer using the body or any object, device, or weapon, not including un-resisted escorting or handcuffing a subject. Any complaint by a subject that an officer caused pain or injury shall be treated as a use of force incident, except complaints of minor discomfort from un-resisted handcuffing. A response to resistance report is measured as a single subject officer interaction on a single case. A subject resistance may result in multiple types of force applied by an officer or multiple officers. Accordingly, the types of force used can be more than the total reports of response to resistance. GENERAL ORDERS RELATING TO THIS DATA It is the policy of this department that officers use only that amount of objectively reasonable force which appears necessary under the circumstances to successfully accomplish the legitimate law enforcement purpose in accordance with this policy. AUSTIN POLICE DEPARTMENT DATA DISCLAIMER 1. The data provided is for informational use only and may differ from official Austin Police Department crime data. 2. The Austin Police Department’s databases are continuously updated, and changes can be made due to a variety of investigative factors including but not limited to offense reclassification and dates. 3. Reports run at different times may produce different results. Care should be taken when comparing against other reports as different data collection methods and different systems of record may have been used. 4.The Austin Police Department does not assume any liability for any decision made or action taken or not taken by the recipient in reliance upon any information or data provided. City of Austin Open Data Terms of Use - https://data.austintexas.gov/stories/s/ranj-cccq APD Data Dictionary - https://data.austintexas.gov/Public-Safety/APD-Data-Dictionary/6w8q-suwv/about_data

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.

These data were collected to evaluate the Demand Reduction Program, a program initiated in Maricopa County, Arizona, in 1989 to combat drug abuse. A consortium of municipal, county, state, and federal law enforcement agencies developed the program, which stressed user accountability. The Demand Reduction Program had two objectives: (1) to create community-wide awareness of the severity of the drug problem and to alert drug users to the increased risk of legal sanctions, and (2) to adopt a zero-tolerance position of user accountability through an emphasis on increased and coordinated law enforcement activities directed against individual offenders and special treatment programs in lieu of prosecution. Part 1 of the collection, Demand Reduction Program Data, provides information on prosecutor's disposition, arrest date, submitted charges, filed charges, prior charges, disposition of charges, drugs offender used in last three months, information on prior drug treatment, type of attorney, and arrestee's age at arrest, sex, marital status, income, and living arrangement. Part 2 is a Citizen Survey conducted in January 1990, ten months after the implementation of the Demand Reduction Program. Adult residents of Maricopa County were asked in telephone interviews about their attitudes toward drug use, tax support for drug treatment, education, and punishment, their knowledge of the Demand Reduction Program, and demographic information. Parts 3 and 4 supply data from surveys of Maricopa County police officers, conducted in March 1990 and April 1991, to measure attitudes regarding the Demand Reduction Program with respect to (1) police effort, (2) inter-agency cooperation, (3) the harm involved in drug use, and (4) support for diversion to treatment. The two police surveys contained identically-worded questions, with only a small number of different questions asked the second year. Variables include officer's rank, years at rank, years in department, shift worked, age, sex, ethnicity, education, marital status, if officer was the primary or secondary wage earner, officer's perception of and training for the Demand Reduction Program, and personal attitudes toward drug use. Part 5 provides arrest data from the Maricopa County Task Force, which arrested drug users through two methods: (1) sweeps of public and semi-public places, and (2) "reversals," where drug sellers were arrested and replaced by police officers posing as drug sellers, who then arrested the drug buyers. Task Force data include arrest date, operation number, operation beginning and ending date, operation type, region where operation was conducted, charge resulting from arrest, Demand Reduction Program identification number, and arrestee's sex, race, and date of birth.