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 longitudinal mixed-methods study examined to what extent female intimate partner violence (IPV) victim participation in prosecution was associated with their future safety. The study followed a cohort of female IPV victims with cases the police presented to the prosecutor, in the year 2000, in a single Midwestern United States county (Kalamazoo County, Michigan) for a four-year period (1999-2002) across multiple systems (police, prosecutor, criminal court, civil court, hospital Emergency Departments) to assess the victim's experience with participation in IPV prosecution and her associated future help seeking, health and safety. Since this study utilized retrospective administrative data, subsequent IPV was defined as a future documented IPV-related police incident or an Emergency Department visit for IPV or injury. The data abstraction and analysis of the administrative data was informed by focus groups with survivors, advocates, and medical and criminal justice service providers, along with in-depth qualitative analysis of a stratified random sample of individual IPV cases. The final analytic dataset created by the research team integrated two types of data: (1) in-depth data about the index assault case and characteristics of the couple involved, and (2) longitudinal data about prior and subsequent IPV events spanning multiple systems: police, prosecutor, emergency department, and family court protection orders.

The circumstances surrounding "justifiable homicides" by police are the focus of this data collection, which examines occurrences in 57 United States cities during the period 1970-1979. Homicides by on- and off-duty police officers serving communities of 250,000 or more were studied. Data were collected through a survey questionnaire sent to police executives of the 57 cities. The Federal Bureau of Investigation supplied data on justifiable homicides by police, including age, sex, and race data. The variables include number of sworn officers, number of supervisory officers, average years of education, department regulations about issues such as off-duty employment, uniforms, carrying firearms, and disciplinary actions, in-service training, pre-service training, firearms practice, assignments without firearms, on-duty deaths, and off-duty deaths. The study was funded by a grant from the National Institute of Justice to the International Association of Chiefs of Police.

The specific aim of this project was to evaluate the usefulness of the Seattle Police Department's (SPD) Lethality Scale in identifying misdemeanor cases that might be high risk for escalating violence and subsequent felony incidents. Data provide information on 11,972 unique couples with incidents occurring between January 1, 1995, and December 31, 1997, involving intimate couples in which the suspect was at least 18 years old and the victim was at least 16, with no age restriction for cases referred to the juvenile division. The researchers reformatted the Domestic Violence Unit's (DVU) database to reflect a three-year history of violence between unique couple members. Only intimate couples were considered, meaning suspects and victims who were married, divorced, had a child in common, or were dating. The Lethality Scale was derived from the data in the DVU database. It was composed of six incident characteristic components (offense score, weapon score, location score, injury score, personal score, and incident/other score) with varying values that contributed to an overall score. The Total Lethality Score was the sum of the values from these six components. The lethality score referred to an individual only and did not reflect information about other people involved in the incident. To interpret the score, the DVU specified a period of time--for example, six months--and computed lethality score values for every person involved in an incident during this period. Information on individuals with a Total Lethality Score over a certain cut-off was printed and reviewed by a detective. Data are provided for up to 25 incidents per unique couple. Incident variables in the dataset provide information on number of persons involved in the incident, time and weekday of the incident, beat, precinct, census tract, and place where the incident occurred, type of primary and secondary offenses, if a warrant was served, charges brought, final disposition, weapon type used, arrests made, court order information, if evidence was collected, if statements or photos were taken by the DVU, and sergeant action. Dates were converted to time intervals and provide the number of days between the incident date and the date the file was sent to the prosecutor, the date charges were brought, and the date the case was officially closed. Time intervals were also calculated for days between each incident for that couple. Personal information on the two persons in a couple includes age, gender, injuries and treatment, relationship and cohabitation status of the individuals, pregnancy status of each individual, alcohol and drug use at the time of the incident, and role of the individual in the incident (victim, suspect, victim/suspect). Lethality scale scores are included as well as the number of incidents in which the unique couple was involved in 1995 and 1996, and 1989 median household income for the census tract.

The Family Violence Prevention and Services Act of 1984 (FVPSA) provided funding, through the Office of Victims of Crime in the United States Department of Justice, for 23 law enforcement training projects across the nation from 1986 to 1992. FVPSA was enacted to assist states in (1) developing and maintaining programs for the prevention of family violence and for the provision of shelter to victims and their dependents and (2) providing training and technical assistance for personnel who provide services for victims of family violence. The National Institute of Justice awarded a grant to the Urban Institute in late 1992 to evaluate the police training projects. One of the program evaluation methods the Urban Institute used was to conduct surveys of victims in New York and Texas. The primary objectives of the survey were to find out, from victims who had contact with law enforcement officers in the pre-training period and/or in the post-training period, what their experiences and evaluations of law enforcement services were, how police interventions had changed over time, and how the quality of services and changes related to the police training funded under the FVPSA. Following the conclusion of training, victims of domestic assault in New York and Texas were surveyed through victim service programs across each state. Similar, but not identical, instruments were used at the two sites. Service providers were asked to distribute the questionnaires to victims of physical or sexual abuse who had contact with law enforcement officers. The survey instruments were developed to obtain information and victim perceptions of the following key subject areas: history of abuse, characteristics of the victim-abuser relationship, demographic characteristics of the abuser and the victim, history of law enforcement contacts, services received from law enforcement officers, and victims' evaluations of these services. Variables on history of abuse include types of abuse experienced, first and last time physically or sexually abused, and frequency of abuse. Characteristics of the victim-abuser relationship include length of involvement with the abuser, living arrangement and relationship status at time of last abuse, number of children the victim had, and number of children at home at the time of last abuse. Demographic variables provide age, race/ethnicity, employment status, and education level of the abuser and the victim. Variables on the history of law enforcement contacts and services received include number of times law enforcement officers were called because of assaults on the victim, number of times law enforcement officers actually came to the scene, first and last time officers came to the scene, number of times officers were involved because of assaults on the victim, number of times officers were involved in the last 12 months, and type of law enforcement agencies the officers were from. Data are also included on city size by population, city median household income, county population density, county crime rate, and region of state of the responding law enforcement agencies. Over 30 variables record the victims' evaluations of the officers' responsiveness, helpfulness, and attitudes.

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.

This study was undertaken to evaluate the impact of the Arrest Policies Program, funded by the Violence Against Women Office (VAWO), on criminal justice system changes and offender accountability, and victim safety and well-being. Through convenience sampling, six project sites were chosen to participate in the study. Part 1, Case Tracking Data, contains quantitative data collected from criminal justice agencies on arrests, prosecution filings, criminal case disposition, convictions, and sentences imposed for intimate partner violence cases involving a male offender and female offender. Data for Part 2, Victim Interview Data, were collected from in-depth personal interviews with domestic violence victims/survivors (1) to learn more about victim experiences with and perceptions of the criminal justice response, and (2) to obtain victim perceptions about how the arrest and/or prosecution of their batterers affected their safety and well-being. The survey instrument covered a wide range of topics including severity and history of domestic violence, social support networks, perceptions of police response, satisfaction with the criminal justice process and the sentence, experiences in court, and satisfaction with prosecutors, victim services provider advocates, and probation officers.

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 purpose of the study was to better understand the factors associated with police decisions to make an arrest or not in cases of heterosexual partner violence and how these decisions vary across jurisdictions. The study utilized data from three large national datasets: the National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) for the year 2003, the Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics (LEMAS) for the years 2000 and 2003, and the United States Department of Health and Human Services Area Resource File (ARF) for the year 2003. Researchers also developed a database of domestic violence state arrest laws including arrest type (mandatory, discretionary, or preferred) and primary aggressor statutes. Next, the research team merged these four databases into one, with incident being the unit of analysis. As a further step, the research team conducted spatial analysis to examine the impact of spatial autocorrelation in arrest decisions by police organizations on the results of statistical analyses. The dependent variable for this study was arrest outcome, defined as no arrest, single male arrest, single female arrest, and dual arrest for an act of violence against an intimate partner. The primary independent variables were divided into three categories: incident factors, police organizational factors, and community factors.