Title: Use of Force By Police: Overview of National and Local Data
Series: Research Report
Author: Kenneth Adams, Geoffrey P. Alpert, Roger G. Dunham, Joel H.
Garner, Lawrence A. Greenfeld, Mark A. Henriquez, Patrick A. Langan,
Christopher D. Maxwell, and Steven K. Smith
Published: National Institute of Justice and Bureau of Justice Statistics,
October 1999
Subject: Police discipline and misconduct; police recruitment, selection,
and retention; police planning and management
110 pages
261,000 bytes

-------------------------------

Figures, charts, forms, and tables are not included in this ASCII plain-text
file. To view this document in its entirety, download the Adobe Acrobat
graphic file available from this Web site or order a print copy from NCJRS
at 800-851-3420 (877-712-9279 for TTY users).

-------------------------------

U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs

Use of Force By Police

Overview of National and Local Data

National Institute of Justice
Research Report
Jointly published with the Bureau of Justice Statistics

U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
810 Seventh Street N.W.
Washington, DC 20531

Janet Reno
Attorney General

Raymond C. Fisher
Associate Attorney General

Laurie Robinson
Assistant Attorney General

Noel Brennan
Deputy Assistant Attorney General

Jeremy Travis
Director, National Institute of Justice

Jan M. Chaiken
Director, Bureau of Justice Statistics

-------------------------------

Office of Justice Programs
World Wide Web Site 
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov

National Institute of Justice
World Wide Web Site
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij

Bureau of Justice Statistics
World Wide Web Site
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs

-------------------------------

Use of Force by Police

Overview of National and Local Data

Contributors:

Kenneth Adams
Geoffrey P. Alpert
Roger G. Dunham
Joel H. Garner
Lawrence A. Greenfeld
Mark A. Henriquez
Patrick A. Langan
Christopher D. Maxwell
Steven K. Smith

October 1999

NCJ 176330

Jeremy Travis 
Director, National Institute of Justice

Jan M. Chaiken
Director, Bureau of Justice Statistics

Robert J. Kaminski
Program Manager, National Institute of Justice

Acknowledgments: This report is indebted to many individuals and
organizations for their valuable assistance and insights. Special thanks are
extended to the law enforcement agencies that cooperated with the
researchers whose findings appear in this report. In so doing, the following
agencies demonstrated the type of leadership so critical to the
advancement of policing practice and policy: Charlotte-Mecklenburg
(North Carolina) Police Department, Colorado Springs (Colorado) Police
Department, Dallas (Texas) Police Department, Eugene (Oregon) Police
Department, Miami-Dade (Florida) Police Department, St. Petersburg
(Florida) Police Department, San Diego (California) Police Department,
San Diego County (California) Sheriff's Department, Springfield (Oregon)
Police Department, and the many departments that have participated in the
use-of-force database project of the International Association of Chiefs of
Police.

Points of view expressed by contributors to this report do not necessarily
represent the official positions or policies of the U.S. Department of
Justice.

-------------------------------

The National Institute of Justice and the Bureau of Justice Statistics are
components of the Office of Justice Programs, which also includes the
Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention, and the Office for Victims of Crime.

-------------------------------

Contents

Foreword

Executive Summary

1. What We Know About Police Use of Force
by Kenneth Adams

2. Revising and Fielding the Police-Public Contact Survey
by Lawrence A. Greenfeld, Patrick A. Langan, and Steven K. Smith

3. IACP National Database Project on Police Use of Force
by Mark A. Henriquez

4. Measuring the Amount of Force Used By and Against the Police in 
Six Jurisdictions
by Joel H. Garner and Christopher D. Maxwell

5. The Force Factor: Measuring and Assessing Police Use of Force and 
Suspect Resistance
by Geoffrey P. Alpert and Roger G. Dunham

6. A Research Agenda on Police Use of Force
by Kenneth Adams

Bibliography

-------------------------------

Foreword

Law enforcement officers are authorized to use force in specified
circumstances, are trained in the use of force, and typically face numerous
circumstances during their careers when use of force is appropriate--for
example, in making some arrests, restraining unruly combatants, or
controlling a disruptive demonstration. When the level of force exceeds
the level considered justifiable under the circumstances, however, the
activities of the police come under public scrutiny. 

Incidents involving the use of excessive force by the police frequently
receive attention from the media, legislators, and, in some instances, civil
and even criminal courts. Whether the excessive force is aberrant behavior
of individual officers or is a pattern and practice of an entire law
enforcement agency, both the law and public opinion condemn such
incidents. 

This report is one in a series of publications by the National Institute of
Justice (NIJ) and the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) that seek to inform
public discussion by examining police use of force from many
perspectives. The report provides an overview of the state of research
knowledge about police use of force, updates progress on the national BJS
Police-Public Contact Survey (PPCS) and the database project of the
International Association of Chiefs of Police, provides the latest findings
from NIJ-supported use-of-force research projects in several local
jurisdictions, and offers a researcher's suggestions for a future research
agenda on police use of force, with special attention given to issues of
excessive force.

Research consistently demonstrates that a small percentage of
police-public interactions involve use of force. Various data sources,
including police use-of-force reports, civilian complaints, victim surveys,
and observational methods, confirm this basic finding. For example, the
1996 pilot test of the PPCS found that about 1 percent of people reporting
contacts with police said that officers used or threatened force. Beginning
in July 1999, the PPCS is being fielded to a much larger sample than
responded to the 1996 test, and the results will be presented in a report
next year. In the years ahead, it is expected that the PPCS will provide the
basis for a legislatively mandated annual report by the Attorney General
documenting the prevalence of the use of excessive force.

NIJ-sponsored research at the local level found that, in the context of the
subset of police-public contacts involving adult custody arrests, police
used physical force (handcuffing excluded) in less than 20 percent of
7,512 arrests studied (chapter 4). Even in those instances, police primarily
used weaponless tactics, such as grabbing or holding, which is consistent
with the view that relatively minor types of force dominate statistics on
police use of force. That view is further supported by research indicating
that in incidents involving resistance by suspects, their injuries resulting
from police use of force were typically minor (chapter 5).

Ongoing research by NIJ and BJS seeks to provide the perspective, 
insight, and factual data needed by police and others to address
use-of-force issues constructively. Through this and other policing
research, we seek to advance our goal of assisting law enforcement
agencies in protecting the public, enhancing the safety of the community
and officers, and building widespread support among those they serve.

Jeremy Travis
Director
National Institute of Justice

Jan M. Chaiken, Ph.D.
Director
Bureau of Justice Statistics

-------------------------------

Executive Summary

Recent developments have heightened concern about police use of force.
They range from well-publicized incidents involving allegations of
excessive force to the onset of "aggressive" policing, whose frequent 
emphasis on zero-tolerance enforcement is sometimes regarded as
encouraging use-of-force abuses. No matter what specific event triggers
concern about police use of force, how is the public to assess whether such
force is, in the aggregate, a major problem? One way is to examine what
research has unearthed.

Overview: What Do We Know About Police Use of Force?

As discussed in chapter 1, research-based knowledge about police use of
force can be placed into three categories. The first pertains to knowledge
that can be accepted with substantial confidence as "fact." The second
relates to use-of-force knowledge that can be accepted only with modest
confidence because, for example, additional research is warranted. The
third category consists of knowledge yet to be developed through
research--that is, what is not yet known.

Known with substantial confidence

Known with substantial confidence is that police use force infrequently.
The data indicate that a small percentage of police-public encounters
involve force.

For example, about 1 percent of people who had face-to-face contacts with
police said that officers used or threatened force, according to preliminary
estimates based on the Bureau of Justice Statistics' 1996 pretest of its
Police-Public Contact Survey (chapter 2). In 7,512 adult custody arrests,
another study (chapter 4) notes that fewer than one out of five arrests
involved police use of physical force (defined as use of any weapon, use of
any weaponless tactic, or use of severe restraints). That can be considered
a low rate in view of the study's broad definition of force.

Also known with substantial confidence is that police use of force
typically occurs at the lower end of the force spectrum, involving
grabbing, pushing, or shoving. In the study focusing on 7,512 adult
custody arrests, for instance, about 80 percent of arrests in which police
used force involved use of weaponless tactics. Grabbing was the tactic
used about half the time. About 2.1 percent of all arrests involved use of
weapons by police. Chemical agents, such as pepper spray, were the
weapons most frequently used (1.2 percent of all arrests), with firearms
least often used (0.2 percent).

From a police administrator's point of view, these findings are predictable.
Officers are trained to use force progressively along a continuum, and
policy requires that officers use the least amount of force necessary to
accomplish their goals. The kinds of police actions that most arouse the
public's concerns--such as fatal shootings, severe beatings with fists or
batons that lead to hospitalization, and choke holds that cause
unconsciousness or even death--are not typical of situations in which
police use force.

When injuries occur as a result of the use of force, they are likely to be
minor. In one study (chapter 5), researchers found that the most common
injury to a suspect was a bruise or abrasion (48 percent).

Another research finding that can be accepted with substantial confidence
is that use of force typically occurs when police are trying to make an
arrest and the suspect is resisting. This conclusion is based on four types
of data: arrest statistics, surveys of police officers, observations of police
behavior, and reports by the public about their encounters with police.

The foregoing findings leave open the issue of excessive force because
issues of proportionality are not clearly addressed. Research findings
suggest, however, that many debates over excessive force will fall into
gray areas where it is difficult to decide whether an officer acted properly,
given credible evidence that use of force was necessary.

Known with modest confidence

Regarding what is known with modest confidence about police use of
force, chapter 1 identifies three conclusions suggested by research data:

--Use of force appears to be unrelated to an officer's personal
characteristics, such as age, gender, and ethnicity. This conclusion should
be accepted with caution, however. Additional verification is needed.

--Use of force is more likely to occur when police are dealing with
persons under the influence of alcohol or drugs or with mentally ill
individuals. Research findings in this area are inconsistent, however.
Further investigation, with an emphasis on implications for training, could
lead to a reduction in the risk of force and injury for both police officers
and civilians.

--A small proportion of officers are disproportionately involved in
use-of-force incidents. More research is needed.

Among what is not known

As stated in chapter 1: "The incidence of wrongful use of force by police
is unknown. Research is critically needed to determine reliably, validly,
and precisely how often transgressions of use-of-force powers occur."

Researchers and practitioners both tend to presuppose that the incidence of
excessive force by police is very low. If use of force is uncommon, and
civilian complaints are infrequent, and civilian injuries are few, then
excessive force by police must be rare. That conclusion may indeed be
correct, but to the extent that it hinges on official police statistics, it is
open to serious challenge.

Current indicators of excessive force, such as civilian complaints and civil
lawsuits, are all critically flawed. The difficulties in measuring excessive
force with complaint and lawsuit records have led academics and
practitioners to redirect their attention to all use-of-force incidents.
Theoretically, understanding all use-of-force incidents helps put wrongful
use of force in perspective.

As one example of how understanding all use-of-force incidents can help
put excessive force in perspective, the study of 7,512 adult custody arrests
(chapter 4) makes this observation:

" . . . most arrests involve no force, excessive or otherwise. When force is
used, it typically involves less severe forms of tactics and weapon use.
These findings provide a context for understanding excessive force, which
we know can involve low-level acts of force . . . as well as the acts of force
that result in physical injury or death of civilians. Arrests that involve no
force, however, cannot involve excessive force and arrests that involve
low levels of force are less likely to involve excessive force."

Additional gaps in use-of-force knowledge include the following:

--The impact of differences in police organizations, including
administrative policies, hiring, training, discipline, and use of technology,
on excessive force is unknown. Although many conditions that arguably
lead to excessive force by police seem obvious, or appear to be a matter of
common sense, a great need for systematic research in this area exists.

--Influences of situational characteristics on police use of force and the
transactional nature of these events are largely unknown. For example,
little is known beyond research indicating that situations most likely to
involve police use of force are interpersonal disturbance and violent
personal crime, and situations when suspects attempt to flee or physically
resist arrest. Those findings, however, do not address the transactional, or
step-by-step unfolding, of police-public encounters. Was suspect
resistance the result of police use of force, or did police use force after
experiencing suspect resistance?

Updates on Two National Projects

In 1996, the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) and the International
Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) initiated projects involving
collection of data encompassing police use of force. Both are currently
ongoing.

The BJS survey

To learn more about police use of force requires an understanding of the
reasons for and the results of police-public encounters. As a step toward
developing that understanding, BJS supplemented the National Crime
Victimization Survey with a pilot test of its Police-Public Contact Survey
(PPCS) in 1996 (chapter 2).

Among the findings was a preliminary estimate that about 1 percent of
people reporting contacts with police indicated that officers used or
threatened force. In the majority of those instances, respondents said that
their own actions, such as threatening police, may have provoked officers.

In July 1999, a second test of PPCS was fielded to a much larger sample
than that used in the 1996 pilot test. In addition, BJS anticipates adding
items to its periodic surveys conducted among nationally representative
samples of those confined in local jails and prisoners held by State and
Federal authorities. The new survey items would provide, for the first
time, information about respondents' interactions, including use of force,
with police during the arrest preceding incarceration.

The IACP database project

Initiated in 1996, the IACP database project is designed to collect
use-of-force information from law enforcement agencies across the Nation
(chapter 3). To promote accurate reporting and overcome potential
reluctance of agencies to participate, IACP decided that provision of data
would be both voluntary and anonymous.

Collected data pertain to reported use of force stemming from police
responses to calls for service, whether or not those responses resulted in
arrests. About 150 agencies are expected to contribute data for the 1998-99
data year. Among preliminary findings:

--Based on 1995 data reported by 110 agencies, the police use-of-force
rate was 4.19 per 10,000 responded-to calls for service, or 0.0419 percent.

--Based on data reported for 1996-97, 87 percent of 62,411 use-of-force
incidents involved officers using physical force. Officers used chemical
force in 7 percent of the incidents, firearms in about 5 percent.

--Based on available data for 1996-97, about 10 percent of 2,479 officers
using force sustained injuries, less than 1 percent serious. About 38
percent of subjects were injured due to police use of force, with 1.5
percent sustaining major injuries.

Because the data are not yet nationally representative, conclusions about
national use-of-force trends should not be attempted.

Two Local-Level Studies

One of the local-level studies measured the amount of force used by and
against police in six jurisdictions. The other measured and assessed police
use of force and suspect resistance in three jurisdictions and developed the
force factor, a measure of the level of force used by officers relative to the
level of resistance by suspects.

Study on the amount of force used in six jurisdictions

The six-jurisdiction study (chapter 4) gathered data about officers' and
suspects' behaviors in connection with 7,512 adult custody arrests (arrests
in which suspects are transported to a detention facility, in contrast to
being issued a summons to appear before a judicial officer). The
researchers focused on the amount of force used by and against police,
with the expectation that this information would inform issues surrounding
the use of excessive force. For instance, excessive force is typically but not
necessarily associated with more severe forms of force that could or do
result in injury or death.

Emerging from the research is a more complete understanding of the
frequency with which certain types of tactics are used and what types of
weapons are displayed, threatened, or actually used. The consistent
findings across all six jurisdictions are that most arrests (more than 80
percent) did not involve force by police (excluding handcuffing) or by
suspects. In 98 percent of arrests where force was used, no weapon was
used, threatened, or even displayed. When police used some form of
weaponless tactic (hitting, kicking, wrestling, etc.), the most frequent
tactic involved only grabbing (about half the time).

In addition to providing data on the use of weapons and weaponless
tactics, the study identified three other elements, sometimes included in
the concept of use of force:

--Restraints. In about 82 percent of all 7,512 arrests, officers reported use
of handcuffs. Leg cuffs were used in 0.9 percent of arrests. Officers used
more severe restraints in 0.4 percent of arrests. Restraints were not used in
approximately 16 percent of arrests.

--Motion. Pursuit on foot and by car occurred in 3 percent and 2.4
percent, respectively, of all arrests. Pursuit did not occur in 94.4 percent of
arrests. Suspect flight most frequently occurred by foot (in 4.7 percent of
arrests). In 93.5 percent of arrests, suspects did not flee.

--Voice. In 61.2 percent of arrests, police reported they used a
conversational tone with suspects. 

Among the measures of force used by police officers that were developed
by the researchers are physical force and physical force plus threats. The
study found that 17.1 percent of arrests involved physical force (use of a
weapon, weaponless tactic, or severe restraint) and that 18.9 percent
entailed physical force or the display or threatened use of any weapon.

To better distinguish between different types of force--such as between
grabbing and kicking--the researchers developed a maximum force
measure, which involved officers' ranking 60 hypothetical types of force in
terms of their severity on a scale from 1 (least forceful) to 100 (most
forceful). When the measure was applied to the types of force officers
reported using, the study found that the ranking score for commanding a
suspect to do something (1.3 percent of all arrests) was 22; for using
handcuffs (57.3 percent of arrests), 28.2; and for displaying a handgun (2.2
percent of arrests), 55.4. The average ranking score for the types of force
used in all arrests was 30.

The researchers state that their findings are beginning to provide a stable
picture of police behavior and the amount of force that police use in arrest
situations, but they note the findings remain tentative given the small
number of jurisdictions involved in the research, among other reasons.

Study on police use of force and suspect resistance

The study collected use-of-force data from three law enforcement
agencies--police departments in two Oregon cities and one county
department in Florida (chapter 5). The areas served by the Oregon 
departments were considered one site.

The two-city Oregon site of Eugene/Springfield. Researchers analyzed 562
police actions, 57 percent of which were taken by officers responding to
calls for service and 33 percent by officers reacting to situations they had
observed. The most common type of incident (25 percent) confronting
officers was street violence. Most police action (76 percent) was taken to
apprehend or control a person.

Officers often used more than one verbal or physical control tactic per
incident. For instance, 93 percent of 546 incidents involved at least two
tactics; 87 percent, at least three; and 41 percent, at least four. The pattern
of tactic use that emerged corresponds to the traditional use-of-force
continuum. The first tactic used in an incident is nearly always the least
severe use of force on the continuum; the second is almost always the
second-most lenient; and so on, with very few exceptions.

Of 504 reported incidents in which force was used, 1.8 percent resulted in
injury to officers. They were most at risk for injury when wrestling,
striking, or taking a suspect to the ground.

The level of force used by the department's officers relative to the amount
of the suspects' resistance--the force factor--averaged slightly higher than
the amount of resistance encountered. On average, more force than
resistance was used. This does not necessarily imply that the level of
police force was excessive. For example, an officer may justifiably use
more force than does a suspect to gain control of a situation.

The Florida site. The study focused on data in 882 official
Control-of-Persons Reports prepared by officers' supervisors in the 
Miami-Dade Police Department. Ninety-seven percent of suspects
resisted.

The type of resistance most often reported was actively resisting arrest (36
percent), followed by assaulting the officer (25 percent). Twenty one
percent of suspects attempted to escape or flee the scene. The most
common type of force used by suspects was striking or hitting the officer
(44 percent). Initially calm suspects were least likely to resist officers but
were the most likely to flee and the most likely to resist with a gun or
assault officers with a vehicle.

The most common type of suspect injury was a bruise or abrasion (48
percent of those injured), followed by lacerations (24 percent), and
gunshot injuries (4 percent). The chance of suspect injury was significant
no matter what type of force was used by police. For example, officer use
of fists entailed an 81 percent chance of suspect injury; use of a PR-24 
baton, a 67 percent chance; and use of a handgun, a 48 percent chance.

Suspects who were reportedly impaired by alcohol or drugs were no more
likely to resist officers than sober suspects. When they did resist, however,
they were more likely than nonimpaired suspects to directly assault the
officer and more than twice as likely to use a gun.

The most common type of force used by officers was use of hands and
arms (77 percent of use-of-force incidents). In 64 percent of incidents,
officers grabbed or held suspects. There were no statistically significant
differences in the level of force used by male and female officers. The
ethnicity of an officer did not affect the general level of force used or
whether force was used.

Data suggest that officers are significantly at risk for injury when they use
force, particularly when they strike a suspect with their fists (48 percent
chance) or use their hands and arms to control a suspect (43 percent
chance). Because most use-of-force incidents involved use of hands, arms,
or fists by officers, they are most at risk for injury when using precisely
the types of force that they report using most frequently.

Police officers' use of force in relation to suspect resistance--the force
factor--averaged slightly less force than the resistance encountered. Data
indicate that officers are more likely to be injured when using less force
than that used by resisting suspects.

A Proposed Research Agenda

The development of a research agenda on police use of force, with special
attention given to issues of excessive force, should be guided by these
general considerations. 

--Research should provide new knowledge that significantly increases
our understanding of the problem.

--Research should be policy relevant.

--Research activities, taken as a whole, should be comprehensive and
systematic.

Within that general framework, more work is required on what various
people--general public, minorities, police administrators, patrol officers,
judges, offenders, etc.-- have in mind when they refer to excessive force
and how they adjudge specific instances of police behavior when questions
of excessive force arise. This research is important because social
problems often require shared solutions, and shared solutions require a
common basis of understanding and mutual respect for differences in
views.

Also needed is more and better data on police use of force. Most
discussions occur in an empirical vacuum where arguments are made
without the benefit of solid, useful information.

Research is required on how use of force by police varies across time,
cities, and individual police departments. Research also is needed on
individual, situational, and organizational factors related to variations in
use-of-force levels, along with excessive force levels and should focus on
the relation between excessive use of force, meaning the frequency with
which police use force, and excessive force, meaning instances in which
police use more force than is necessary.

Finally, interventions, changes, and reforms that may mitigate police
use-of-force problems should be identified, documented, and evaluated.

-------------------------------
Sidenotes

The organization of the executive summary parallels that of the report as a
whole; that is, the order of topics highlighted in this summary tracks the
chapter sequence. Occasional cross-references to specific chapters are
intended to assist readers in locating more detailed information.

"NCVS is based on interviews conducted with a nationally representative
sample of U.S. households and has become a highly useful platform for
testing new questionnaires and periodically implementing supplements."--
Greenfield, et al., page 15 of this report.

"...IACP designed the project from the outset to reflect operational realities
of modern, street-level law enforcement, including the very meaning of
'police use of force,' defined as the amount of force required by police to
compel compliance by an unwilling subject."--Henriquez, page 20 of this
report.
-------------------------------

About this report

This report is one of a series of use-of-force publications (see
Bibliography, page 75) generated by research supported by the National
Institute of Justice or Bureau of Justice Statistics. The data and findings
herein contribute to a better understanding of the extent and nature of
police use of force and of the circumstances under which such force is
applied.

A major objective of chapter 1 is to provide an overview of what is known
(and not known) about police use of force and thereby help readers put the
issue in perspective. The next two chapters are updates of two national
projects. One is designed to collect data on police-public contacts,
including those involving police use of force, from a nationally
representative sample of persons age 12 or older. The other seeks to
encourage as many local law enforcement agencies as possible to submit
voluntarily and anonymously use-of-force data to a central database for
analysis.

Chapters 4 and 5 focus on the local level. They present use-of-force
findings based on data acquired from nine police agencies. 

The final chapter looks ahead by proposing a research agenda on police
use of force, with special attention given to issues of excessive force.

Thus, this report begins with an overview of what is known about police
use of force, proceeds to outline what is being learned, and concludes with
a proposed plan for future research.

-------------------------------

Chapter 1

What We Know About Police Use of Force

by Kenneth Adams

Ambrose Bierce, a social critic known for his sarcasm and wit, once
described the police as "an armed force for protection and participation."1
In this pithy statement, Bierce identifies three critical elements of the
police role. First, by describing the police as "armed," their ability to
coerce recalcitrant persons to comply with the law is emphasized. Because
police carry weapons, it follows that the force they use may have lethal
consequences. The capacity to use coercive, deadly force is so central to
understanding police functions, one could say that it characterizes a key
element of the police role.

Second, the primary purpose of police is protection, and so force can be
used only to promote the safety of the community. Police have a
responsibility for safeguarding the domestic well-being of the public, and
this obligation even extends in qualified ways to protecting those who
violate the law, who are antagonistic or violent toward the police, or who
are intent on hurting themselves. In dealing with such individuals, police
may use force in reasonable and prudent ways to protect themselves and
others. However, the amount of force used should be proportional to the
threat and limited to the least amount required to accomplish legitimate
police action.

Third, the concept of participation emphasizes that police and community
are closely interrelated. Police are drawn from the community, and as
police they continue to operate as members of the community they serve.
The community, in turn, enters into a solemn and consequential
relationship with the police, ceding to them the power to deprive persons
of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" at a moment's notice and
depending on them for public safety. Without police, the safety of the
community is jeopardized. Without community support, police are
dispossessed of their legitimacy and robbed of their effectiveness.

This three-element definition of police makes it easy to understand why
abuse of force by police is of such great concern. First, there is the
humanitarian concern that police are capable of inflicting serious, even
lethal, harm on the public. Second, there is the philosophical dilemma that
in "protecting" the whole of society, some of its constituent parts, meaning
its citizens, may be injured. Third, there is the political irony that police,
who stand apart from society in terms of authority, law, and responsibility,
also are part of society and act on its behalf. Thus, rogue actions by a few
police, if condoned by the public, may become perceived as actions of the
citizenry.

Recent developments in policing have elevated concerns about police use
of force beyond ordinarily high levels. In particular, community policing,
which is becoming widespread as a result of financial incentives by the
Federal Government, and "aggressive" policing, which is becoming widely
adopted as a solution to serious crime problems, have come to the fore as
perspectives of choice by policing experts. Community policing
emphasizes the role of the community as "coproducers" of law and order
in conjunction with the police. Communities naturally vary in attributes,
and they vary in how they are defined for the purposes of community
policing. Consequently, some communities look to add restrictions on
police use of force, while others are satisfied with the status quo, and still
others seek to ease current restrictions. Regardless of the community's
orientation on this issue, community policing means increased levels of
accountability and responsiveness in key areas, such as use of force.
Increased accountability hinges on new information, and new information
stimulates debate.

The other emerging perspective is "aggressive" policing, which often falls
under the rubric of broken windows theory, and, as a strategic matter, is
concerned with intensifying enforcement against quality-of-life and order
maintenance offenses. The influence of aggressive policing can be seen in
the proliferation of "zero tolerance" enforcement strategies across the
Nation. The concern is that the threat posed by petty offenders may be
exaggerated to the point that use of force becomes more commonplace and
abuses of force more frequent.

The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 mirrored
congressional concern about excessive force by authorizing the Civil
Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) to initiate civil
actions against police agencies when, among other conduct, their use of
force reaches a level constituting a pattern or practice depriving
individuals of their rights. DOJ exercised that authority when, for
example, it determined that an urban police department engaged in such
conduct and negotiated a consent decree that put in place a broad set of
reforms, including an agreement by the department to document its use of
force and to implement an early warning system to detect possible
abuses.[2]

Use-of-force concerns also are reflected in the attention the media give to
possible instances of police abuse. An accumulation of alleged
abuse-of-force incidents, widely reported in the media, encourages
overgeneralization by giving the impression that police brutality is
rampant and that police departments across the Nation are out of control.
For example, Human Rights Watch states, "Allegations of police abuse are
rife in cities throughout the country and take many forms."[3]

Before considering the details of recent research efforts on police use of
force, it is useful to summarize the state of our knowledge.[4] We know
some details about police use of force with a high degree of certainty.
These items represent "facts" that should frame our understanding of the
issues. Other details about police use of force we know in sketchy ways, or
the research is contradictory. These items should be subject to additional
research using more refined methods of inquiry. Finally, there are some
aspects of police use of force about which we know very little or next to
nothing. These items represent critical directions for new inquiry.

As is often the case with important policy questions, the information that
we are most confident of is of limited value. In many cases, it does not tell
us what we really need to know, because it does not focus squarely on the
important issues or is subject to competing interpretations. Conversely, the
information that is most critical for policy decisions often is not available
or is very difficult to obtain. Such is the case with police use of force. The
issues that most concern the public and policymakers lack the kinds of
reliable and solid information that advance debate from the realm of
ideological posturing to objective analysis. Nonetheless, it is important to
take stock of our knowledge so that it is clear which issues can be set aside
and which should be the target of efforts at obtaining new knowledge.

What, then, is the state of knowledge regarding police use of force? We
begin with issues about which we have considerable information and a
high degree of confidence in our knowledge. Discussed next are issues
where knowledge is modest and considerably more research is merited.
Finally, we conclude with issues that are critical to debates over police use
of force and about which little knowledge exists.

What We Know With Substantial Confidence About Police Use of Force

Police use force infrequently.Whether measured by use-of-force reports,
citizen complaints, victim surveys, or observational methods, the data
consistently indicate that only a small percentage of police-public
interactions involve the use of force. As Bayley and Garofalo observed, 
police-citizen encounters that involve use of force and injury are "quite
rare."[5]

Because there is no standard methodology for measuring use of force,
estimates can vary considerably on strictly computational grounds.
Different definitions of force and different definitions of police-public
interactions will yield different rates[6] (see sidebar "Working
definitions"). In particular, broad definitions of use of force, such as those
that include grabbing or handcuffing a suspect, will produce higher rates
than more conservative definitions. The Bureau of Justice Statistics' (BJS)
1996 pretest of its Police-Public Contact Survey resulted in preliminary
estimates that nearly 45 million people had face-to-face contact with
police over a 12-month period and that approximately 1 percent, or about
500,000 of these persons, were subjected to use of force or threat of
force[7] (see chapter 2). When handcuffing is included in the BJS
definition of force, the number of persons increases to 1.2 million.

Expanding and contracting definitions of "police-public" interactions also
work to affect use-of-force rates but in an opposite way from definitions of
force. Broad definitions of police-public "interactions," such as calls for
service, which capture variegated requests for assistance, lead to low rates
of use of force. Conversely, narrow definitions of police-public
interactions, such as arrests, which concentrate squarely on suspects, lead
to higher rates of use of force.

The International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) is in the process
of compiling statistics on use-of-force data being submitted by cooperating
agencies (see chapter 3). These data indicate that force is used in less than
one-half of 1 percent of dispatched calls for service. From this point of
view, one might well consider police use of force a rare event. This figure
is roughly consistent with the preliminary estimate reported by BJS,
although the IACP figure is subject to the reporting biases that may exist
in police agency data. Furthermore, IACP data are not yet representative
of the national picture because of selection bias; the estimate is based on a
small percentage of police departments that voluntarily report information
on use of force.

Garner and Maxwell found that physical force (excluding handcuffing) is
used in fewer than one of five adult custody arrests (see chapter 4). While
this figure hardly qualifies as a rare event, it can be considered low,
especially in light of the broad definition of force that was used.

In characterizing police use of force as infrequent or rare, the intention is
neither to minimize the problem nor to suggest that the issue can be
dismissed as unworthy of serious attention. Society's ends are best
achieved peaceably, and we should strive to minimize the use of force by
police as much as possible. However, it is important to put police use of
force in context in order to understand the potential magnitude of
use-of-force problems. Although estimates may not completely reassure
everyone that police are doing everything they can to minimize the use of
force, the data do not support the notion that we have a national epidemic
of police violence.

Another purpose for emphasizing the infrequent nature of police use of
force is to highlight the methodological challenges of trying to count or
study infrequent events. In this regard, methodological approaches can
vary considerably in terms of cost efficiency, reliability, and precision of
information obtained. In BJS's 1996 pilot household survey of 6,421
persons, 14 respondents, or roughly 1 in 450, said that they were subjected
to use of force or threat of force by police over a year's time. The
household survey approach has the benefit of providing national-level
estimates based on data that are free of police agency reporting biases.
However, as noted by BJS, the preliminary estimates derived from such a
small number of respondents are subject to a wide margin of error. This
issue is particularly important if one is interested in tracking changes over
time, because a very small change in reporting can have a very large
impact on estimates. In the survey's continuing development, the next pilot
test will use a sample about 10 times the size of the 1996 pilot test as well
as involve a redesigned questionnaire.

Police use of force typically occurs at the lower end of the force spectrum,
involving grabbing, pushing, or shoving.

Relatively minor types of force dominate statistics on police use of force.
Garner and Maxwell (see chapter 4) observed that police use weaponless
tactics in roughly 80 percent of use-of-force incidents and that half the
time the tactic involved grabbing the suspect. Alpert and Dunham (see
chapter 5) found that in Miami 64 percent of use-of-force incidents
involved grabbing or holding the suspect. In the BJS pilot national survey,
it was estimated, preliminarily, that about 500,000 people were "hit, held,
pushed, choked, threatened with a flashlight, restrained by a police dog,
threatened with or actually sprayed with chemical or pepper spray,
threatened with a gun, or experienced some other form of force."[8]
Three-fifths of these situations, however, involved only holding. Finally,
Pate and Fridell's survey of law enforcement agencies regarding use of
force and civilian complaints also confirms that minor types of force occur
more frequently than serious types.[9]

As a corollary finding, when injuries occur as a result of use of force, they
are likely to be relatively minor. Alpert and Dunham (see chapter 5)
observed that the most common injury to a suspect was a bruise or
abrasion (48 percent), followed by laceration (24 percent). The kinds of
police actions that most captivate the public's concerns, such as fatal
shootings, severe beatings with fists or batons that lead to hospitalization,
and choke holds that cause unconsciousness or even death, are not typical
of situations in which police use force. These findings reassure us that
most police exercise restraint in the use of force, even if one has concerns
over the number of times that police resort to serious violence.

From a police administrator's point of view, these findings are predictable.
Officers are trained to use force progressively along a continuum, and
policy requires that officers use the least amount of force necessary to
accomplish their goals.

Another affiliated finding is that police rarely use weapons. According to
Garner and Maxwell (see chapter 4), 2.1 percent of adult custody arrests
involved use of weapons by police. Chemical agents were the weapons
most frequently used (1.2 percent of arrests), while firearms were the
weapons least often used (0.2 percent of arrests). Most police departments
collect statistics on all firearm discharges by officers. These data
consistently show that the majority of discharges are accidental or are
directed at animals. Only on infrequent occasions do police use their
firearms against the public. One implication of these findings is that
increased training in how to use standard police weapons will be of little
value in dealing with day-to-day situations that involve use of force.
Training, if it is to be effective in reducing the use of force, needs to focus
on how to gain compliance without resorting to physical coercion.

Use of force typically occurs when police are trying to make an arrest and
the suspect is resisting.

Research indicates that police are most likely to use force when pursuing a
suspect and attempting to exercise their arrest powers. Furthermore,
resistance by the public increases the likelihood that police will use force.
These findings appear intuitively sound given the mandate that police have
regarding use of force. Police may use force when it is necessary to
enforce the law or to protect themselves or others from harm. The findings
also seem logical in view of police training curriculums and departmental
regulations. Alpert and Dunham (see chapter 5) find that police almost
always follow the prescribed sequence of control procedures they are
taught, except when suspect resistance is high, in which case they tend to
skip the intermediate procedure.

The conclusion that police are most likely to use force when dealing with
criminal suspects, especially those who are resisting arrest, is based on
four types of data: arrest statistics, surveys of police officers, observations
of police behavior, and reports by the public about their encounters with
police.

Arrest statistics show that resisting-arrest charges often are involved in
situations in which officers use force. The interpretation of this finding is
ambiguous, however, because officers may bring such charges in an
attempt to justify their actions against a suspect. Some commentators even
would argue that resisting-arrest charges are a good indication that police
officers acted inappropriately or illegally. Because we are relying on
official reports by officers who are involved in use-of-force incidents, and
because they have self-interest in presenting the situation in the most
favorable light possible, we cannot rely on arrest records alone in 
determining what happened.

Fortunately, other research is available to help clarify the situation. The
pilot national household survey by BJS included a series of questions
about the respondent's behavior during contact with police.[10] The
preliminary analysis revealed that of the 14 respondents in the sample who
reported that police used or threatened force against them, 10 suggested
that they might have provoked the officer to use force. The provocative
behaviors reported by suspects include threatening the officer, assaulting
the officer, arguing with the officer, interfering with the arrest of someone
else, blocking or interfering with an officer's movement, trying to escape,
resisting being handcuffed, and resisting being placed in a police vehicle.

Research by Alpert and Dunham (see chapter 5) confirms that criminal
suspects are not always cooperative when it comes to arrest. In almost all
(97 percent) cases in which police officers used force in a Florida
jurisdiction, the suspect offered some degree of resistance. In 36 percent of
use-of-force incidents, the suspect actively resisted arrest, and in
one-quarter of the incidents the suspect assaulted the officer. The
researchers observed that the most common type of suspect force was
hitting or striking a police officer (44 percent).

Garner and colleagues, after using statistical controls for more than 50
characteristics of the arrest situation, the suspect, and the police officer,
found that forceful action by suspects was the strongest and most
consistent predictor of use of force by police.[11] Furthermore, they found
that while 22 percent of arrests involved use of force by police, 14 percent
of arrests involved use of force by suspects. Police officers in Phoenix
completed a use-of-force survey after each arrest to generate these data.

Finally, Bayley and Garofalo tallied 36 instances of force used by police
or suspects out of 467 police-public encounters observed firsthand by
researchers.[12] They found that in 31 incidents police used force against
suspects and in 11 incidents suspects used force against police.

One implication of the research is that the decision to use some level of
force probably has legal justification in most cases. Force is likely to be
used when suspects resist arrest and attempt to flee. Also, in a significant
number of instances, suspects use force against the police. These findings
leave open the issue of excessive force, since issues of proportionality are
not clearly addressed. However, the findings do suggest that many debates
over excessive force will fall into gray areas where it is difficult to decide
whether an officer acted properly, because there is credible evidence that
the use of force was necessary.

What We Know With Modest Confidence About Police Use of Force

Use of force appears to be unrelated to an officer's personal characteristics,
such as age, gender, and ethnicity.A small number of studies suggest that
use of force by police is not associated with personal characteristics, such
as age, gender, and ethnicity Bayley and Garofalo concluded that use of
force is not related to age, although it may be related to experience.[13]
Worden, in an analysis of observational data on 24 police departments in 3
metropolitan areas, concluded that the personal characteristics of police
officers do not have a substantively significant effect on use of force.[14]

Likewise, Garner and colleagues reported that the race of suspect and
officer is not predictive of use of force.[15] However, they found that
incidents involving male police officers and male suspects are more likely
to involve force. Alpert and Dunham (see chapter 5) found that officer
characteristics are of little utility in distinguishing between force and
nonforce incidents.

Hence, gender and ethnicity appear unrelated to use of force. Given the
limited research in this area, these conclusions should be accepted with
caution and additional verification of these findings is needed.

It is widely accepted in criminology that violence, along with a wide
variety of other risk-taking and norm-violating behaviors, is a young man's
game. Thus, we should expect that young, male police officers should use
force more than their female colleagues or older officers. The fact that this
is not clearly the case seems surprising. 

A lack of relationship between age and gender, on the one hand, and use of
force, on the other, may be a function of police hiring and deployment
practices. Retirement plans keep the age of police officers lower than that
of most other occupations, and seniority, which is derivative of work
experience, often brings more choice in work assignments, including
duties that limit one's contact with criminal suspects on the street. Both
these tendencies serve to constrain variation in the age of police officers
who are exposed to potentially violent situations. This may attenuate the
relationship between age and use of force. However, it is equally plausible
that young male officers are assigned to high-crime areas where frequent
use of force is necessary to gain compliance. Finally, it is possible that
exposure to the police culture works to encourage the use of force, thus
counterbalancing the decline in aggressivity that comes with age as
demonstrated in criminological studies. More research is needed to
disentangle these relationships.

The finding that an officer's race is unrelated to the propensity to use force
runs counter to the argument that racial animosity lies at the heart of police
abuse. Indeed, Alpert and Dunham's research (see chapter 5) indicates that
officers are more likely to use force against suspects of their own race. The
lack of relationship between race and use of force, as well as between
gender and use of force, is probably disheartening to those who argue that
integration of police agencies along racial and gender lines will do much
to reduce the incidence of police violence. Again, more research is needed
to understand the situation of minority and female police officers with
regard to their use of force.

Use of force is more likely to occur when police are dealing with persons
under the influence of alcohol or drugs or with mentally ill individuals.
More research is needed.

Police come across a wide variety of situations in their work. They
encounter problems that range from relatively minor to serious to
potentially deadly. They also interact with people exhibiting various
mental states, including persons who are hysterical, highly agitated, angry,
disoriented, upset, worried, irritated, or calm.

Two situations that often give police officers cause for concern are when
suspects appear to be under the influence of alcohol or drugs and when
civilians appear to suffer from serious mental or emotional impairments.
The concern stems from the fact that in such situations a person's rational
faculties appear impaired. In dealing with problem situations, officers
most often talk their way, rather than force their way, into solutions. For
this reason, when a civilian is in a highly irrational state of mind, the
chances of the police officer having to use force presumably increase and
the possibility of injury to both officer and civilian increases as well.

Research carried out for the President's Commission on Law Enforcement
and Administration of Justice observed that alcohol use by either a suspect
or an officer increased the chances that force will be used.[16] Garner and
colleagues found that alcohol impairment by suspects was a consistent
predictor of police use of force, while drug impairment predicted increased
use of force for some but not all measures of use of force.[17] In contrast,
Alpert and Dunham (see chapter 5) observed that alcohol or drug
impairment of suspects was unrelated to police use of force or subsequent
injury. That finding is interesting because, although impaired civilians did
not demonstrate an increased propensity to resist an officer's actions, when
they did resist they were more inclined to do so by actively resisting or
assaulting the officer.

Part of the disparity in findings between the President's Commission's
research and more recent studies may be attributed to the fact that police
officers today are better trained in how to deal with impaired civilians.
Most police officers now receive training in a variety of violence reduction
techniques, and this development is partly attributable to concerns over the
President's Commission's findings and over the frequency with which
police now are called to respond to large-scale violence, such as riots.

Questions about how police deal with civilians who appear to have
impaired mental states are important from administrative and practical
points of view. Police officers are expected to exercise restraint in dealing
with impaired civilians, while at the same time they need to be cautious
about protecting their safety as well as the safety of other civilians. This
puts them in a precarious situation, one in which mistakes of judgment or
tactics can have grave consequences.

From a practical standpoint, police regularly encounter civilians with
impaired mental states, which makes the problem more than academic.
Alpert and Dunham (see chapter 5) found that in 42 percent of
use-of-force situations, suspects appeared to be under the influence of
alcohol or drugs. Overall, the research on whether police use force more
frequently in relation to civilians with impaired mental states is
inconsistent. Further investigation, with an emphasis on implications for
training, could reduce the risk of force and injury for both police officers
and civilians.

A small proportion of officers are disproportionately involved in
use-of-force incidents. More research is needed.

We often are told that a small number of people are responsible for most
of the productive or counterproductive work in an organization. For
example, we hear about the 80/20 rule in organizational management. That
is, 20 percent of the workers account for 80 percent of the work. Policing
has its counterpart explanation for deviant or illegal behavior. It is called
the rotten apple or rogue officer theory, and it is often used to explain
police corruption. Recently, a variation of this theory has become the
principal explanation for use-of-force problems in police departments. In
this context, we speak of "violence prone" police officers and we point to
these individuals as the reason why a department has problems with the
use of force.[18]

People with extraordinary work performance, either good or bad, are
noticeable when compared with their colleagues, and their salience leads
us to think that their work is highly consequential to the good fortunes or
misfortunes of an organization. The utility of this perspective for police
managers attempting to deal with illegitimate use of force lies in the
presumed concentration of problem behaviors in the work force. If only a
handful of police officers accounts for most of the abuses, then effective
solutions targeted at those individuals should deal with the problem. The
nature of the solution, be it employee selection, training, oversight, or
discipline, is less important than its degree of effectiveness and its ability
to be directed at the problem group of employees.

The Christopher Commission, which investigated the Los Angeles Police
Department subsequent to the Rodney King incident, highlighted the
"violence prone" officer theory.[19] The Commission, using the
department's database, identified 44 officers with 6 or more civilian
allegations of excessive force or improper tactics in the period 1986
through 1990. For the 44, the per-officer average for force-related
complaints was 7.6 compared with 0.6 for all officers identified as having
been involved in a use-of-force incident for the period January 1987
through March 1991. The 44 officers were involved in an average of 13
use-of-force incidents compared with 4.2 for all officers reported to be
using force.

Put another way, less than one-half of 1 percent of the department's sworn
officers accounted for more than 15 percent of allegations of excessive
force or improper tactics. The degree of disproportion (30:1) is striking
and suggests that focusing efforts on a handful of officers can eliminate
roughly 1 out of 7 excessive force incidents. This finding has led many
police departments to implement early warning systems designed to
identify high-risk officers before they become major problems. Most of
these systems use administrative records, such as disciplinary records and
citizen complaints, to monitor officer performance for possible problems.

The concept of an early warning system for risk management of problem
police officers is not new. In the early 1980s, a report on police practices
by the United States Commission on Civil Rights found that "'(e)arly
warning' information systems may assist the department in identifying
violence-prone officers."[20] Consequently, it was recommended that "(a)
system should be devised in each department to assist officials in early
identification of violence-prone officers."[21]

Until recently, these systems received limited acceptance, owing in part to
concerns over possible abuses. The abuses include use of inaccurate
information, improper labeling of officers, misuse of confidential records 
regarding discipline and other personnel matters, and social ostracism by
peers and community for officers identified as problematic. There also
were concerns about limited resources and about increased legal liability
for the organization and individual officers.

As Toch observes, the violence-prone officer paradigm often is based on a
variety of loosely articulated theories of violent behavior.[22] The theories
include concepts such as racial prejudice, poor self-control, and ego
involvement. Furthermore, these theories often overlook the possibility
that greater-than-average use of force may be a product of situational or
organizational characteristics.

For example, an officer's work assignment may involve a high-crime area
that contains a high proportion of rebellious offenders. Also, divisive,
dehumanizing views of the world, such as "us-them" and "good guy-bad
guy," that facilitate violent behavior may be supported by the
organizational culture. Further, administrative views of work roles and
products, communicated formally or informally, that emphasize crime
control through aggressive police behavior may encourage confrontational
tactics that increase the chances of violent behavior by either civilian or
police officer. Unless the reasons for violence propensity are accurately
identified, the effectiveness of interventions targeted at violent police
officers is a hit-or-miss proposition.

Of the 44 officers identified by the Christopher Commission in 1991, 14
subsequently left the department as of October 1997. Of the 30 remaining
officers, two had a use-of-force complaint that was sustained after review
between 1991 and 1997.[23] This low number may be due to a variety of
reasons, such as difficulties in sustaining citizen complaints, reassignment
of work duties, negative publicity leading to a change in behavior, or
greater circumspection when engaging in misconduct. However, the
finding also may reflect regression to the mean. This is a statistical
phenomenon postulating that extreme scores gravitate toward the mean or
average score, thereby becoming less extreme over time.

For example, groups of police officers who receive many citizen
complaints, or who are disproportionately involved in the use of force, or
who frequently are given poor performance ratings, will tend to become
"better" over time, in the sense of statistically looking more like the
"average" officers, even if nothing is done about these problems.
Statistical regression represents a serious threat to the validity of early
warning systems based on the assumption that extreme patterns of
behavior persist over extended periods of time.

What We Do Not Know About Police Use of Force

The incidence of wrongful use of force by police is unknown. Research is
critically needed to determine reliably, validly, and precisely how often
transgressions of use-of-force powers occur.

We do not know how often police use force in ways that can be adjudged
as wrongful. For example, we do not know the incidence of excessive
force, even though this is a very serious violation of public trust. We could
pull together data on excessive force using police disciplinary records and
court documents, for example, but the picture would be sketchy,
piecemeal, and potentially deceiving. When it comes to less grave or less
precise transgressions, such as "improper," "abusive," "illegitimate," and
"unnecessary" use of force, the state of knowledge is even more
precarious.

In discussing this issue, we will concentrate on excessive force, because
these transgressions are of utmost concern to the public and because
well-established professional and legal criteria are available to help us
evaluate police behavior. Notwithstanding a generally agreed-upon
terminology, we should recognize that developing a count of excessive
force that is beyond all dispute is an unworkable task. This is so because
difficult judgments are involved in deciding whether use of force fits the
criteria for these categories in a given situation, and reasonable people will
disagree in such judgments. We clearly need more accurate, reliable, and
valid measures of excessive force if we are to advance our understanding
of these problems.

Academics and practitioners both tend to presuppose that the incidence of
excessive force by police is very low. They argue that, despite their
shortcomings, agency statistics provide a useful picture of the use-of-force
problem. These statistics show that most officers do not engage in force on
a regular basis, that few people are injured by police use of force, that only
a small number of people complain about police misconduct involving use
of force, and that only a handful of these complaints are sustained.

The argument has appeal. We believe that the vast majority of police
officers are professionals who respect the law and the public. If use of
force is uncommon, civilian complaints are infrequent, and civilian
injuries are few, then excessive force by police must be rare. That
conclusion may indeed be correct, but to the extent that it hinges on
official police statistics, it is open to serious challenge.

Current indicators of excessive force are all critically flawed. The most
widely available indicators are civilian complaints of excessive force and
civil lawsuits alleging illegal use of force. Civilian complaints of excessive
force are infrequent, and the number of substantiated complaints is very
low. These figures are consistent with the argument that excessive force is
sporadic. However, complaint mechanisms are subject to selection and
reporting biases, and the operation of complaint systems, which typically
is managed by police, wields considerable influence on whether people
will come forward to complain.

Civil lawsuits against police are exceedingly rare relative to the number of
times that police use force. Because the legal process is highly selective in
terms of which claims get litigated, lawsuits are a very unreliable measure
of illegal use of force. With both civilian complaints and lawsuits, small
changes in administrative practices can have a large impact on the
magnitude of the problem measured in these ways.

The difficulties in measuring excessive and illegal force with complaint
and lawsuit records have led academics and practitioners to redirect their
attention to all use-of-force incidents. The focus then becomes one of
minimizing all instances of police use of force, without undue concern as
to whether force was excessive. From this perspective, other records, such
as use-of-force reports, arrest records, injury reports, and medical records,
become relevant to measuring the incidence of the problem.

From a theoretical perspective, understanding all use-of-force incidents
helps us to put wrongful use of force in perspective. However, because
political, legal, and ethical issues are very serious when we are dealing
with excessive force, pressures to know the incidence and prevalence of
these events with precision will always be present.

As a corollary of our current inability to measure excessive force, we
cannot discern with precision changes in the incidence of these events over
time and across places. This means that we can neither determine whether
excessive force problems are getting better or worse nor determine the
circumstances under which those problems are more or less severe.

The impact of differences in police organizations, including administrative
policies, hiring, training, discipline, and use of technology, on excessive
and illegal force is unknown. Research is critically needed in this area.

A major gap in our knowledge about excessive force by police concerns
characteristics of police agencies that facilitate or impede this conduct.
Although many of the conditions that arguably lead to excessive or illegal
force by police seem obvious, or appear to be a matter of common sense,
we still greatly need systematic research in this area. We need to know, for
example, which organizational characteristics are most consequential,
which characteristics take on added significance in various environments,
and which characteristics are redundant or derivative of other
characteristics.

Many formal aspects of the organization--such as hiring criteria, recruit
training, in-service programs, supervision of field officers, disciplinary
mechanisms, operations of internal affairs, specialized units dealing with
ethics and integrity, labor unions, and civilian oversight mechanisms--
plausibly are related to levels of officer misconduct. It makes sense that
poorly educated, badly trained, loosely supervised, and inadequately
disciplined officers are likely to be problematic, and that when such
officers are in the majority, the organization is on the road toward disaster.
Yet, we lack research that systematically addresses these questions.

Less formal aspects of police organizations--officer morale, administrative
leadership, peer culture and influence, police-community relations,
relations with other government agencies, and neighborhood
environments--also plausibly have a part in levels of officer misconduct.
Alienated officers who do not have a clear vision of their role and
responsibilities and who are working in disorganized agencies and
interacting with the public under stressful circumstances probably are
more likely to abuse their authority, including their authority to use force.
Research that systematically addresses these questions is lacking.

Methodological investigation of relations between organizational elements
and use-of-force transgressions will help explain police misconduct at a
theoretical level. More importantly, research on these questions will allow
us to deal effectively with police misbehavior. Faced with serious
misconduct problems in a police agency, we need to focus scarce
resources on those aspects of police organizations that are most clearly
related to ensuring proper conduct of officers with regard to use of force.
Generalized efforts to reform police organizations that are expected to
reduce misconduct problems tend to be inefficiently focused and thus
appear clumsy, inadequate, and misinformed.

Research must focus on establishing the relative cost-effectiveness of
various strategies to reduce or eliminate police misconduct. Furthermore,
only strategies that are solidly grounded in theory, practice, and empirical
research will provide reliable solutions with predictable costs and benefits.

Influences of situational characteristics on police use of force and the
transactional nature of these events are largely unknown. More research is
necessary.

Research on police-citizen encounters reveals that use of force by police is
situational and transactional. That is, police respond to circumstances as
they first encounter them and as they unfold over time. For example,
Bayley and Garofalo observed that the situations most likely to involve
police use of force are interpersonal disturbance and violent personal
crime.[24] Beyond this, however, we do not know much about the types of
events that enhance the likelihood that police will use force.

Similarly, we have noted that when suspects attempt to flee or physically
resist arrest police are more likely to use force. We also noted that in many
cases both police and suspects use force against each other. However,
these findings do not address the transactional nature of police-public
encounters in that they do not describe the step-by-step unfolding of
events and interactions. Knowing that police use force if suspects
physically resist arrest, it matters if police use force without provocation
and the suspect responds by resisting or vice versa.

A variety of situational elements plausibly are related to police use of
force. If police are called to a scene where there is fighting, they may have
to or believe they have to use force to subdue the suspects. If they are
called to a domestic dispute where emotions are running high, they may
have to or believe they have to use force to gain control of the situation. If
they are called to intercede with a civilian who is recklessly brandishing a
weapon, they may have to or believe they have to use force to protect
themselves and others. Use of force in such circumstances may be
justifiable, but to the extent that it is predictable, we can prepare officers
for these encounters and devise alternative strategies that minimize or
eliminate the use of force.

Some situational factors may increase the chances that force of
questionable legitimacy will be used. For example, officers sometimes use
force on the slightest provocation following a high-speed car chase, when
adrenaline levels are high. They may use force more frequently when they
are alone, because they feel more vulnerable or believe that they can get
away with it. They may use force more frequently as a way of
emphasizing their authority when suspects are disrespectful or when there
is a hostile audience to the encounter. At this point, however, knowledge
about the types of police-citizen encounters in which police are likely to
use force is rudimentary.

Police-public encounters are transactional in the sense that all the actors in
a situation contribute in some way to its development and outcome.
Understanding the transactional nature of police use of force is important
because it emphasizes the role of police actions in increasing the chances
that force will be used.

From this perspective, it is possible to minimize the use of force by
modifying the behavior and tactics of police officers. By understanding the
sequences of events that lead police to use force, we can gain a greater
degree of control over those situations and possibly redirect the outcome.
But we have only a basic understanding of the transactional nature of
use-of-force situations, despite the fact that sequences of actions and
interactions are highly germane to determining whether use of force was
excessive or illegal.

Organization of the Report

The next four chapters of this report focus on major research studies
dealing with police use of force. They represent significant projects
currently under way to understand police use of force.

Two of the projects are attempts at measuring the incidence of police use
of force nationwide. BJS has developed a national-level data collection
effort using a household survey methodology to investigate police-public
interactions, with a component on use-of-force issues (see chapter 2).
IACP is collecting data on police use of force through a voluntary
reporting system (see chapter 3).

Two other projects on police use of force involve citywide investigations
across several locations. Chapter 4 reports on research in six jurisdictions;
the research is important because it identifies factors associated with use
of force and because it addresses difficult measurement issues. Focusing
on three police agencies, chapter 5 discusses research that centers on the
use of force by both police and suspects; the research is important because
it contributes significantly to understanding the transactional nature of
police-citizen encounters.

The final chapter outlines suggested directions for future research. A
selected bibliography concludes this report.

Notes

1. Bierce, Ambrose, The Devil's Dictionary, New York: Dover, 1958: 101.

2. "Justice Department Consent Decree Pushes Police to Overhaul
Operations," Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, March 1, 1998, C-1.

3. Based on an investigation in 14 cities, Human Rights Watch described
the brutality situation as follows: "(p)olice officers engage in unjustified
shootings, severe beatings, fatal chokings, and unnecessarily rough
physical treatment in cities throughout the United States, while their police
superiors, city officials and the Justice Department fail to act decisively to
restrain or penalize such acts or even to record the full magnitude of the
problem." Human Rights Watch, Shielded from Justice: Police Brutality
and Accountability in the United States, New York: Human Rights Watch,
1998: 1, 27.

4. A previous summary of research on police use of force can be found in
McEwen, Tom, National Data Collection on Police Use of Force,
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics
and National Institute of Justice, April 1996, NCJ 160113.

5. Bayley, David H., and James Garofalo, "The Management of Violence
by Police Patrol Officers," Criminology, 27(1)(February 1989): 1-27; and
Bayley, David H., and James Garofalo, "Patrol Officer Effectiveness in
Managing Conflict During Police-Citizen Encounters," in Report to the
Governor, Vol. III, Albany: New York State Commission on Criminal
Justice and the Use of Force, 1987: B1-88.

6. Adams, Kenneth, "Measuring the Prevalence of Police Abuse of Force,"
in And Justice For All: A National Agenda for Understanding and
Controlling Police Abuse of Force, ed. William A. Geller and Hans Toch,
Washington, DC: Police Executive Research Forum, 1995: 61-97.

7. Greenfeld, Lawrence A., Patrick A. Langan, and Steven K. Smith,
Police Use of Force: Collection of National Data, Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics and National Institute
of Justice, November 1997, NCJ 165040.

8. Ibid. 

9. Pate, Anthony M., and Lorie A. Fridell, with Edwin E. Hamilton, Police
Use of Force: Official Reports, Citizen Complaints, and Legal
Consequences, Vols. I and II, Washington, DC: The Police Foundation,
1993.

10. Greenfeld, Lawrence A., Patrick A. Langan, and Steven K. Smith,
Police Use of Force: Collection of National Data.

11. Garner, Joel, John Buchanan, Tom Schade, and John Hepburn,
Understanding Use of Force By and Against the Police, Research in Brief,
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice,
November 1996, NCJ 158614.

12. Bayley, David H., and James Garofalo, "The Management of Violence
by Police Patrol Officers"; and Bayley, David H., and James Garofalo,
"Patrol Officer Effectiveness in Managing Conflict During Police-Citizen
Encounters."

13. Ibid.

14. Worden, Robert, "The 'Causes' of Police Brutality," in And Justice For
All: A National Agenda for Understanding and Controlling Police Abuse
of Force, 31-60.

15. Garner, Joel, John Buchanan, Tom Schade, and John Hepburn,
Understanding Use of Force By and Against the Police.

16. Reiss, Albert J., Jr., Studies on Crime and Law Enforcement in a
Major Metropolitan Area, President's Commission on Law Enforcement
and Administration of Justice, Field Survey No. 3, Washington, DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office, 1967.

17. Garner, Joel, John Buchanan, Tom Schade, and John Hepburn,
Understanding Use of Force By and Against the Police.

18. Toch, Hans, "The 'Violence-Prone' Police Officer," in And Justice For
All: A National Agenda for Understanding and Controlling Police Abuse
of Force, 99-112.

19. Independent Commission on the Los Angeles Police Department,
Report of the Independent Commission on the Los Angeles Police
Department, Los Angeles, CA: Independent Commission on the Los
Angeles Police Department, 1991.

20. United States Commission on Civil Rights, Who's Guarding the
Guardians? A Report on Police Practices, Washington, DC: United States
Commission on Civil Rights, 1981: 159.

21. Ibid.

22. Toch, Hans, "The 'Violence-Prone' Police Officer," 112.

23. Office of the Inspector General, Los Angeles Police Commission,
"Status Update: Management of LAPD High-Risk Officers," Los Angeles:
Los Angeles Police Commission, 1997.

24. Bayley, David, H., and James Garofalo, "Patrol Officer Effectiveness
in Managing Conflict During Police-Citizen Encounters."

-------------------------------

Sidenotes

Kenneth Adams, Ph.D., is Associate Professor and Chair of the Criminal
Justice Faculty, School of Public and Environmental Affairs, Indiana
University-Indianapolis.

"Thus, the Commission concludes that factors substantially contributing to
misperceptions about use of physical and deadly force by law enforcement
officers include...[f]ailure to appreciate the relative infrequent use of
physical and deadly force by law enforcement personnel...." --New York
State Commission on Criminal Justice and the Use of Force, Report to the
Governor, Vol. 1, New York: New York State Commission on Criminal
Justice and the Use of Force, May 1987: 6.

"The first tactic used in an incident is nearly always the least severe use of
force on the continuum, and the secondis nearly always the second-most
lenient." --Alpert and Dunham, page 48 of this report.

Regarding suspect force as a consistent predictor of police use of force:
"This remained true when controlling for the possibility that some suspect
use of force could be a reaction to police use of force." --Garner, et al. (see
note 11).

"Suspects reported as impaired were more than twice as likely than sober
suspects to use a gun to resist the police." --Alpert and Dunham, page 51
of this report.

". . . a significant number of officers...repetitively misuse force and
persistently ignore the written policies and guidelines of the Department
regarding force. By their misconduct, this group of officers tarnishes the
reputations of the vast majority of LAPD officers who do their
increasingly difficult job of policing the City with courage, skill, and
judgment." --Independent Commission on the Los Angeles Police
Department, Report of the Independent Commission on the Los Angeles
Police Department, Los Angeles, CA: Independent Commission on the
Los Angeles Police Department, 1991: 31.

-------------------------------

Working definitions

Police use of force is characterized in a variety of ways. Sometimes, these
characterizations are functionally interchangeable so that one can be
substituted for another without doing injustice to the factual interpretation
of a statement. At other times, however, differences in terminology can be
very consequential to a statement's meaning. For example, "deadly force"
refers to situations in which force is likely to have lethal consequences for
the victim. This type of force is clearly defined and should not be confused
with other types of force that police use.

In contrast, "police brutality" is a phrase used to describe instances of
serious physical or psychological harm to civilians, with an emphasis on
cruelty or savageness. The term does not have a standardized meaning;
some commentators prefer to use a less emotionally charged term.

In this report, the term "excessive force" is used to describe situations in
which more force is used than is allowable when judged in terms of
administrative or professional guidelines or legal standards. Criteria for
judging excessive force are fairly well established. The term may also
include within its meaning the concept of illegal force.

Reference also is made to "excessive use of force," a similar, but distinctly
different, term. Excessive use of force refers to high rates of force, which
suggest that police are using force too freely when viewed in the
aggregate. The term deals with relative comparisons among police
agencies, and there are no established criteria for judgment.

"Illegal" use of force refers to situations in which use of force by police
violated a law or statute, generally as determined by a judge or magistrate.
The criteria for judging illegal use of force are fairly well established.

"Improper," "abusive," "illegitimate," and "unnecessary" use of force are
terms that describe situations in which an officer's authority to use force
has been mishandled in some general way, the suggestion being that
administrative procedure, societal expectations, ordinary concepts of
lawfulness, and the principle of last resort have been violated,
respectively. Criteria for judging these violations are not well established.

To varying degrees, all of the above terms can be described as
transgressions of police authority to use force.

-------------------------------

Chapter 2

Revising and Fielding the Police-Public Contact Survey

by Lawrence A. Greenfeld, Patrick A. Langan, and Steven K. Smith

To learn more about police use of force requires an understanding of the
reasons for and the results of police-public encounters. As a step toward
developing that understanding, the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS)
fielded a pilot test in 1996 of the Police-Public Contact Survey (PPCS). Its
primary purpose was to obtain information to help guide future
development of a final questionnaire on the topic. This chapter briefly
reviews the 1996 survey, discusses improvements incorporated into a
second pilot survey, and describes other planned BJS efforts to learn more
about police-public encounters.

First Pilot Test of the Survey Questionnaire

BJS supplemented the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) with
a pilot test of PPCS during May, June, and July 1996. The objective was
to collect answers from respondents to a series of questions about the
nature and consequences of their face-to-face interactions with police.

(NCVS is based on interviews conducted with a nationally representative
sample of U.S. households and has become a highly useful platform for
testing new questionnaires and periodically implementing special
supplements. The NCVS sample consists of all household members age 12
or older residing in more than 40,000 U.S. households; each household
member is interviewed twice during a calendar year, resulting in about
200,000 interviews annually.)

The PPCS pilot test involved interviews with 6,421 persons during the
1996 trial period. The respondents were asked about their contacts with
police during the 12 months prior to the interviews. Respondents
interviewed in May 1996 were asked about contacts that occurred anytime
during the period June 1995 to May 1996; those interviewed in June 1996
were asked about contacts between July 1995 and June 1996; and
interviews in July 1996 covered the period from August 1995 to July
1996. On average, the 12-month reference period included 6 months in
1995 and 6 in 1996.

Administration of PPCS went smoothly. Among persons who had no
contact with police, the interview took 1 minute, on average, to complete.
Among those who had police contact, the interview averaged 10 minutes.

Findings from the first PPCS were reported in 1997 in the BJS-National
Institute of Justice publication Police Use of Force: Collection of National
Data.[1] (See sidebar "Selected findings from the Police-Public Contact
Survey.") The 1996 PPCS was intended as a pretest of the questionnaire;
the survey and its findings were not meant to be viewed as a source of
indepth or precise statistics on police use of force. Rather, survey findings
provided empirical information to help guide future development of an
improved questionnaire.

Second Pilot Test of the Survey Questionnaire

During the first half of 1999, BJS focused on improving the content and
administration of the PPCS questionnaire. Three areas of the instrument
were improved: items relating to screen questions used to identify whether
a contact occurred, the type of contact, and circumstances surrounding the
contact; the determination of whether force was used or threatened, the
type of force used or threatened, the circumstances surrounding its use,
and provocative actions by the respondent; and the respondent's
perceptions of the appropriateness or inappropriateness of police conduct
during the contact.

Contact screen questions

The pretest revealed a number of broad categories of types of face-to-face
contacts that needed encoding on the questionnaire. A number of
respondents reporting contacts indicated that their employment brought
them into regular contact with police. This was so for hospital workers,
tow-truck drivers, and lawyers, among others. In addition, respondents
indicated that they had contacts with police as the result of appearing in
court as jurors or witnesses.

A major area for further development of the screening elements of PPCS
relates to traffic stops. One of the major findings from the initial PPCS
field test was that many of the face-to-face contacts the public has with
police are in connection with traffic stops. They may represent an area of
potentially argumentative interactions between police and the public and
result in use-of-force incidents. This is likely to be true especially if such
stops are thought to be motivated by factors not strictly related to law
enforcement purposes. Recent studies in New Jersey and Maryland
suggest that black motorists may be more likely than others to be stopped
by police.[2]

The PPCS questionnaire has been revised to capture more detailed
information about traffic stops, including more about the nature and
frequency of traffic stops involving persons of different races. To gather
more information on the nature and consequences of traffic stops, BJS has
added a group of questions to the PPCS. Of particular interest will be an
effort to determine from respondents what they believe to be the basis for
stops, the reason given by the officers for stops, and the content of the
interaction during stops, such as tickets issued, warnings, verbal
questioning, searches, and arrests. Information gathered from the survey
can be used to build on prior research regarding the treatment of different
categories of the populace by the criminal justice system.

Those traffic stops resulting in handcuffing, threats, or use of force will
also be identified. For such incidents, new items have been added to the
survey to ascertain potentially provocative behaviors or drug or alcohol
use by respondents.

Several other modifications to the questionnaire were needed. For
example, existing questions about respondents' traffic-related contacts
with police were modified to determine whether such respondents had
been passengers or drivers. In addition, screen questions were added to
determine explicitly who initiated contact between respondents and police
officers. The 1996 questionnaire provided information only on the type of 
contact; who initiated it had to be inferred (e.g., "Received a traffic or
parking violation" implies the officer initiated the contact).

Determining whether force was used

The 1996 PPCS asked respondents to indicate whether force was
threatened, used, or not used during contacts. BJS replaced this and
substituted a list of police behaviors that might have occurred, including
threatening or restraining respondents during encounters. Handcuffing,
considered a standard police practice, is listed within the enumerated
group of police behaviors and will not be treated in the questionnaire
separately from other behaviors that might have occurred during contacts.

Paralleling these queries about police behavior during contacts are
questions about the respondents' behavior during encounters to learn about
provocative actions that may have occurred. Such questions will apply to
all respondents, not merely to those indicating force had been used.

Experience with a pat-down or frisking was asked only of those
respondents who indicated that in contacts with the police, they believed
that they were suspects in a crime. This was too limiting, and BJS has
expanded the use of this item to all respondents.

Similarly, questions relating to subsequent criminal charges resulting from
contacts were limited to respondents who believed that the contacts
occurred because police considered them suspects in a crime. BJS will ask
such questions of all respondents.

Respondents' characterizations of incidents

The 1996 PPCS asked respondents to characterize whether they believed
police behavior was proper or improper during use-of-force incidents.
Such a question will be asked of all respondents who have police contact.

In addition, the 1996 PPCS did not ask those who experienced use of force
whether they perceived police behavior to have been excessive for the
circumstances; BJS has added such an item to the next version of the
survey.

Survey Administration for Second Pilot Test

BJS and the U.S. Bureau of the Census began the 1999 pilot test using the
revised PPCS in July. The fieldwork will continue through December
1999. This will result in a national sample of respondents about 10 times
the size of the first pilot test. Prior to the upcoming test, BJS redesigned
the questions as noted above, circulated them for comment, and secured
Office of Management and Budget clearance for the use of the supplement
for the full NCVS national sample.

In addition, BJS and the Bureau of the Census conducted extensive testing
of the revised instrument with volunteer respondents in the Census
Bureau's Cognitive Research Laboratory. 

Additional Efforts to Learn About Police-Public Encounters

During the next 3 to 5 years, BJS will be undertaking the regular periodic
surveys conducted among nationally representative samples of those
confined in local jails and prisoners held by State and Federal authorities.
BJS anticipates introducing new survey items that will gather information
about respondents' interactions with police during the arrest preceding
their incarceration. The new items will provide, for the first time,
information on the content of those contacts between police and criminals,
including the methods by which they were apprehended, use of force
during such events, and provocative behaviors by known offenders.

Notes

1. Greenfeld, Lawrence A., Patrick A. Langan, and Steven K. Smith,
Police Use of Force: Collection of National Data, Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics and National Institute
of Justice, November 1997, NCJ 165040.

2. See Lamberth, John, "Driving While Black: A Statistician Proves That
Prejudice Still Rules the Road," Washington Post, August 16, 1998, C1.

-------------------------------

Sidenotes

Lawrence A. Greenfeld, Patrick A. Langan, Ph.D., and Steven K. Smith,
Ph.D., are statisticians with the Bureau of Justice Statistics, a component
of the Office of Justice Programs within the U.S. Department of Justice.

Screen questions are designed to determine quickly at the beginning of an
interview whether a respondent needs to be asked subsequent questions.
For example, if a respondent had no police contact during the specified
period, subsequent questions about the nature, content, and consequences
of police-public encounters would be omitted.

-------------------------------

Selected findings from the Police-Public Contact Survey

In 1996 the Bureau of Justice Statistics conducted a pilot test of the
Police-Public Contact Survey. Although not intended as a source of
detailed or precise statistics on police use of force, the pilot survey did
provide preliminary estimates of the prevalence of the public's contact
with police, including contacts during which police used force. Among the
survey's findings are the following:

--An estimated 44.6 million persons (one in five U.S. residents age 12 or
older) had face-to-face contacts with police officers during the prior 12
months. Men, whites, and people in their twenties were the most likely to
have those contacts.

--An estimated 33 percent of residents who had contact with police had
either asked for assistance from officers or provided it to them. About 32
percent of those who had contact with police had reported a crime, either
as a victim or witness.

--For nearly half of those with contacts, the encounters were initiated by
the public. For just under one-third of persons with contacts, police
initiated them. 

--Age is an important factor in both the frequency and type of police
contacts experienced. Young people were the least likely to initiate contact
with police (their contacts most often were police initiated), while persons
age 60 or older were the most likely to initiate contacts with officers. 

--About 1 percent of people reporting contacts with police indicated that
officers used force or threatened force. In the majority of those instances,
respondents said that their own actions, such as threatening police or
resisting arrest, may have provoked officers.

-------------------------------

Chapter 3

IACP National Database Project on Police Use of Force

by Mark A. Henriquez

Individual police agencies, law enforcement ----organizations, and some
States have long considered collection of use-of-force data as a means to
better serve their communities and to better distinguish between
misperception and reality of police use-of-force issues. Reflecting this,
Congress enacted legislation in 1994 that, among other things, directed the
U.S. Attorney General to collect data on police use of excessive force.

In 1995 the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) and the National Institute of
Justice (NIJ)--components of the Office of Justice Programs (OJP) within
the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ)--proposed to cofund development of
a national use-of-force database by the International Association of Chiefs
of Police (IACP). One purpose of such a database would be quantification
of the extent and types of force used by police.

Following approval of first-year funding, initial project activities began in
September 1996. Early in 1997, NIJ and BJS cofunded the project for
another year. Since early 1998, IACP has been responsible for all project
funding.

The balance of this chapter discusses basic concepts underlying IACP's
use-of-force database project, highlights selected preliminary findings
derived from the database, and discusses the future of the project. The
chapter's addendum provides details about key elements involved in
database development.

Basic Concepts Underlying the Project

Essential to creating IACP's police use-of-force database was the belief
that data contributions should be voluntary and anonymous. Also of basic
importance was that the definition of "police use of force" should reflect
operational realities of modern, street-level law enforcement.

Voluntary and anonymous reports

Police use of force is an extremely sensitive issue, in part because agencies
and the public alike harbor preconceptions and because data and resulting
reports could be used or interpreted either accurately or inaccurately.

For example, the legislation directing the U.S. Attorney General to
"acquire data about the use of excessive force by law enforcement
officers" also makes deprivation of civil rights unlawful as evidenced by
"pattern or practice" and allows the Attorney General, through civil action,
to "obtain appropriate equitable and declaratory relief to eliminate pattern
or practice." Thus, if use-of-force data provided to IACP from the field--
whether standing alone or accompanied by analysis--were associated with
individual departments, litigation could result.

Under those circumstances, the law enforcement community would have
faced the dilemma of being very reluctant to provide use-of-force data, yet
realizing that fundamental elements of modern police service are pursuit of
truth and subordination to the will of the communities that agencies are
sworn to serve. Therefore, IACP decided that provision of such data would
be both voluntary and anonymous to promote accurate reporting and
overcome potential reluctance of agencies to participate.

Reflecting operational realities

When examined from the perspective of day-to-day law enforcement
activities, many previous use-of-force definitions were considered not
sufficiently workable or functional to be applied nationwide to all
jurisdictions and department types for the purposes of the IACP project.
Thus, IACP designed the project from the outset to reflect operational
realities of modern, street-level law enforcement, including the very
meaning of "police use of force," defined as the amount of force required
by police to compel compliance by an unwilling subject.

The project team developed a unique software package to track the basic
types of force used by officers and suspects in typical encounters. On the
basis of data submitted through the software, the team identified a "street
continuum" of force, which consists of the types of force used by officers
on a day-to-day basis to bring subjects under control. The IACP database
consists of data on reported use of force stemming from police responses
to calls for service, whether or not those responses resulted in arrests.[1]
Categories of force include the following:

--Physical force (use of fists, hands, feet, etc.).

--Chemical force (the discharge of Mace, pepper spray, and similar
agents).

--Electronic force (the discharge of Tasers, stun guns, or other electronic
weapons).

--Impact force (use of batons and the like).

--Lethal force (firearm discharge of any kind).

Additionally, IACP software enables departments to track various
subcategories of force, such as dog bites, edged weapons, vehicles, and
nail guns. However, the project team excluded certain measures of force
because they were considered to fly in the face of reality and practicality.
(See sidebar "Measures of force excluded from the database.")

Selected Preliminary Use-of-Force Findings

Although the database is in the early stages of development, the level of
interest and support from local police agencies is encouraging. (See
sidebar "Agencies contributing to the use-of-force database.")
Nonetheless, the data are not yet nationally representative. Conclusions
about national use-of-force trends, therefore, should not be attempted at
this time.

But preliminary findings based on the data may provide useful insights,
however tentative, into current police and subject use-of-force issues. The
IACP calculation of the use-of-force rate is based on dispatched calls for
service. For example, based on 1995 data reported by 110 agencies, the
police use-of-force rate was 4.19 per 10,000 responded-to calls for service,
or 0.0419 percent. Jurisdiction size for 78 of those agencies was 35,000
population or less; for 4 departments, 500,000 population or more.

Data reported for 1995-97 indicate that of 62,411 use-of-force incidents
during the period, about 87 percent involved officers using physical
force.[2] Officers used chemical force in 7 percent of the incidents,
firearms in about 5 percent.

Data received by IACP through September 1998 from 26 agencies
reporting for 1996 and 27 for 1997 on 2,310 police use-of-force incidents
indicate that the vast majority of such incidents occurred in arrest-related
situations. For the 1996-97 period, those agencies also reported the
following:

--Of 2,264 use-of-force confrontations for which the race of officers and
subjects was known, 909 were intraracial (officer and subject of the same
race) and 1,335 were interracial.

--About 10 percent of 2,479 officers using force sustained injuries. Less
than 1 percent of the injuries were major; none resulted in death. About 38
percent of the subjects were injured as the result of police use of force,
including approximately 1.5 percent with major injuries. (Data spanning
the 1995-97 period indicate that of 75,082 use-of-force incidents, 3,274, or
about 4 percent, resulted in officer injuries, all but 39 minor.)

--Of 3,972 reported incidents involving use of force, 20 resulted in
complaints by subjects.

Future of the Database

From the inception of the database project in 1996, it has had--and is
expected to continue to have--a three-tiered impact on police use-of-force
policies and practices in the United States. At the national level, the IACP
annual report Police Use of Force in America provides summary and
incident information to police leaders, the public, and the media. At the
State level, State associations of chiefs of police increasingly use the
project to provide leadership to their constituent law enforcement
agencies. Finally, local police agencies use IACP-provided software to
capture use-of-force information pertaining to their own departments and
use it for such purposes as the following:

--To promote improved policies, training, and procedures governing
departmentwide use of force.

--To reduce potential department liability arising from frivolous or
unfounded legal actions related to use of force.

--To contribute data to statewide use-of-force data repositories, where
applicable, and to the IACP database.

The IACP database is a dynamic one. The number of departments
providing new or updated data increases almost on a daily basis. For
example, from a modest beginning of 7 pilot States, database software is
now in place in more than 1,000 agencies nationwide and in the last
quarter of 1998, Illinois and Rhode Island joined the project, followed by
Maryland and Missouri in early 1999. Newly recruited States may
contribute data from as far back as 1991. IACP believes that the benefits
of its use-of-force database project will continue to increase as the number
of contributing departments approaches national representation.

Notes

1. Data submitted to IACP by any given agency may also reflect
use-of-force incidents resulting from responses to other than calls for
service--for example, from officer-initiated contacts with the public.

2. The data for 1996 and 1997 reflect agency use-of-force reports received
through September 1998 and, therefore, are not yet complete. Although
the IACP database project started in 1996, some agencies supplied data for
1995.

-------------------------------

Sidenotes

Mark A. Henriquez is Project Coordinator for the IACP National Police
Use-of-Force Database Project.

For a more detailed account of use-of-force project findings, see
International Association of Chiefs of Police, Police Use of Force in
America: Research in Progress Report on the IACP National Database
Project, Alexandria, Virginia: International Association of Chiefs of
Police, April 1998.

-------------------------------

Measures of force excluded from the database

IACP's project team decided to exclude from the database certain
measures of force that the team considered were too broad to allow agency
reporting in an accurate and timely fashion or beyond what police
typically perceive or record as applications of force:

--Presence of a police officer at the scene.

--Presence of a K-9 at the scene.

--Presence of chemical or electronic less-than-lethal devices at the scene.

--Verbal commands by an officer.

--Routine or voluntary handcuffing of prisoners for transport or during
field questioning or investigation.

--Display or presentation of an officer's weapon.

Although any of the above measures could be and are included in some
academic studies of police use of force, IACP excluded them from its
database to allow creation of a concise, universally accepted, and
practically achievable information base on police use of force in the
United States. Inclusion of the elements listed above would have overly
complicated the project and substantially reduced local agency
participation.

-------------------------------

Agencies contributing to the use-of-force database

IACP has obtained a substantial level of use-of-force data from
participating agencies. Hundreds of others are establishing deadlines for
submitting data either to their State chiefs' organizations or to IACP
directly:

--About 4,000 agencies have requested the requisite software.

--An estimated 1,000 agencies are using the software to capture
use-of-force data.

--Some 150 agencies are expected to contribute data for the 1998-99 data
year.

Although not nationally representative at this early stage of project
development, the received data provide indicators regarding police use of
force against subjects and subject use of force against officers. As of this
writing, agencies representing populations ranging from 1,000 to more
than 1 million have contributed data on thousands of incidents. Reported
use-of-force incidents applicable to 1996 and 1997 total 24,383 and
24,033, respectively (based on data submitted through September 1998).

-------------------------------

Addendum: Key Elements in Building the IACP Use-of-Force Database

To ensure the success of the database project, IACP created two advisory
panels to support initial project activities. The first was an ad hoc
committee of police and justice leaders brought together at IACP
headquarters to react to the project's scope and give general policy input
and advice. This group consisted of DOJ representatives, State police,
county sheriffs, local law enforcement officers and other criminal justice
professionals. Consensus on key issues, such as definitions and data 
elements, was achieved during the project's start-up phase.

A second and continuing advisory committee consists of representatives
from each of seven pilot State associations, discussed below, and a
representative from the U.S. Border Patrol (Immigration and
Naturalization Service). This group, from the outset, has provided advice
on local concerns, State association perspectives, and logistical issues.
This group also provides midyear and end-year input on project direction
and selected milestones.

The SACOP role

The State Associations of Chiefs of Police (SACOP) Division of IACP
laid the foundation for this program from its inception. In particular, the
Virginia Association of Chiefs of Police had already instituted a statewide
use-of-force reporting program that served as the model for IACP's
national effort. The strength and reach of SACOP organizations within
most of the States provided a flexible framework for developing and
expanding the project.

In collaboration with SACOP leadership, IACP initially identified seven
pilot State associations that would help coordinate the contribution of
information for the national database effort: Arkansas, New Jersey, New
York, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and West Virginia. DOJ also
arranged early Federal support by designating the U.S. Border Patrol to
contribute data.

Each pilot State association identified five local police departments to
contribute data to the project. To accomplish the data collection and
transfer, IACP developed a new software application specifically for this
purpose.

A three-tiered approach to data collection

Data flow was designed from the outset to emanate from local
departments, through the respective SACOP offices, and then to IACP.
The identities of all participating departments are masked by use of a self-
installing agency reporting code, which is automatically appended to all
local agency data records. This code is the only means by which individual
data records can be distinguished from one contributing source to another.
The SACOP organizations have the capability to generate regional
use-of-force data based on the anonymous records reported to them by
departments in their States.

Larger departments, which maintain electronic repositories of their own
use-of-force data, have the option of reporting their data (in any data
format) directly to IACP in cases where the appropriate SACOP office is
not participating in the project. Even in these instances, the identity of the
contributing agency is protected by an agency reporting code in the same
manner that the identity of a department is protected when contributing
data through its State organization.

Software design and training

Based on the large number of data elements relevant to this study (see
sidebar "Database content"), it soon became clear that an automated data
collection system was required. The ideal system would need to:

--Be compatible across the widest possible spectrum of computers used
in departments nationwide.

--Employ a graphical user interface that would facilitate self-instruction
by the user.

--Handle the relationship between incidents involving a single officer and
multiple subjects, multiple officers and a single subject, and any other
possible combination.

Staff decided on a system that could meet these needs and was scalable in
that it could support the inevitable evolution of revisions, customizations,
additions, and expansions inherent in software projects of this type.

Because data flowed from local agencies to SACOP regional data
repositories and from there to IACP, two versions of the software were
produced. The first, the local agency version, was intended to automate
data capture at the local department level. This software was equipped
with a simplified data export function by which the user could write the
captured use-of-force data to a floppy disk by simply clicking an on-screen
button.

The second version of the software was intended for use by the SACOP
data repositories. The SACOP version of the software remains identical to
the local agency version in terms of the number and type of data elements
captured. However, the SACOP version is provided with an import
capability by which data on disks originating from local agencies can
easily be incorporated into the regional database. Data from each of the
regional databases are periodically exported to floppy disk and sent to
IACP for inclusion in its database. Several software improvements have
been made.

Training for IACP database administrators was provided in a formal class
setting by IACP in August 1997. The 8-hour class provided hands-on
technical training in setting up, operating, and troubleshooting the
use-of-force software and in the philosophy underlying the project. At the
conclusion of the training, students, all of whom were sworn law
enforcement personnel from participating local police departments, were
presented with certificates identifying them as IACP use-of-force database
administrators.

-------------------------------

Database content

Guided by the broad framework of use-of-force issues and by IACP's
experience with other sensitive police policy issues, the project team
decided upon the following elements for inclusion in the use-of-force
database:

Department characteristics:

--Report year.

--Jurisdiction size.

--Department type.

--Calls for service.

--Ethnicity demographics.

--Number of use-of-force incidents by type.

--Number of force-related complaints.

--Complaint resolution.

--Types of less-than-lethal weapons authorized.

--Use-of-force training and policies in place.

--Administrative policies for use-of-force complaint.

Incident characteristics:

--Incident time.

--Incident date.

--Incident year.

--Number of officers involved.

--Number of subjects involved.

--Number of third parties involved.

--Age of officer(s)/subject(s).

--Type of assignment.

--Duty status.

--Education of officer(s)/subject(s).

--Race/ethnicity of officer(s)/subject(s).

--Type of force used by officer(s)/subject(s).

--Officer/subject injury.

Complaint characteristics:

--Complaint time.

--Complaint date.

--Complaint year.

--Number of officers involved.

--Number of subjects involved.

--Number of third parties involved.

--Age of officer(s)/subject(s).

--Type of assignment, duty status.

--Education of officer(s)/subject(s).

--Race/ethnicity of officer(s)/subject(s).

--Type of force used by officer(s)/subject(s).

--Officer/subject injury.

--Previous complaints against officer.

--Complaint disposition.

-------------------------------

Chapter 4

Measuring the Amount of Force Used By and Against the Police in Six
Jurisdictions

by Joel H. Garner and Christopher D. Maxwell

This study examines 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 more or less force. Data
were gathered about suspects' and police officers' behaviors from more
than 7,500 adult custody arrests[1] in 6 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.

To organize, present, and understand the nature and characteristics of the
force used in representative samples of arrests, this study developed four
measures of the amount of force used by police officers and four parallel
measures of the force used by arrested suspects.

The participating agencies also played a major role in designing and
implementing this research. Senior police managers in each department
actively contributed to delineating research goals, designing data
collection forms, and constructing the measures of force reported here.
The departments encouraged officers to complete police survey forms and
assisted the research team in gaining access to suspects in local detention
centers.

Throughout the project, these law enforcement managers worked together
as a group to promote the use of consistent measures across the six
jurisdictions and to enhance the use of the findings by the participating
departments. This collaborative design was intended; in fact, it is not clear
whether there was any other way to produce the information included in
this chapter.

Emerging from this research is a more complete understanding of the
frequency with which certain types of tactics are used and what types of
weapons are displayed, threatened, or actually used. The consistent
findings across all six jurisdictions are that most arrests do not involve any
force by the police or by suspects. In those situations where some type of
force is used, typically no weapon is used, threatened, or even displayed.
When police use some form of weaponless tactic (hitting, kicking,
wrestling, etc.), the most frequent tactic involves grabbing only.

The Importance of Systematic Samples

Prior research on the use of force has, in many instances, been limited to
instances where some type of force, usually deadly force, was used.[2]
This use of samples that do not represent all police behavior limits our
ability to describe when force is used and when it is not used.

One senior researcher, Albert J. Reiss, Jr., has argued that the absence of
systematic samples of police behavior means that the entire approach to
the study of deadly force was flawed "because analysts of police use of
deadly force focus on situations in which the decision was made to use it,
such as firing a weapon . . . they ignore all decisions where force gave way
to alternative ways of coping with situations."[3]

The flaws that Dr. Reiss identified can have real-world, and sometimes
disastrous, consequences. For instance, the congressional investigation
into the Challenger shuttle disaster identified the failure of the engineers at
NASA to examine evidence from a systematic sample of all of the
previous 21 shuttle flights.[4] The engineers examined only the eight
Shuttle flights with identified 0-ring problems, and among those flights,
there was no correlation between 0-ring failures and temperature at the
launch pad. However, in the complete set of all 21 flights, the ultimately
deadly correlation was clear.

This research employed systematic samples of adult custody arrests in
order to provide a comparison of circumstances when force is used with
the circumstances when force is not used. This is an important
characteristic. By using a complete set of police behavior, even when no
force is involved, we have sought to avoid types of errors that occurred in
the Challenger study as well as most of the other police studies.

Our approach to data collection compromised ideal research procedures
with the real-life necessities of working within an operational agency. We
wanted to obtain a sample of adult custody arrests representative of each
department's annual arrests. We estimated that the number of arrests
needed to obtain reliable estimates of the amount of force varied between
900 and 1,200 in the six jurisdictions. However, we did not draw a random
sample of arrests throughout the year because that would have entailed
complicated procedures for starting and stopping data collection by police
officers. We chose to sample arrests continuously over a 2- to 7-week
period, depending on the size of the department and the rate at which
officers made arrests.

Data collection began at different times in different departments, so the
total sample included arrests during the summer, fall, and the winter of
1996-97. We began data collection in the Colorado Springs Police
Department in mid-August 1996 and completed data collection in
Charlotte-Mecklenburg in the second week of February 1997. It took 50
days to obtain data on 1,249 arrests in Colorado Springs but only 2 weeks
to obtain data on 1,192 arrests in Dallas.

In all 6 jurisdictions, we obtained 7,512 usable surveys. The proportion of
adult custody arrests for which we obtained completed, usable surveys
varied from 85 percent to 93 percent, and we determined that there were
no systematic differences between arrests with or without a completed
survey. The large size and representative nature of our sample provide a
solid basis for describing the nature of use of force in the six participating
departments.

This research also sought to avoid other methodological flaws. We
collected information both from police officers and from arrested suspects
and did so in ways that protected the confidentiality of officers and
suspects (see sidebar "Measuring force"). In assessing the factors
associated with the use of force, this study used multivariate statistical
tests appropriate for the measurements available and the hypotheses being
tested. Simple descriptive information alone can be misleading, especially
when research seeks to associate the use of force with characteristics of
officers, suspects, and arrest situations.

Our design has some limitations. There are some circumstances in which
the police use force but do not make an arrest, and our approach will miss
those incidents. In addition, the primary source of our data is self-reported
marks by police officers on a two-page form. These types of measures
provide some uniformity but often miss important distinctions that can be
obtained by more indepth interviews or firsthand observations by
independent observers.

For instance, we asked officers to record whether they used a weapon,
displayed a weapon, or threatened to use a weapon. However, it is not
always clear when a weapon is actually used. Does a firearm have to be
discharged to be "used"? In addition, is a firearm or a baton displayed just
by being carried by an officer, or does display mean only removed from a
holster? If a weapon is displayed, is an officer or a suspect threatening to
use it? We think the distinctions between use, threatened use, and display
are important but acknowledge that the survey form might be an imprecise
method to measure these differences.

The design of this research--systematic samples, multiple sources of
information, and multivariate analysis--was guided by an assessment that
much of the prior research had confounded the measurement of force with
definitions of what is and is not excessive force. In this project, we
deferred the difficult task of defining and measuring excessive force. We
focused on the measurement of the amount of force, with the expectation
that this information would inform issues surrounding the use of excessive
force. For instance, excessive force is typically but not necessarily
associated with more severe forms of force that could or do result in injury
or death.

Our findings are that most arrests involve no force, excessive or otherwise.
When force is used, it typically involves less severe forms of tactics and
weapon use. These findings provide a context for understanding excessive
force, which we know can involve low-level acts of force (such as verbal
threats or cursing against compliant suspects) as well as the acts of force
that result in physical injury or death of civilians. Arrests that involve no
force, however, cannot involve excessive force and arrests that involve
low levels of force are less likely to involve excessive force. Although the
exact relationship between the amount of force and excessive force
remains to be clarified, this research seeks to inform future law
enforcement policies, practices, and training by identifying what kinds of
force are and are not currently being used by and against law enforcement
officers.

The Elements of Force

This chapter emphasizes measuring the amount of force used by law
enforcement officers and by suspects. The task of measuring the amount of
force required establishing an understanding of the specific behavioral acts
that constitute "force" and how much force is involved in each of those
behaviors. Prior research had traditionally employed simple dichotomies
between the presence or absence of physical force or abuse of force or
excessive force without much attention to what elements of the arrest or
the police-public encounter constituted force, abuse of force, or excessive
force. Our approach has been to explicitly define and measure force and,
building on prior research in Phoenix, Arizona,[5] we identified five
elements of force: weapons, weaponless tactics, restraints, motion, and
voice.

Weapons

There is a strong consensus that the use of a weapon constitutes force and
that the use of certain types of weapons--e.g., handguns and
rifles--involves more force than the use of such other weapons as batons
and oleoresin capsicum (pepper spray). What is less clear is the meaning
of "use." For instance, does a firearm have to be discharged to be "used"?
Also unclear is whether the possession, threatened use, or display of a
weapon constitutes force by law enforcement officers or by suspects. Our
approach to this uncertainty was to have officers mark on the data
collection form whether they or the suspects possessed, displayed,
threatened to use, or used any of seven different types of weapons.

Combining data from all sites, exhibits 4-1 and 4-2 show the frequency
with which officers report that they or arrested suspects used, threatened to
use, or displayed certain weapons. Use of weapons is infrequent; in 97.9
percent of all adult custody arrests, police did not use a weapon (exhibit
4-1). In 99.3 percent of all such arrests, suspects did not use a weapon
(exhibit 4-2). As noted in exhibit 4-1, the most frequent weapon used by
the police was some form of a chemical agent, mostly oleoresin
capsicum;[6] it was used in 88 or 1.2 percent of the arrests in this study.

The second most frequent weapon was the flashlight, used in 41 (0.5
percent) arrests. Handguns were used by the police in 11 (0.1 percent)
arrests; rifles or shotguns were used by the police in 7 (0.1 percent) of the
arrests (no officer reported that such use involved discharge of a firearm). 

The most frequent weapon used by suspects was a knife; it was used in 18
(0.2 percent) of all arrests (exhibit 4-2). Suspects used handguns in 12 (0.2
percent) arrests and rifles or shotguns in 5 (0.1 percent) arrests.[7]

A somewhat different pattern emerges in exhibit 4-1 where we examine
instances in which weapons were either displayed or used. Handguns were
displayed or used by police in 202 (2.7 percent) arrests and rifles or
shotguns were used or displayed 31 (0.4 percent) times. Thus, firearms are
infrequently used but are the most frequent weapon displayed. On the
other hand, chemical agents were the most frequently used weapon but
ranked second (118 or 1.6 percent) when use and display are counted.
Exhibit 4-1 indicates that in 215 (2.8 percent) of 7,512 arrests, officers
went so far as to display a firearm but did not, ultimately, use a firearm.
These findings suggest important differences in incidents in which
weapons are used and those in which they are displayed but not used.

Exhibit 4-1 also reveals a finding similar to one reported in the Phoenix
study: police officers report that they use, display, and threaten to use a
flashlight more often than they use, display, or threaten to use a baton.
Batons were used in 15 (0.2 percent) arrests; flashlights in 41 (0.5
percent). In addition, officers report that they used motor vehicles as
weapons in 15 arrests and either used or threatened to use them in 21
arrests. These findings do not conform to conventional thinking about the
relative frequency of weapon use or even on the types of equipment used
as weapons.

Officers report that suspects use, display, and threaten to use weapons less
frequently than officers do. Exhibit 4-2 notes that knives were the weapons
most frequently used (18 or 0.2 percent) by suspects, followed closely by
sticks (17 or 0.2 percent) and motor vehicles (14 or 0.2 percent). When
handguns, rifles, and shotguns are combined, the weapon most frequently
displayed or used (43 or 0.6 percent) by suspects is a firearm. Suspects
threatened, displayed, or used a firearm in 63 arrests. These findings about
suspects confirm our earlier findings about the police: understanding the
use of force is advanced by considering not only the use but also the
display and the threatened use of a weapon.

Weaponless tactics

Police officers use and are trained to use a variety of weaponless tactics,
from carotid control holds to simply grabbing a suspect by the arm. Each
of these tactics involves direct physical contact between the officer and the
suspect and does not involve use of specific objects in applying force. The
police survey form listed 12 tactics and exhibit 4-3 displays the frequency
with which officers reported the use of these tactics. In 6,328 or 84.2
percent of the arrests in this study, the police reported that they used no
weaponless tactics. Among arrests involving a weaponless tactic, the most
frequent "tactic" was grabbing, used 954 times (12.7 percent of all arrests).
Other common tactics involved using a control hold (164 times or 2.2
percent of arrests), arm twisting (281 or 3.7 percent), wrestling (233 or 3.1
percent) and pushing or shoving (145 or 1.9 percent).

Police reported that suspects used weaponless tactics in 412 or 5.5 percent
of all arrests (exhibit 4-4). Wrestling was the tactic most often used by
suspects (262 times or 3.5 percent of all arrests), followed closely by
pushing or shoving by the suspect (166 times or 2.2 percent). As with
weapons, the use of weaponless tactics by officers and by suspects was
infrequent.

Although weapons and weaponless tactics are typically included in most
understanding of what constitutes the use of force, the three other elements
discussed next are sometimes, but not always, considered part of the use of
force.

Restraints

One element of force that officers alone employ is use of restraints.[8] The
police survey form lists three possible types of restraints--handcuffs, leg
cuffs, and more severe restraints, such as hobbles or body cuffs. As with
most other items, the survey provided for a specific "yes" or "no" response
for each item. In the 7,512 arrests in this study, officers reported that they
used handcuffs in 6,182 (82.3 percent) (exhibit 4-5). In 67 (0.9 percent)
arrests, the police used leg cuffs and in 29 (0.4 percent) they used more
severe restraints.[9]

The use of restraints appears to be frequent but not universal; handcuffs
predominate, but in a small proportion of arrests (1.3 percent) restraints
more severe than handcuffs were used. Handcuffing alone is not typically
perceived as involving force, but our understanding of force might include
the use of more severe restraints, some of which have been associated with
injury to suspects and, in some instances, even death.[10]

Motion

One aspect of police-public encounters in arrest situations is suspect flight
and officer pursuit. Although most research and policy discussions on the
use of force do not address issues around either flight or pursuit, we
include both as potential elements of force. Our police survey form
recorded whether suspects attempted to flee and, if so, whether they fled
on foot, in a motor vehicle, or by other means.

As displayed in exhibits 4-6 and 4-7, in most arrests, there was no flight
(7,027 or 93.5 percent) and no pursuit (7,089 or 94.4 percent). In a small
number of arrests, suspects fled on foot (354 or 4.7 percent) or in a motor
vehicle (128 or 1.7 percent). When the police did pursue a suspect, it was
most often (224 or 3.0 percent) on foot; motorized pursuits, including
helicopter pursuits, occurred in 199 (2.7 percent) arrests in our sample.

Flight and pursuit do occur, but it is not clear the extent to which these
actions involve the application of what we typically mean when we speak
of the use of force by police or by suspects. Still, flight and pursuit can
result in serious injury to officers, suspects, or bystanders, especially if
conducted in a motorized vehicle, and such actions are included in some
definitions of what constitutes use of force.

Voice

We include as a potential element of force what police said to suspects and
what suspects said to police. Our police survey form listed four categories
of speech--conversational, commands, shouting or cursing, and verbal
threats. In more than half of all arrests (4,599 or 61.2 percent), police
reported that they used a conversational tone with the suspect; in 2,297 or
30.6 percent of arrests, they reported that they commanded the suspect to
do something (exhibit 4-8). Police reported shouting or cursing at suspects
in 73 (1.0 percent) of the arrests and threatening them in another 58 (0.8
percent) arrests. Finally, the police reported that they said nothing to the
suspects in 485 or 6.5 percent of all arrests in this study.

Suspects, according to the police survey, spoke to the police in a
conversational tone in 4,970 (66.2 percent) arrests (exhibit 4-9). The
police reported that suspects used a command voice in 240 (3.2 percent)
arrests, shouted or cursed at officers in 638 (8.5 percent) arrests, and made
verbal threats in 473 (6.3 percent) arrests. The survey form could not
capture the details of what was said by officers or suspects, but officers
reported the use of shouting or profane language as well as the use of
threats in a small percentage of arrests; in a larger percentage, but still a
distinct minority, of arrests, suspects made threats or conversed using a
raised voice or obscene language.

Although the core understanding of the use of force typically does not
involve what is said but what is done, the nature of verbal communication,
especially if it involves threats, shouting, or cursing, can be an element of
force and needs to be incorporated into how we think about and measure
the use of force.

Summary: Elements of force

The five elements of force--weapons, weaponless tactics, restraints,
motion, and voice--identify different dimensions of the use of force and
provide a framework to measure the existence of force and the amount of
force in any given situation. We have identified and elaborated on these
elements in order to record a broad range of activities that, under different
definitions, could be considered use of force. This project purposefully
attempted to measure aspects of police-public encounters, such as weapon
use, that clearly involved force and other aspects, such as speaking in a
conversational tone, that did not involve physical force. The design of this
research was to measure many specific and concrete behaviors against
which different definitions of force could be applied. To not record all
aspects of each element of force would preclude the possibility of using
those aspects to determine if force was used and, if it was used, how much
force was used.

The behaviors recorded capture the details of specific behaviors by
officers and suspects, but they do not constitute complete measures of
force. Taken singly, none of the five elements of force captures fully
everything that is typically meant by the use of force. A fully developed
measure of force requires the use of definitions that determine precisely
how combinations of these elements constitute the presence of force or
increases in the amount of force used by and against the police. The next
section provides more detail on how we translated our five abstract sets of
behaviors into measurements of force.

Four Measures of Force

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.
We also developed four comparable measures of force by suspects. Each
of these measures is a summary of behaviors derived by combining
specific actions by law enforcement officers and by suspects in different
ways. We recognized that no single measure is likely to capture well all
the different understandings of the use of force. Thus, this research used
multiple measures of force in order to incorporate more precisely the
various ways in which force is conceptualized by the police, the public,
and researchers.

Physical force

The first measure is a traditional conceptual dichotomy of those arrests
where physical force was or was not used. We defined the use of physical
force for officers and for suspects in a parallel but slightly different
manner (see first definition in sidebar "Definitions of measures of force").
For both the police and for suspects, the definition of physical force
includes any arrest in which any weapon or weaponless tactic was used. In
addition, we include as examples of physical force by the police arrests in
which officers used a more severe restraint--prone cuffing, hobble, body
cuff, or leg cuff.

Physical force plus threats

Our second measure, Physical Force Plus Threats, includes all the
elements of Physical Force but adds use of threats and displays of
weapons. This measure combines actual physical force with threatened
force. Although this combination may be inappropriate for some purposes,
threats of violence are typically reported as violence in other measures,
such as in the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports. Our second measure
incorporates the threat component of the use of force.

The use of dichotomies between physical force and no physical force is a
traditional approach to understanding and measuring the use of force. The
strengths of these dichotomous measures include their ability to be applied
consistently across all jurisdictions and types of law enforcement agencies
and to capture those elements of force that are frequently salient to the
police and to the public. Their weakness is that they group together all
uses of force, from a push or a shove to the discharge of a firearm, and
make no distinctions among activities, such as the use of handcuffs or
pursuits, that are not typically included in definitions of physical force. To
address these potential limitations of these two dichotomous measures, we
developed two other measures with other strengths and other weaknesses.

Continuum of force

The third measure of force, Continuum of Force, developed in this project
captures the rankings of force commonly used by law enforcement
agencies to indicate distinct levels of suspect resistance and levels of
police response (see third definition in sidebar "Definitions of measures of
force.").[11] The gradients of force used by the participating departments
are similar to those used by many police departments in their arrest tactics
training and in their policies on the appropriate use of force. Our
measurement of this "continuum of force" is intended not only to reflect
the official policies of the participating law enforcement agencies but also
to incorporate into our research the widely held notion that the force/no
force dichotomy is sometimes inadequate to capture all the important
variations in the ways police handle encounters with the public and the
nature of suspect resistance to the police.

Unlike the Physical Force dichotomies, the Continuum of Force measures
are purposefully responsive to the specific use of force policy and training
in each department. Because these measures are not consistent, it is not
possible to combine cases from the six jurisdictions into one measure of
police use of force and one measure of suspect use of force.

The Continuum of Force measures capture distinctions among types of
force (like various weaponless tactics and the use of weapons) that are not
possible in the two Physical Force dichotomous measures. The Continuum
of Force measures have a natural ranking of categories from less forceful
to more forceful. This research quantifies that natural ranking and creates a
scale in which each category is considered more forceful than the previous
category. One weakness of using these policy categories as a numerical
scale is that this formulation, in Charlotte-Mecklenburg for instance,
considers the difference between officer presence and verbal directions to
be the same as the difference between intermediate weapons and lethal
force. Few observers would accept that these differences are equivalent.

Maximum force

This multisite research developed a fourth measure of force, which we call
Maximum Force. This measure ranges from 1 to 100, with a ranking score
of 1 being the least forceful and 100 being the most forceful. We created
this measure in a two-step process. In five of the six participating law
enforcement agencies, we asked 503 experienced officers to rank more
than 60 hypothetical types of force on a scale from 1 to 100. For instance,
one item was "An officer uses a baton" and another was "An officer
threatens to use a handgun." Officers were asked to rank these items based
not on departmental policy but on their personal experience. We asked all
officers to indicate, in their opinion, how much force was involved in each
type of force.

This exercise resulted in a measure that makes reasonable (but not
necessarily perfect) distinctions between different types of force. Officer
presence, conversation, and commands are ranked near the bottom and the
use of weapons, especially firearms, are ranked near the top. These
rankings include some elements of force that are included neither in most
discussions of force nor in our Physical Force or our Continuum of Force
measures. For instance, officers rank the use of handcuffs at 28.2 and
chasing a suspect in a car at 41.4. Experienced officers in our survey
ranked these behaviors as involving substantial amounts of force, but our
measures of Physical Force and Continuum of Force would count arrests
that involved just handcuffing or just a pursuit as involving no physical
force or as mere officer presence.

The second step in developing the Maximum Force measure is to
determine if such behaviors occurred in our sample of 7,512 arrests and, if
so, to weigh them according to the rankings made by police officers. When 
police officers reported that they twisted a suspect's arm, the amount of
force for that arrest was measured as 35.1; when they used a carotid hold,
the amount of force was measured as 56. When officers reported that they
engaged in two or more forceful acts, we recorded the one with the highest
ranking--hence the name Maximum Force.

These rankings, depicted later in exhibit 4-13, are presented not as a
perfect or universal scale but as an example of how the amount of force
can be quantified in a way that approximates our understanding of
variation in the use of force. For purposes of this research, the important
issue is that this type of measure captures important aspects of the use of
force that would be missed if research were limited to simple dichotomies
or the Continuum of Force measures. There are differences between
grabbing and kicking and between threatening to shoot someone and
actually shooting them; the Maximum Force measure is an attempt to
measure those real but imprecisely known differences.

The development and use of a variety of detailed measures of force is
intended to encourage researchers and policymakers to explicitly include
or exclude specific behaviors and to explicitly consider the severity of
different types of force. It may be too early to establish uniform measures,
but it is not too early to start proposing uniform measures.

Summary: Measures of force

The use of force is not a simple concept that is easily measured. This
research has taken the issue of measurement seriously and developed a
variety of measures that, as a group, capture many if not all the crucial
distinctions that are commonly made about the amount of force used by
and against police officers. Our efforts at measurement are not definitive.
The definitions of Physical Force and Physical Force Plus Threats are, we
believe, reasonable but not the only reasonable definitions that could be
used. The Continuum of Force measures are derived from departmental
policies, but these policies vary from department to department and within
departments over time. The Maximum Force measure is the most
innovative effort and perhaps the least well developed, but unlike the other
measures, it reflects the relative ranking of experienced police officers.

We are not yet prepared to assert that one form of measurement is to be
preferred over other forms. Certainly, improvements can be made in the
measures we have developed, but future research needs to be explicit
about how force is measured and to justify why the particular measures of
force used are appropriate. Until such measures are developed and
justifications provided, we recommend the four measures reported here.

The Distribution of Force by Police and Against the Police

Exhibit 4-10 displays the number and percent of the adult custody arrests
in this study that met our definition of Physical Force. Law enforcement
officers reported that they used physical force in 1,283 or 17.1 percent of
our sample of adult custody arrests; they used physical force or threats of
force in 1,418 or 18.9 percent of the 7,512 arrests in this study. Thus,
whichever of these two definitions is used, our findings are that law
enforcement officers used or threatened to use physical force in fewer than
one of every five adult custody arrests.

However, as we argued earlier, this simple dichotomous measure may not
provide a sufficiently clear understanding on the nature of force used by
the police. To help better understand the nature of force, exhibit 4-11
displays the frequency with which different elements of force (threats,
restraints, weaponless tactics, or the use of weapons) were the most severe
form of force used among all instances in which law enforcement officers
used some force. The exhibit shows that the predominant types of force
used by police officers do not involve firearms or other weapons but some
form of direct physical contact, which we categorized as "weaponless
tactics." In almost 80 percent of all incidents involving physical force or
threats of force, the most severe form of force used by law enforcement
was a weaponless tactic; less than 12 percent of the arrests which met our
definition of Physical Force Plus Threats involved the use of a weapon.

Focusing more closely on weaponless tactics, exhibit 4-12 indicates those
instances in which officers use some form of weaponless tactics. This
exhibit reveals that the most frequent type of weaponless tactic was
grabbing the suspect. In 7.8 percent of all 7,512 arrests and 49.7 percent of
all 1,184 arrests in which the police used at least one tactic, the most
severe tactic used was categorized as a "grab." Other less frequent types of
tactics involved the use of control holds, arm twisting, pushing or shoving,
wrestling, or hitting or kicking. These findings confirm the results of prior
research that established that most adult custody arrests do not involve
force or threats of force and those arrests that do involve force are
typically at the low end of severity.

When the Maximum Force measure is applied, with its 1-to-100 ranking
scores, most arrests still involve little or no force but a proportion of
arrests involve substantial amounts of force. Exhibit 4-13 notes the large
number of arrests (4,305 or 57.3 percent of all 7,512 arrests) at a ranking
of 28.2. In these arrests, the most forceful behavior by the police was
handcuffing. The exhibit also reveals that there was variation among
arrests in which some form of forceful action was taken. Some actions,
such as the display or the use of a handgun, were very forceful and
generate a Maximum Force ranking of 55.4 and 81.7.

The Maximum Force measure captures a number of activities, such as
police chasing suspects in a car, that are not counted as force in our
definitions of Physical Force, Physical Force Plus Threats, and in
departmental policies on the Continuum of Force. In addition, this
measure takes into account differences, sometimes severe, between types
of force. Grabbing a suspect and using a firearm are both examples of
Physical Force and are counted equally in that measure; in the Maximum
Force measure, grabbing ranks at 33.0 and using a handgun at 81.7. Thus,
this measure captures items that officers think involve force and weigh the
amount of force based on a scale that can range from 1 to 100.

Summary and Discussion

This research collected information from a systematic sample of adult
custody arrests and used that information to construct a variety of
measures of force. We have used these data to describe the amount of
force used by the police in six urban jurisdictions. We have emphasized
various definitions of force and demonstrated a variety of methods that
explicitly and quantitatively describe force.

Our research suggests that no one measure captures well all the elements
that go into our understanding of what comprises force by police officers
against civilians during an arrest. At the present time, there is no single
conception of what constitutes the use of force, and this constrains our
ability to implement precise measures of the presence of force or the
amount of force. The multiple measures we have developed and
implemented here illustrate how different elements of force can be
combined into meaningfully distinct measures. In this research we found
that the use of force is relatively infrequent, regardless of the measure
used. When the use of force does occur, the amount of force is usually at
the low end of our measures of force.

Combined with the similar findings from our initial study in Phoenix,
these substantive findings are beginning to provide a stable picture of
police behavior and the amount of force the police use in arrest situations.
These findings, however, remain tentative given the small number of
jurisdictions involved in this research and the room for improvements in
methods of data collection and in precision in measuring the amount of
force. Although this research demonstrates that police agencies and
researchers can work collaboratively to describe the amount of force used
by police officers, much remains to be done to improve our measurements 
and to use those measures to determine the types of circumstances in
which more force is used. 

This multisite research project collected information about more than 50
potential predictors of force, and additional analysis of those data will be
forthcoming in the near future. This line of research holds great promise
for identifying the actual nature of police use of force as well as
identifying those characteristics of police recruitment, training, tactics, and
philosophy that can assist police departments in moving away from a
reliance on the use of force and toward an increased reliance on the use of
information and cooperation with the communities they serve.

Future research also needs to focus on the relationship between the overall
amount of force used in a law enforcement agency and the nature, scope,
and extent to which the force that is used meets various social
understandings and legal definitions of what constitutes excessive force.
Our understanding of these relationships might benefit from more precise
understandings of how force is measured and a comparison of the
relationship between the amount of force used by the police and the
amount of force used against the police.

Notes

1. Custody arrests involve transporting suspects to a detention facility;
instances where suspects are arrested and issued a summons to appear
before a judicial officer are not included in this research.

2. Geller, William A., and Michael Scott, Deadly Force: What We Know,
Washington, DC: Police Executive Research Forum, 1992. 

3. Reiss, Albert J., Jr., "Police Brutality--Answers to Key Questions," in
Law and Order Police Encounters, ed. Michael Lipsky, New Brunswick,
NJ: Aldine, 1980: 127.

4. Vaughan, Diane, The Challenger Launch Decision: Risky Technology,
Culture, and Deviance at NASA, Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
1996.

5. Garner, Joel, John Buchanan, Tom Schade, and John Hepburn,
Understanding the Use of Force By and Against the Police, Research in
Brief, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of
Justice, November 1996, NCJ 158614.

6. Some arrests involved the use of more than one weapon. 

7. After some discussion, the research team (researchers and agency
personnel) decided to include on our officer survey form the possibility
that a motor vehicle might be used as a weapon.

8. This research assumed that in successfully completed arrests, suspects
would not be using restraints on officers.

9. In 666 (8.8 percent) arrests, the officers explicitly marked on our forms
that they did not put handcuffs (or other restraints) on the adults that they
arrested and took into custody. In another 568 (7.5 percent) of the arrests,
the officers did not indicate whether they did or did not use any type of
restraint.

10. Granfield, John, and Jami Onnen, Executive Brief: Pepper Spray and
In-Custody Deaths, Alexandria, VA: International Association of Chiefs
of Police, 1994; and National Institute of Justice, Positional
Asphyxia--Sudden Death, National Law Enforcement Technology Center,
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice,
June 1995. 

11. For purposes of this research, some of the participating law
enforcement agencies collapsed several formal departmental rankings into
a smaller number of measurable categories that reflected distinct and
measurable differences in officer behavior.

-------------------------------

Sidenotes

Joel H. Garner, Ph.D., is Research Director, Joint Centers for Justice 
Studies, Inc. Christopher D. Maxwell, Ph.D., is Assistant Professor of
Criminology, Michigan State University.

The authors' research was supported under grant number 95-IJ-CX-0066
by the National Institute of Justice. 

-------------------------------

Measuring force

The primary means by which the research project collected information on
the use of force was a one-page, front and back, form completed by law
enforcement officers on a systematic sample of adult custody arrests. This
form, illustrated on the two following pages, was used to record
characteristics of the arrest situation, the suspect, the officer, and the
specific behavioral acts of officers, suspects, and bystanders in a particular 
arrest. The form was derived from a similar study* conducted in Phoenix,
Arizona, during 1994 but was modified to conform to the local
characteristics, police terminology, and departmental policies of the
participating agencies. Similar items were asked of a smaller sample of
suspects interviewed in local jails shortly after arrest.

The forms were completed by arresting officers but were not reviewed or
controlled by police managers; thus, the forms were not departmental
records but research data. Both the police officers completing the forms
and the suspects who were interviewed were research subjects, and the
confidentiality of their responses was protected by the data management
and storage procedures of the Joint Centers for Justice Studies.

Under the legislation authorizing the research program at the National
Institute of Justice, Congress made confidential research data "immune
from legal process" and specified that data identifiable to an individual
shall not be "used for any purpose in any judicial, legislative, or
administrative proceeding."** This confidentiality protection was
communicated to officers by their departments and included on the survey
form; interviewed suspects were told of this protection prior to their
agreeing to participate in the research. 

These procedures increased the likelihood that officers and suspects would
provide more accurate information because officers would be less
constrained by fears that their individual answers might be communicated
to others within the department and might even possibly be used against
them. The confidentiality provided to research subjects by the Congress
makes the findings of this research more reliable and, therefore, more
useful to congressional and other policymakers.

* Garner, Joel, John Buchanan, Tom Schade, and John Hepburn,
Understanding the Use of Force By and ----Against the Police, Research in
Brief, Washington DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of 
Justice, November 1996, NCJ 158614.

** 42 U.S.C. 3789(g).

-------------------------------

Definitions of measures of force

Definition 1: Measure of Physical Force

Police
Use of Severe Restraints
Use of Any Weaponless Tactic
Use of Any Weapon

Suspect
Use of Any Weaponless Tactic
Use of Any Weapon

Definition 2: Measure of Physical Force Plus Threats

Police
Use of Severe Restraints
Use of Any Weaponless Tactic
Use, Display, or Threatened Use of Any Weapon

Suspect
Use of Any Weaponless Tactic
Use, Display, or Threatened Use of Any Weapon

Definition 3: Categories of Police Continuum of Force

Charlotte-Mecklenburg
Officer Presence
Verbal Direction
Soft Empty Hand
Oleoresin Capsicum
Hard Empty Hand
Intermediate Weapons
Lethal Force

Colorado Springs
Officer Presence
Verbal Control
Soft Control Techniques
Control and Compliance
Hard Control Techniques
Impact Weapons
Lethal Force

Dallas
Officer Presence
Verbal Control
Empty Hand Control
Intermediate Weapons
Lethal Force

St. Petersburg
Officer Presence
Verbal Direction
Restraint Devices
Transporter
Takedown
Pain Compliance
Countermoves
Intermediate Weapons
Lethal Force

San Diego Police
Officer Presence
Verbal Commands
Control/Compliance
Soft Impact
Lethal Force

San Diego Sheriff
Deputy Presence
Verbal Direction
Soft Hand Control
Chemical Agents
Hard Hand Control
Intermediate Weapons
Lethal Force

-------------------------------

Chapter 5

The Force Factor: Measuring and Assessing Police Use of Force and
Suspect Resistance

by Geoffrey P. Alpert and Roger G. Dunham

Collecting and interpreting information on police use of force is a
persistent problem for police managers and researchers. Although such
data are critical to both the police and the public, they remain difficult to
collect, measure, and interpret objectively. There has been an energetic
effort to collect data on all police use-of-force incidents, including
excessive force, by various groups and by assorted methods.[1] The
problems with data collection on such organizationally sensitive and
controversial acts suggest the need for standardizing measurement and
providing reliable and valid measures.[2]

This chapter presents information collected from the police departments of
the sister cities of Eugene and Springfield, Oregon, and the Miami-Dade
Police Department. After a brief description of the sites and a presentation
of their use-of-force information, the concept of the "force factor," which
is a measure of police force incorporating the officers' actions relative to
the suspects' physical resistance, is developed.

Description of the Sites

Eugene and Springfield, Oregon, are located in the Willamette valley,
cover 52 square miles, and had a combined population of 178,000 in April
1995, when the data were collected. The two police departments had 204
officers, 110 of whom were assigned to patrol duties. The departments had
150,841 contacts with the public, 7 complaints of excessive force, 31
complaints of discourtesy, and 2 lawsuits during 1995. 

The Miami-Dade Police Department (MDPD), located in Dade County,
Florida, is responsible for all law enforcement activities in the
unincorporated areas of the county. (It was formerly known as the Dade
County Sheriff's Department and Metro-Dade Police Department.) In
addition, MDPD contracts with many municipal agencies in Dade County
to perform specialized services within those agencies' jurisdictions. In
1995, the unincorporated areas of Dade County had a population of
approximately 2 million, and the county included 1,840 square miles. The
Department had 2,725 sworn officers, 845 of whom were assigned to
patrol. There were more than 1 million reported contacts (arrests and
nonarrests) during the 3-year study period (fourth quarter 1993 through
1995), of which 133 resulted in complaints of excessive force, 243 in
complaints of discourtesy, and 18 in lawsuits.

These police departments differ on important characteristics. There are
obvious geographic and size differences that make the findings relevant to
a wide audience. Further, differences in the social and ethnic environments
of the cities studied provide diverse contexts in which to analyze police
use of force. Unfortunately, different data elements were collected from
the sites, which make some comparisons problematic.

Eugene and Springfield Police Departments

The Eugene and Springfield dataset was created from items in the Police
Officers' Essential Physical Work Report Form, which was completed by
department members during April 1995. These data are unique because
they include a broad range of police work but were not collected to
evaluate force used by the police. This dataset was part of a larger effort to
identify physical abilities necessary for police work. Data included all
police-public contacts, including those related to forceful encounters. As a
result, an unobtrusive measure of police use of force was available.

The findings from the Eugene and Springfield Police Departments are
reported in the following order:

--Circumstances surrounding the incidents.

--Suspects' characteristics and actions.

--Officers' characteristics and actions.

Most of the 562 police actions analyzed were initiated by dispatched calls
(57 percent), although 33 percent of the incidents were initiated by the
officer who observed a situation and reacted to it.

Circumstances surrounding the contacts

The most common type of incident was street violence (25 percent).
However, 14 percent of all incidents involved domestic violence, and
another 14 percent pertained to resisting an investigation. Thirty-two
percent of incidents did not fall into one of the predefined categories. Most
of the police action was taken to apprehend or control a person (76
percent).

Suspect characteristics and behavior

Suspects ranged in age from 12 years to 86 years. The average age of
suspects was between 28 and 29. Eighty-four percent of the suspects were
males. Although no ethnic information about suspects was collected on the
agency form, there were very few minorities. Fifty-two percent of suspects
were calm, reasonable, and cooperative. However, 19 percent were
reported as under the influence of drugs or alcohol and 17 percent as
emotionally upset or abusive. Eleven percent of suspects appeared
mentally unstable and unpredictable, and 2 percent were violent. Most
suspects were perceived by officers to be average (55 percent) or below
average (20 percent) in physical abilities. The majority of suspects did not
resist the officer (61 percent); 18 percent put up only slight resistance.
Four percent were characterized as having a high level of resistance, 2
percent as violent, and 1 percent as explosive. The most common type of
resistance was to push or pull the officer to resist an arrest or to escape.

Officer characteristics and behavior

The ages of the officers ranged from 25 to 60, with a mean of 37 years.
Length of service as an officer ranged from 9 months to nearly 34 years.
Average length of service was 12 years. Eighty-six percent of the officers
were males. Most officers were assigned to patrol (91 percent).

Control tactics ranked by severity. Data presented in exhibit 5-1 show that
at least two verbal or physical control tactics were used per attempt to
apprehend a suspect. Of the 546 incidents covered by the exhibit, all
involved at least one tactic (96 percent being verbal); 93 percent, two
tactics; and 87 percent, three. There is a fairly large percentage drop for
incidents involving use of a fourth tactic (41 percent). Use of a fifth (8
percent of incidents) or sixth (5 percent) tactic was relatively uncommon.

Exhibit 5-1 shows use of multiple tactics and how they fall on a
use-of-force continuum. The types of force listed down the lefthand side of
exhibit 5-1 are in a sequence that reflects a typical use-of-force continuum,
from the lowest level of force (verbal commands) to the highest (use of a
firearm). Across the top of the table is the number of tactic types the
officer used in a given incident. Although tactics are not necessarily listed
in the temporal sequence that they occurred, it can be argued that officers
do follow a use-of-force continuum.

For example, when an incident involves at least one tactic type, the tactic
listed as the first used is almost always the lowest level of force: a verbal
command (used in 96 percent of incidents). Three percent of such
incidents involved handcuffing as the first tactic used, also at the low end
of the continuum of force. Very few of such incidents involved higher
levels of force as the first tactic used.

When incidents involved at least two tactic types, the second did not
include verbal commands, in contrast to 94 percent of the incidents
involving handcuffing the suspect. Searching the suspect occurred in 4
percent of the incidents; few involved force more severe than a search as a
second tactic.

For incidents entailing three tactic types, no officers listed verbal
commands or handcuffing as the third used. Most listed searching the
suspect (95 percent of the incidents); about 4 percent of the incidents
involved a wrist or arm lock as the third tactic, which is the next level of
force on the continuum; and very few incidents were recorded as involving
force levels further down the continuum.

The pattern that emerges follows the traditional use-of-force continuum.
The first tactic used in an incident is nearly always the least severe use of
force on the continuum, and the second tactic used in an incident is nearly
always the second-most lenient. Officers apparently follow the continuum
with very few exceptions, and those exceptions seem to deviate by only a
small degree in relation to the whole range.

This same pattern seems to pertain to those incidents involving use of a
fourth tactic by officers. None listed the first three levels of force. In 82
percent of four-tactic incidents, officers listed use of wrist or arm lock
techniques (fourth level on the continuum) as the fourth tactic used. In 11
percent of incidents with four tactics, officers listed takedowns, which
constitute the next degree of force on the continuum. The exception at the
fourth-tactic stage is firearm use (4 percent of such incidents). Apparently,
continuum adherence breaks down more often in incidents when four
types of force are necessary. This becomes even more apparent in
situations when five or six types of force are used by the officer. In these
situations, the use of force is more scattered and distributed along the more
severe end of the continuum.

Findings indicate that officers used multiple force tactics most of the time,
usually two tactics, three tactics in 87 percent of the incidents, and four in
about 40 percent. In these instances, officers also seem to follow a typical
continuum of force, with minor deviations that do not vary by more than
one or two levels on the continuum. However, in the few instances when
more than four force tactics per incident are used, they are scattered over
the more extreme end of the force continuum.

Although we can infer a probable order of tactics from the data, a temporal
sequence is not clear in all cases. Future research should focus on this
sequential ordering of officers' use of multiple force tactics and the
concurrent level of suspect resistance. A well-conducted interaction model
could contribute to understanding police/suspect interactions in these
dangerous situations.

Control tactics used with varying amounts of suspect resistance. The
purpose of this analysis was to determine how many officers followed the
typical continuum of force for a given level of suspect resistance. The
continuum of force reflects an escalation from verbal commands to deadly
force. Nearly 97 percent of the incidents involved initial use of a verbal
command when the suspect offered no resistance. Deviating from this
typical process of verbally directing the suspect increased when suspect
resistance was moderate or high (13 percent of all suspects), and violent or
explosive (12 percent). Three percent of officers deviated from first
handcuffing the suspect during the encounter when there was no or slight
resistance by the suspect. Deviating from the typical control process
increased to almost 16 percent of officers when suspect resistance was
moderate to high. Less than 1 percent (0.4 percent) deviated from
searching the suspect when there was no resistance. Slightly more than 4
percent of the officers deviated from this typical process when resistance
was slight, 19 percent when resistance was moderate or high, and 13
percent when resistance was violent or explosive.

Highest level of force used. The next analysis involved determining the
highest level of officer force used in each incident and comparing that with
the level of resistance by the suspect. This analysis provides another way
to determine if the level of the force used by an officer was consistent with
the level of the suspect's resistance.

According to the data presented in exhibit 5-2, when there was no
resistance by the suspect (327 incidents), most incidents involved officer
verbal commands (8 percent), handcuffing (65 percent), or wrist/arm locks
(27 percent). However, three incidents (1 percent) did involve use of a
firearm. The force used by some officers when facing slight resistance was
more than the force used by officers who faced no resistance. When the
suspects used slight resistance, most incidents involved officer use of
verbal commands, handcuffing, or wrist/arm locks (altogether 90 percent).
There were a few cases of takedowns (3 percent), one incident in which an
officer struck a suspect, and six situations in which an officer used a
firearm (6 percent) as the most severe tactic used. When suspects resisted
at a moderate or high level, officers used verbal commands, handcuffing,
or wrist/arm locks as their highest level of force in 48 percent of incidents.

Finally, when suspect resistance was violent or explosive, all incidents
involved force beyond verbal commands and handcuffing. When suspects
acted violently, officers reported four incidents in which a wrist or arm
lock was the highest level of force used against the suspect (24 percent).
The most frequently used type of force was a takedown (29 percent),
followed by striking the suspect (18 percent), wrestling the suspect (12
percent), and using a baton (12 percent). One officer reported an incident
involving use of a firearm (6 percent). The data seem to suggest that, in
terms of the incidents as a whole, officers' use of force reflected a
continuum ranging from lower to higher levels. 

Miami-Dade Police Department

The Miami-Dade dataset included 882 official Control-of-Persons Reports
from the last quarter of 1993 and all of 1994 and 1995. These data were
reported by the officer's supervisor after interviewing the officer, suspect,
and available witnesses. The department's computerized information was
used to create the dataset.

Findings from the Miami-Dade Police Department are reported in the
following order:

--Suspects' characteristics and actions.

--Arresting officers' characteristics and actions.

--Analyses of interaction patterns between officers and suspects.

--Analysis of officer and suspect ethnicity.

Suspect characteristics and behavior

Suspects ranged in age from 12 to 90. The mean age was 28.6 years. Of
the 882 suspects, 46 percent were black and 54 percent white. Thirty-five
percent of the total number of suspects were Hispanic, most of whom were
white. Eighty-nine percent of the suspects were male, and 11 percent were
female. Of the 42 percent of suspects who appeared impaired by alcohol or
drugs at the time of the incident, 24 percent were reported affected by
alcohol and 18 percent were affected by a variety of illegal drugs. A
number of suspects were highly agitated or erratic in their behavior during
the encounter with the police officer. Officers reported erratic behavior 24
percent of the time. However, 23 percent of the time, suspects were calm
when interacting with the officer.

Suspect resistance and injury. Because these cases involved some degree
of use of force by the officer, it is not surprising that almost all cases
involved suspects who showed some degree of resistance (97 percent).
The category of resistance most often reported was actively resisting arrest
(36 percent), followed by assaulting the officer (25 percent). Twenty-one
percent of suspects attempted to escape or flee the scene.

The most common type of suspect injury was a bruise or abrasion (48
percent of those injured). The next most common injuries were lacerations
(24 percent) and injuries from gunshots (4 percent). Most suspects resisted
by using their hands and arms only (65 percent). An additional 14 percent
used their fists against the officer, and 12 percent used their feet or legs.
Less than 5 percent used a gun (handgun, rifle, or shotgun). One percent
used a vehicle to assault the officer, and another 1 percent used a cutting
instrument.

The most common type of force used by the suspect was striking or hitting
the police officer (44 percent). In 27 percent of incidents, the suspect
pushed or pulled the officer, and in another 20 percent, the suspect
grabbed or held the officer. Eight percent of incidents involved verbal
threats or threatening movements or behaviors by the suspect.

Role of alcohol or drug impairment on the suspects' behavior. Another
important question addressed was whether the suspect appeared
intoxicated by alcohol or impaired by drugs and how that affected the
confrontation. The 370 suspects who were reported intoxicated by alcohol
or impaired by drugs were less likely to be calm and more likely to appear
visibly upset (23 percent and 18 percent, respectively), and more likely to
be erratic in their behavior (24 percent) or highly agitated (33 percent).

Suspects who were reported impaired were no more or less likely to resist
the officer than sober suspects, but when they did resist, they resisted in
different ways. Impaired suspects were more likely to resist actively or to
directly assault the officer than nonimpaired suspects. In spite of this,
suspects who were reported impaired were no more likely to receive force
by the officer or to be injured during the arrest than were sober suspects.
Similarly, suspect impairment by drugs or alcohol was not related to
whether the officer was injured during the incident.

Although the overall significance of the relationship between impairment
and type of suspect resistance was not statistically significant, there was a
fairly large difference in resistance with a gun. Suspects reported as
impaired were more than twice as likely than sober suspects to use a gun
to resist the police.

Officer characteristics and behavior

The officers ranged from 21 to 66 years of age, with a mean age of 34.
Most officers were Anglos (54 percent), Hispanics (31 percent), and
blacks (14 percent). Eighty-nine percent of the officers were male, and 11 
percent were female. Most officers were assigned to patrol (92 percent),
and 5 percent were sergeants.

Officer force and injury. The most common type of force used by officers
was use of hands and arms (77 percent of use-of-force incidents). In 8
percent of use-of-force incidents, officers used (discharged) their weapons,
and in another 7 percent they used dogs (K-9s). In a majority of the
incidents (64 percent), officers grabbed or held the suspects. The next
most common use of force was to strike or hit the suspect (10 percent of
the incidents).

The most common injury to officers was bruises or abrasions (64 percent
of those injured), followed by sprains or strains (15 percent), and
lacerations (15 percent). Of injured officers, 2 percent were bitten by the
suspect, 2 percent suffered broken or fractured bones, and 1 percent were
injured by gunshots. The vast majority of injured officers received no
treatment (76 percent). 

However, 12 percent were given first aid, and 6 percent were treated by
emergency rescue personnel at the scene. Less than 1 percent of officers
were treated at a hospital or by their personal physician.

Role of officer characteristics. In no department do all officers respond
precisely the same to situations, although rules, regulations, and policies of
the department should narrow the range of officers' responses to within
acceptable and appropriate limits. In the cases examined here, officer
characteristics did not make much of a difference in whether force was
used or in the level of force used. There were no statistically significant
differences in the level of force used by male and female officers. Further,
the ethnicity of the officer did not affect the general level of force used or
whether force was used. Officer age differences were statistically
significant, but the differences may reflect the differences in assignments
of younger versus older officers, which was not studied. As the average
age of the officers increased, the level of force they used decreased.

Interaction patterns between officer and suspect

This section focuses on the interaction patterns between officer and
suspect. In other words, is there a relationship between the suspect's initial
behavior and the officer's response? Ninety-two percent of suspects
offered some resistance. The categories included "attempted to flee" (31
percent), "actively resisted the officer" (23 percent), "passively resisted"
(20 percent), "assaulted the officer" (17 percent), and "resisting to incite
others" (1 percent). Although calm suspects were the least likely to
actively resist or assault the officer, they were the most likely to attempt to
flee, even more so than suspects perceived to have mental deficiencies or
problems (as defined by Florida's Baker Act). Further, it was the suspects
who initially acted in a calm manner who were the most likely to resist an
officer with a gun or to assault the officer with a vehicle.

The initial behavior of the suspect did not influence whether the suspect
was injured during the arrest, but it did influence the level of force used by
the officer. Suspects who were initially calm were the least likely to have
force used against them. They were no more likely to have slight force
used against them than other suspects. However, they were among the top
two groups to be forcibly subdued by the officer using some method other
than hands.

An analysis of suspects' initial behavior and officers' injuries resulted in an
interesting finding relating to the dangerousness of Baker Act suspects.
Suspects who were described as visibly upset or highly agitated inflicted
more officer injuries than other suspects (40 percent and 39 percent
respectively), and Baker Act suspects inflicted fewer injuries than other
suspects (20 percent).

There was a strong relationship between the level of officer force and the
chance of officer injury. Increasing levels of officer force, regardless of the
level of suspect resistance, corresponded with higher probabilities of
officer injury. When no force was used, 2 percent of officers were injured.
Minimal force situations resulted in 15 percent of officers being injured,
and situations involving officers forcibly subduing suspects with their
hands resulted in 69 percent of officers being injured. However, when
officers used force other than their hands, injuries were reduced to 15
percent.

Clearly, increasing levels of suspect resistance increase the chance of an
injury to the attending officer. No resistance or passive resistance seldom
resulted in an officer injury. However, when the suspect attempted to flee
or actively resisted arrest, the chance of an officer injury is increased
dramatically. The chance of an officer injury increased even further when
the suspect incited others or directly assaulted the officer.

Ethnicity of officers and suspects

The relationship between the ethnicity of the officer and that of the suspect
in force situations is important. Officers used higher levels of force against
suspects of their own ethnic group than against suspects of other ethnic
groups. For example, Anglo officers used higher levels of force against
Anglo suspects than black or Hispanic officers used against Anglo
suspects. Black officers used higher levels of force against black suspects
than did Anglo or Hispanic officers, and Hispanic officers used more force
against Hispanic suspects than did Anglo or black officers. The differences
were the least pronounced for Anglo officers and the most pronounced for
black officers.

Among other explanations, this could be due to a tendency to deploy
officers in areas with a preponderance of citizens of their own ethnicity.
However, with the greater diversity of neighborhood ethnicity in recent
years, this finding may reflect a proclivity on the part of officers to
respond differently to members of various ethnic groups. If this were true,
each ethnic group might feel more comfortable using force on suspects
from its own group. Another interpretation is an officer's possible concern
that race and politics might be dragged into the situation when an officer
uses force against a suspect of another ethnic group. As a result, officers
may try to avoid such situations.

Data in exhibit 5-3 compare officer/offender ethnic matches with the
degree of resistance by suspects. Although there does not seem to be a
relationship between ethnic matches and whether a suspect offers
resistance, there are differences in the levels of resistance. Although based
on a small number of cases, the ethnic match resulting in the greatest
likelihood of a suspect assaulting the officer occurs when a black officer is 
arresting an Anglo suspect (46 percent). Contrast this to the likelihood of
assault when an Anglo officer is arresting an Anglo suspect (14 percent),
or when a black officer is arresting a black suspect (17 percent).

In exhibit 5-4, officer ethnic matches are compared with the level of force
used by the officer. Force was used most often when the officer was black
and the suspect was Anglo (100 percent) or Hispanic (100 percent). Force
was used least often when the officer was Hispanic and the suspect black
(93 percent). Force with hands was used most often when the officer was
black and the suspect was either Anglo (73 percent) or Hispanic (77
percent). Force, other than hands, was used most often when the officer
was Anglo and the suspect black (32 percent).

The Force Factor

Prior research on use of force by police has focused on the highest level of
force used or the highest level reached in an encounter. This analysis
differs from previous ones because its focus is on the level of force used
by the police relative to the suspect's amount of resistance, which we call
the force factor.[3] This section describes the force factor and concludes
with comments on its implications as it applies to policy and training.

To calculate the force factor, both the suspects' level of resistance and the
officers' level of force must be measured and scaled in the same manner.
Even though the force factor is a relative measure, in situations where the
level of police force is greater than the level of resistance, there is no
necessary implication that the level of police force was excessive or
improper. For example, an officer may justifiably use more force than
does a suspect to gain control of a situation. Similarly, it is possible that a
suspect's resistance may exceed the level of force used by the officer. A
force factor representing such a disparity does not necessarily mean that
the officer's level of force was too weak or improper. A weaker police use
of force, relative to the suspect's level of force, could represent an incident
in which a suspect shoots an officer who was unable to respond. Similarly,
it could represent a suspect who attacked an officer but who was
controlled with a minimum of police force. In any case, the most
interesting cases are those that reflect the greatest differences between
force and resistance.

An important application of the force factor is the analysis of police use of
force within a police department. Comparisons can be made between units
to understand the use of force and the reasons for differences. Other
comparisons can be made for various officer characteristics, such as tenure
with the department, training, and assignment, to gain insight into
variations of use of force found within the department. Findings can help
guide training and supervision.

Oregon use-of-force data

Using the Oregon data, we measured the level of suspect resistance in four
ordinal categories: (1) no resistance, (2) slight resistance, (3) moderate or
high resistance, and (4) violent or explosive resistance. The corresponding
categories for officer levels of force are (1) no force, (2) slight force, (3)
forcibly subdued suspect with hands, and (4) forcibly subdued suspect
using methods other than hands. (See sidebar "Force-related
terminology.")

To calculate the force factor, we subtracted the level of resistance (1-4)
from the level of police force (1-4), Force minus Resistance=Force Factor.
The range of the force factor is from -3 to +3. A zero is interpreted as force
commensurate with the level of resistance. For example, no resistance and
no force would be 1 minus 1=0, or passive resistance and minimal police
force would be 2 minus 2=0. If the level of force is higher
than the level of resistance, the force factor is positive, with one point for
each level of discongruence up to a maximum of +3. If the level of force is
lower than the level of resistance, then the force factor is negative, one
point for each level of discongruence up to a maximum of -3.

Exhibit 5-5 depicts the Oregon police officers' use of force in relation to
suspects' resistance. The distribution of scores resembles a normal
(bell-shaped) curve. This distribution of cases indicates that most incidents
fall in the middle, with fewer cases at the extremes. In the Oregon data, the
distribution is slightly skewed to the positive side, meaning that, on
average, more force than resistance was used.

Miami-Dade use-of-force data

In this dataset, the level of civilian resistance from the Control-of-Persons
Reports was recoded into four ordinal categories similar to those used to
analyze the Oregon data: (1) no resistance, (2) passive resistance, (3)
active resistance, and (4) assaulted officer. The corresponding categories
for levels of police force are (1) no force, (2) minimal force, (3) forcibly
subdued suspect with hands, and (4) forcibly subdued suspect using
methods other than hands. The force factor was calculated using the same
method explained above. The distribution of scores for the Miami-Dade
data is close to a normal curve, but slightly skewed to the negative side,
indicating, on average, the use of less force than resistance (exhibit 5-6).

Although a comparison between the two sites of Miami-Dade and
Eugene/Springfield is compelling, interpreting any differences could be
problematic because each dataset represents a different selection of
incidents as discussed above.

Conclusions and Implications for Policy and Training

Police use-of-force policies set the tone for how legitimate force can be
used against civilians in a particular jurisdiction. Whether departmental
policies have an impact in the area of nonlethal force is an empirical
question that has yet to be answered. However, research on policies
regarding the discharge of firearms and pursuit driving indicates that
policies, training, and accountability systems make a significant difference
in the number of firearm discharges and pursuits in which officers and
agencies are involved.[4] Assuming that use-of-force incidents follow the
same trend, a relationship should exist between the use of force by police
and the policies that govern such behavior. Policies that govern use of
force should focus on four main objectives: maximizing the safety of
officers, minimizing injuries to civilians, protecting the rights of those
against whom force is used, and providing officers with the tools needed
to make arrests effectively and restore order. The major objective of the
policies and training is to reduce or minimize injuries.

The Oregon and Miami-Dade data paint somewhat different pictures of the
injuries suffered by officers during use-of-force incidents. Of 803
incidents analyzed for injuries from Miami-Dade, 308 (38 percent)
resulted in a reported officer injury. The vast majority of reported injuries
(79 percent) were minor and consisted of bruises, strains, or soreness.
Nevertheless, 45 officers were lacerated, 6 were bitten, 5 suffered a broken
bone or fracture, 1 received a puncture wound, 1 received internal injuries,
and 3 were shot.

The series of blue bars in exhibit 5-7 depict the chances of officer injury
(not including simple soreness) according to some of the more common
ways in which Miami-Dade officers reported using force. These figures
suggest that Miami-Dade officers are significantly at risk for injury any
time they use force, particularly when they strike a suspect with their fists
or use their hands and arms to control a suspect. Because most
use-of-force incidents (80 percent) involve the use of hands, arms, or fists,
Miami-Dade officers are most at risk for injury when using precisely the
type of force that they report using most frequently.

Overall, Oregon data show far fewer injuries to officers during incidents
involving the use of force. Of 504 reported incidents where force was
used, 9 (1.8 percent) resulted in an injury to an officer. Officers in
Springfield and Eugene are most at risk for injury when wrestling (21.1
percent), striking (12.5 percent), or taking a suspect to the ground (3.8
percent). In none of the eight incidents when a police baton or pepper
spray was used did an officer suffer an injury.

The chances of suspect injury are significant no matter what type of force
is used by the police. The series of brown bars in exhibit 5-7 summarizes
the chances of suspect injury when various types of force are used by 
Miami-Dade officers. A suspect is more likely to suffer injury if struck
with a fist than with a PR-24 police baton. This may be due to the training
that police receive in how to use the baton in a manner that minimizes the
risk of injury. In any event, the chances of a suspect being injured are
greatest when the officer uses his fists, hands, arms, feet, or legs during the
encounter.

The force factor analysis of the Miami-Dade data yields two important
findings with respect to injuries. First, the data indicate that officers are
more likely to be injured when using less force relative to the resistance of
the suspect. In other words, if an officer does not escalate the amount of
force used in response to an increasingly violent suspect, the officer is
more likely to be injured. Second, the data show that injuries to suspects
increase only minimally as the amount of force used by the police
increases relative to the amount of resistance. Although suspects are more
likely to receive injuries when police use more force relative to resistance,
this increased likelihood of injury is small. Furthermore, even in cases
where a suspect was injured, the force factor mean was still negative
(-0.114), indicating that, overall, officers use force that is less than the
resistance offered by suspects. These findings can be an important source
of information for formulating policies and training that help reduce the
possibility of injuries.

In addition to the policy implications above, the findings from this
research point to several training issues that need to be addressed by police
agencies. These issues include:

--Better training is needed in the use of weaponless (empty hand) control
tactics. Because the vast majority of use-of-force incidents are low level in
nature, police officers will continue to rely on their hands, arms, and feet
to control most resistive suspects. Currently, these common types of
encounters result in a disproportionate number of injuries to officers and
suspects. If officers were better trained and prepared to deal with these
types of encounters, it seems likely that the number and severity of injuries
arising from them would decrease.

--A use-of-force continuum that matches suspect resistance with officer
response levels, combined with a robust training program that reinforces
what level of force is appropriate in a given encounter, should help reduce
officer and suspect injuries.

--Significantly more training is needed in the proper use of chemical
agents. The Oregon data indicate that pepper spray was used in 2 of 547
use-of-force encounters. Similarly, pepper spray was used 4 times in 803
encounters by the Miami-Dade police. The Miami-Dade figures are
undoubtedly low because the police department does not issue chemical
agents to patrol officers but does permit use of chemical agents in
specialized tactical operations. The Oregon officers appear to be using
pepper spray infrequently. More training on the use and potential abuse of
chemical agents may help reduce the number of officer and suspect
injuries.

--If the PR-24 baton is to be retained, officers need regular retraining and
practice in how to use it effectively. In Dade County, every reported
instance when the PR-24 side-handled baton was used involved a strike.
To those who advocate its use, the advantage of the PR-24 is its ability to
be used as a defensive and control-type weapon. When employed properly,
the PR-24 can be used to trap and hold the hands and arms of suspects to
bring them under control. Apparently, the PR-24 is not being used to its
full capacity. This is not surprising because the use of a PR-24 is a
diminishing skill that takes a great deal of practice to retain one's ability to
use it to full advantage. If officers cannot remain proficient in its proper
use, then police agencies should reevaluate whether to continue to issue
the PR-24 or whether another impact weapon may be more appropriate.

--Officers need more and better training in how to avoid or defuse violent
encounters before they arise. If future policies require officers to take
reasonable measures to avoid the use of force, then officers must be
properly trained in conflict avoidance and crisis management techniques.
How successful an officer is at avoiding violence is a function, at least in
part, of how well trained the officer is in defusing emotionally charged
situations.

Directions for Future Research

In examining the use-of-force landscape and in discussing the findings of
this research, at least four important areas remain unexplored. First, we
know very little about the effectiveness of various types of nonlethal force
used by police. What is needed is a comprehensive evaluation of the
effectiveness of all types of police force commonly used in street-level
encounters. 

Second, research is needed that identifies in detail the sequential order of
how violent encounters unfold. As noted above, there is a great need to
develop an interactive model that can better explain the active and reactive
aspects of these encounters. Although anecdotal evidence is abundant,
there is little empirical research on what factors immediately trigger the
use of force by and against police, how force is actually used by suspects 
against police, and how officers respond.

Third, little reliable research exists that identifies the extent of police use
of excessive force. Although we can say with relative conviction that
police use of force occurs on an infrequent basis, we cannot conclude with
nearly the same certainty how many of those incidents involve excessive
force.

Finally, there is a need to explore measurement issues and uses of the
force factor. Studying police use of force without taking into account
levels of suspect resistance should be avoided. Research results that do not
include the relative measure of force fail to impart a thorough
understanding of the police-public encounter. Creating force factor scores
for individual officers, assignments, units, and departments can be an
important step in understanding and controlling police use of force.

Of course, measuring excessive force is highly problematic; indeed, even
defining excessive force is difficult and definitions may vary considerably
depending on the situation.[5] In spite of this difficulty, if we consider the
importance to the Nation of knowing how often its police officers abuse
their authority, comprehensive research on excessive force must continue
to receive a high priority.

Notes

1. Greenfeld, Lawrence, A., Patrick A. Langan, and Steven K. Smith,
Police Use of Force: Collection of National Data, Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics and National Institute
of Justice, November 1997, NCJ 165040; and McEwen, Tom, National
Data Collection on Police Use of Force, Bureau of Justice Statistics,
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics
and National Institute of Justice, April 1996, NCJ 160113.

2. Alpert, Geoffrey, and William Smith, "How Reasonable Is the
Reasonable Man?: Police and Excessive Force," Journal of Criminal Law
and Criminology, 85(1994): 481-501.

3. Alpert, Geoffrey, and Roger Dunham, The Force Factor: Measuring
Police Use of Force Relative to Suspect Resistance, Washington, DC:
Police Executive Research Forum, 1997.

4. Alpert, Geoffrey, Police Pursuit: Policies and Training, Research in
Brief, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of
Justice, May 1997, NCJ 164831; and Alpert, Geoffrey, and Lorie Fridell,
Police Vehicles and Firearms, Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press, 
1992.

5. Alpert, Geoffrey, and William Smith, "How Reasonable Is the
Reasonable Man?: Police and Excessive Force."

-------------------------------

Sidenotes

Geoffrey P. Alpert, Ph.D., is Professor of Criminology, College of
Criminal Justice, University of South Carolina. Roger G. Dunham, Ph.D.,
is Professor, Department of Sociology and Criminology, University of
Miami.

"There do not appear to be any empirically validated research studies
which support the assertion that race, ethnicity, gender, or age of police
officers are related to misuse of physical or deadly force."--New York
State Commission on Criminal Justice and the Use of Force,
Report to the Governor, Vol. I, New York: New York State Commission
on Criminal Justice and the Use of Force, May 1987: 301.

-------------------------------

Force-related terminology

Suspect resistance:

No resistance. Suspect was cooperative and followed all verbal
instructions given by the officer.

Slight resistance. Suspect resisted the officer's actions and the officer had
to use strong directive language and/or minimal force (skills) to encourage
suspect to cooperate and follow directions.

Moderate or high resistance. Suspect impeded officer's movement or
resisted cuffing or placement in a car. This level of resistance required the
officer to use arm/wrist locks and/or distraction techniques or fighting
skills to gain compliance and control.

Violent or explosive resistance. In this, the most extreme, level of
resistance, the suspect struggled or fought violently and required the
officer to (1) use fighting skills to disengage, (2) use a chemical agent,
baton, or firearm, or (3) continue fighting to gain control. In some cases in
this resistance category, the officer decided that he or she needed to use
weapons or other special tactics to gain control instead of engaging the
suspect directly.

Officer force:

No force. Officer used typical verbal commands.

Slight force. Officer had to use strong directive language and/or minimal
physical force to encourage the suspect to cooperate and follow directions.

Forcibly subdued suspect with hands. Officer used an arm/wrist lock,
takedown, block, punch, or kick, and/or struck or wrestled the suspect.

Forcibly subdued suspect using methods other than hands. Officer used
chemical agent, baton, gun, or other special tactics or weapons.

-------------------------------

Chapter 6

A Research Agenda on Police Use of Force

by Kenneth Adams

This chapter puts forth a research agenda on police use of force, with
special attention given to issues of excessive force. In some respects the
task is easy. We have a limited empirical understanding of the problem;
hence, any new research will be a welcome addition to the current state of
knowledge. In other respects, however, the task is difficult. If left to
unbounded development of inquiry, a research agenda quickly loses focus
and takes on a scattershot quality that diminishes the return on one's
scientific investments. Research budgets are not unlimited, so it is
important to establish strategic priorities. Also, elements of uncertainty
and unpredictability in the scientific enterprise make it difficult to say
which avenues of investigation will be most fruitful. Three general
considerations guided the development of this research agenda:

--Research should provide new knowledge that significantly increases our
understanding of the problem while operating within real-world
constraints.

--Research should be policy relevant. It should lead to improvements in
our efforts to deal with problems.

--Research activities, taken as a whole, should be comprehensive and
systematic.

Development of a research agenda on use of force by police entails several
considerations. Use of force is a relatively infrequent event. Consequently,
sample sizes will tend to be small and measurement error will tend to be
large. This situation places the researcher on the horns of a dilemma. If
one decides to live with the problem of small sample size, there will be
serious limitations on one's ability to conduct statistical analyses. As a
result, conclusions will be subject to heavy qualification, and the value of
new information will be diminished. If one opts for larger samples, the
cost of research increases dramatically. This means that fewer
investigations will be carried out for a given sum of money, bringing the
cost-benefit issue to the foreground as a major consideration. There are
several strategies to be discussed later, in particular triangulation and use
of targeted samples, that help the researcher walk a middle road through
this dilemma.

From a pragmatic point of view, use of force by police is difficult to study
because it is a sensitive and politically charged topic, especially when
issues of excessive force are involved. In many instances, research will
depend on the cooperation of police agencies, and for police
administrators cooperation with researchers can be a mixed bag, carrying
the possibility of harm as well as benefit. Notions of professionalism and
commitments to excellence push police executives to deal with
use-of-force problems. Yet, they also are keenly aware of political
realities. Pressures from within the organization, such as that from unions,
for example, can offer resistance to reform, and groups outside the
organization, such as elected government officials and community
organizations, often stand poised to gripe at the first hint of failing.

The project of the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) is
viable because it collects data under two important conditions:
voluntariness and strict confidentiality (see chapter 3). These conditions
serve to insulate police departments from potentially negative
repercussions. They also work to distort the scientific picture by
presenting data only from departments willing to cooperate and by
limiting access to important information regarding the characteristics of
those police departments. What in the political arena is considered prudent
is in the scientific arena a handicap, operating as a source of error and bias.

Within the context of these challenges and limitations, a multifaceted
research agenda that moves forward on several fronts is needed. Four
priority areas for future research on police use of force are proposed:

--Establishing the conceptual boundaries of "excessive force."

--Improving measurement.

--Identifying important variation and correlates.

--Evaluating efforts to manage use-of-force problems.

Establishing the Conceptual Boundaries of Excessive Force

In studying police use-of-force problems, we eventually come to ask,
"What is excessive force?" and "How does excessive force relate to other
forms of violence and misconduct by police?" At an abstract level, the
concept of excessive force is not hard to delineate. A variety of definitions
already exist, some of which are widely used and accepted. However,
when it comes to applying a definition of excessive force to individual
situations, thereby rendering a judgment that a particular police officer
acted wrongly in a specific situation, linguistic neatness breaks down into
untidy legal complexity. Judgments will differ, sometimes widely, about
whether force used by police in a specific situation was excessive.

If we are to advance our understanding of excessive force, we need not
only a common definition but also common perceptions of which
instances fit the definition. Likewise, the relation of use of force to other
issues of police behavior and misconduct is easy to delineate conceptually.
As a practical matter, however, we do not know the size and strength of
these hypothesized relations. This information will allow us to determine
when interrelated phenomena should be treated separately or as one, or
when one phenomenon can be substituted for the other, as convenient or
necessary.

Judging what force is excessive 

Research on excessive force by police must grapple with the problem of
determining what is excessive. The complication is that labeling force as
excessive involves a judgment, the outcome of which depends on the
information that is available, the criteria that are used, and the manner in
which the criteria are applied. An obvious problem is that the criteria used
in making judgments about excessive force are not always the same,
leading to differences of opinion. Judges apply legal standards; police
administrators apply professional standards; and citizens apply "common
sense" standards. 

The information available on which to make these judgments also varies
considerably. Judges typically render judgments in the context of an
adversarial trial process that, in principle, is designed to lay bare all
relevant information. Administrative review of police conduct generally
takes place behind closed doors by trained professionals who have to
temper objective reasoning (e.g., going by the book) with subjective
understanding (e.g., "putting themselves in another officer's shoes").
Regarding the thoroughness of internal police investigations, there is a
professional "push" to be exhaustive and demanding and a collegial "pull"
to be politic and practical.

The public tends to make judgments about police use of force with more
emotion and less information than do judges or police administrators.
They react, somewhat reflexively, to newspaper and television reports of
excessive force or stories from friends and neighbors claiming that the
police victimized them or someone they know.

Finally, there are differences in how often decisions are made and in the
consequences of decisions. Lawsuits alleging excessive force by police are
relatively uncommon, although the consequences of a single decision can
immediately and acutely transform entire organizations and communities.
Police administrative decisions regarding excessive force occur more
frequently than judicial decisions, usually in the context of disciplinary
proceedings or policy reviews. The short-term consequences of these
decisions focus on the individuals involved in the situation. The public's
judgments on excessive force occur habitually, being made by
innumerable people on a continual basis. The immediate consequences of
these decisions are seemingly trivial, but the cumulative long-term effect
can be devastating in terms of police-community relations.

We know something about judicial and administrative judgments of
excessive force because decision criteria are spelled out, decisionmaking
processes are in place, and decision outcomes are visible. However, much
more can be known about these issues, particularly with regard to
variations across localities and organizations. Perhaps because the public's
judgments are so silently ubiquitous, we know almost nothing about how
these decisions are made.

There is a need for research on judgments of excessive force. How do
police differ in their judgments from judges and lawyers? The answer
holds implications for the outcome of lawsuits. How does the public differ
from police administrators in their judgments? In an era of community
policing, the answer holds serious implications for police-community
relations. How do people vary in their judgments with regard to personal
characteristics, such as race, age, gender, education, and experience with
the criminal justice system? Answers regarding racial differences, for
example, are relevant to perceptions of fairness and building of
community solidarity.

Judgments of excessive force are complex because they involve many
considerations. Which factors carry the most weight in making these
judgments? What role does the actions and characteristics of the suspect
play? How are the actions and characteristics of the officer weighed? How
do situational factors, such as time of day, location, and number of
bystanders, influence judgments? What role does the police organization's
rules and procedures play in judgments? What does the public, as well as
lawyers and police, think about legal and professional criteria for
determining excessive force? These issues are important if we are to know
what different kinds of people think about the excessive force problem.
Likewise, these issues are important if we are to understand and interpret
data on excessive force generated by courts and police organizations as
well as by survey research.

The problem of excessive force relates to several other areas of police
behavior that raise similar issues. In particular, excessive force overlaps
with use of force generally (excessive and otherwise), civilian injuries by
police, police misconduct and illegal behavior, and work performance.

Focus on the broader picture

For several reasons, it is useful for research to focus on the broader picture
of all use-of-force events. First, the process of identifying use-of-force
incidents is more factual and less judgmental than that of identifying 
excessive force incidents. Hence, there are fewer problems, both
normative and scientific, in counting and studying events. Also,
recordkeeping systems already exist in many police departments that
document use-of-force events in considerable detail. This means that data
are readily available for analyses within and across departments.

Second, a focus on all use-of-force events leads us to consider the problem
of excessive use of force, as distinguished from the problem of excessive
force. This turn of phrase describes situations in which use of force,
though arguably legitimate and justifiable on a case-by-case basis, can be
seen in the aggregate as disquietingly frequent and potentially
problematic. A focus on excessive use of force shifts the question from
"Was force used legitimately in this situation?" to "Why is force being
used so often?" By concentrating on use-of-force levels that are potentially
counterproductive and hence inadvisable, we indirectly address the
excessive force problem because in scrutinizing use-of-force incidents for
necessity, excessive force events are likely to stand out in stark relief.

Third, a broader perspective, one that emphasizes questions of how often
force is used and whether force is used too often, leads us to consider a
wider array of options for dealing with problems of police-public violence.
By not sorting use-of-force events into categories of "good" and "bad" and
then focusing on the "bad," discussions of solutions can more easily move
away from issues of punishment and discipline. By downplaying the moral
element, we more quickly come to consider the variety of remedial
mechanisms that exist in police organizations, such as rules and
procedures, training, and other programs. Thus, our attention is drawn to
aspects of the formal organization that can be manipulated in ways that
address use-of-force problems.

Another approach to the excessive force problem is to concentrate on
instances in which police injure civilians. Not every excessive force
incident involves civilian injuries, and not all injuries to civilians involve
excessive force. A focus on injuries is nonetheless useful because it
emphasizes outcomes of police use of force that are serious and
consequential. Also, police injuries to civilians are easy to count because
they are relatively unambiguous and because medical records, generated
independently of police records, can be used to investigate these events.

Finally, another perspective is to view the excessive force problem as part
of a much broader set of police misbehavior. It may be that officers who
engage in excessive force are "problem" officers in a much more general
sense. On the job, they may disregard procedures, disobey rules, show
poor judgment, and have bad attitudes. Off the job, they may drink too
much, abuse their spouses, and get into fights and traffic accidents. An
officer's use-of-force difficulties may be part of a larger constellation of
problem behaviors that become manifest in citizen complaints,
disciplinary actions, and poor performance evaluations. These relations,
which should be investigated, are theoretically important because they
may require that we broaden our explanations of excessive force to include
other problem behaviors. Such theoretical explanations are policy relevant
to the extent that efforts to deal with use-of-force problems require a full
understanding of police misbehavior in order to be successful. Finally, as a
practical matter, these relations can be used to identify problem officers
early on, before their problems swell and get out of hand.

Overlap and convergence

Research should focus on relations among various use-of-force problems,
emphasizing areas of overlap and convergence and concentrating on issues
of measurement and prediction. Some questions that need to be answered
are as follows:

--What is the extent of overlap among rates of use of force, excessive
force, and civilian injury?

--How stable are these relations?

--To what extent can one measure substitute for the other?

--Can overall rates of force be used to identify police departments or
police officers that are likely to have problems with excessive force? Can
rates of civilian injury be used in the same manner?

--Can problem behaviors in the workplace be used to identify officers
who are likely to have problems with excessive force? Can behaviors
outside the workplace be used in a similar manner?

Improving Measurement

Measurement problems are common in the social sciences. The quality of
data typically can stand major improvement. This too is the case with
police use of force. Although it is desirable to have a sound, unambiguous, 
accurate measure of excessive force, for example, in police departments
throughout the country, it could take a decade or more of work before we
begin to approximate this goal. In the near term, we will have to make do
with what we have and work for small incremental improvements in data
availability and quality.

Multiple indicators of use of force

In situations in which data contain a fair amount of "noise" (meaning
error) that masks the true picture of what is being measured, and in which
significantly improved measurement is not feasible, perhaps due to the
expense, time, or effort that is required, use of multiple measures and
triangulation of data is an advisable strategy. Multiple measurement
involves use of several measures that capture different perspectives on the
object being measured. The idea is that several measures, when compared
with and contrasted against each other, will offer a more complete picture
than any one measure, which, standing alone, is known to be incomplete.

Triangulation is an analytic approach based on multiple measures. The
approach capitalizes on the fact that each measure is imperfect in different
ways and that each offers a different perspective on the problem. If all
measures point in the same direction, one's confidence in the results of
statistical analyses is increased. The underlying phenomenon is robust
enough that a consistent "picture" emerges through the noise. If, however,
measures point in different directions, then one must consider the specific
limitations of each measure in making an assessment. Sometimes it is
possible to combine a variety of measures into an index that is robust
because the combined errors of the individual measures tend to cancel
each other out.

The various data sources that are available to investigate issues of police
use of force already have been discussed elsewhere in detail.[1] The focus
below is on steps needed to improve data sources so that we can move
toward a multiple-indicator approach.

Official records

For several reasons, official records are and will continue to be the major
source of information on police use of force generally, as well as on
excessive force. Although official records provide less-than-perfect data, 
from a practical viewpoint the advantages strongly outweigh the
disadvantages. Among the benefits of a good system of official
recordkeeping are wide geographic coverage, collection of detailed
information, the possibility of linking various record systems for a more
comprehensive picture, and up-to-date statistics. Also, because data
collection takes place at the local agency level, there is the possibility of
distributing the burden of data collection across many organizations. 

The drawbacks of official record systems typically are lack of
standardization across agencies and poor data quality. These problems are
exacerbated in the context of national coverage, which involves
coordination of many different agencies that are geographically dispersed.
For this reason, simple, easy-to-use data collection procedures are to be
preferred over complex, difficult-to-master procedures, particularly in the
early stages of establishing a reporting system.

Use-of-force reports

Many police departments require a use-of-force report to be filed any time
an officer uses force against a civilian in the line of duty. The report
describes the circumstances of the event and the nature of the force that
was used. These reports can be extremely valuable on a number of counts.
Use-of-force reports allow police administrators to monitor the number of
incidents by individual officers, geographic areas, or organizational units.
They provide a basis for periodic administrative review to determine
whether proper procedure is being followed when force is used. They offer
the possibility of supplementing raw counts of incidents with detailed
information on officers, suspects, and the circumstances of encounters.
Finally, documentation contained in use-of-force reports may prove useful
in defending the department's actions in litigation.

Although police officers now spend a lot of time on paperwork,
use-of-force reports are not unduly burdensome to officers because they
use force infrequently in their work. Garner and his colleagues surveyed
all arrests in the Phoenix Police Department for 2 weeks regarding use of
force.[2] During this time, 1,585 adult arrests were surveyed, of which
about 1 in 5 involved any type of physical force by police. Thus, a
requirement that every use-of-force incident be documented translates into
roughly 150 reports per week for a police department with more than
3,000 employees. Since most of the force that police use is at a relatively
low level (i.e., holding, grabbing), the number of reports can be reduced
by raising the threshold for reporting.

All police departments should be required to maintain use-of-force reports.
If the officer's use of force is serious, it is to the organization's benefit to
document its occurrence. Furthermore, these reports should be subject to
periodic review and scrutiny, both in terms of general trends and on a
case-by-case basis. Finally, police departments should be required to
report periodically their statistics on use of force to a State or Federal
agency. Although some effort will have to be made to standardize
reporting procedures, this suggestion could be implemented fairly quickly.
As computer use becomes more widespread among front-line police
officers, reporting requirements should become less burdensome. Detailed
suggestions for a national reporting requirement can be found
elsewhere.[3]

Civilian injury and hospitalization records

Another source of information on police use of force is medical records on
injuries that civilians receive at the hands of police. These records focus
on injury and treatment, and they are maintained by health-related
agencies rather than police agencies. Medical records capture the most
serious use-of-force incidents, including the most serious instances of
excessive force.

All police departments should be required to maintain and publish
statistics on civilian injuries caused by police officers. Police agencies
should work in cooperation with hospitals and emergency rooms to
develop these statistics.

Compiling and publishing statistics on civilian injuries should not place a
heavy burden on police agencies, again because these events do not
happen very often. Indeed, one might think along the lines of a
supplemental Uniform Crime Reports reporting system parallel to that on
law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty but concentrating on
civilian injury. The data can involve simple counts of events, broken down
so that criminal suspects can be distinguished from other civilians and the
method of injury can be identified.

Court records

Lawsuits involving police use of force tend to contain allegations of
excessive force, although court records are poor measures of how often
such incidents occur, because the allegations probably constitute a highly
biased and selective subset of police-citizen encounters. Use-of-force
incidents that lead to lawsuits typically reflect some combination of a
highly motivated plaintiff, egregious action by police, and a tenacious
lawyer. The occurrence of police misconduct is only one element in the
litigation equation and it may not be the most important. However,
lawsuits are directly relevant to the issue of how much use-of-force
transgressions by police cost society. Knowing the costs incurred under
current policies and practices, as measured by monetary awards to
plaintiffs, can help put the price of reform into broader financial
perspective. These cases, which merit systematic study, show that there
are some costs to having police use force, although it is not clear how
much of these costs can be attributed to excessive force.

Presently, information about lawsuits against police is distributed across
several government agencies, and there is little coordination and feedback.
City attorneys may not routinely notify police administrators about the
outcome of litigation, so they are not always in a position to follow up
with appropriate administrative action. Financial liability is an important
aspect of the use-of-force problem, and citizens are entitled to know what
police misconduct costs them. Thus, every police department should make
available on a periodic basis data on the number, types, and outcomes of
lawsuits filed against the department, separately identifying those that
involve allegations of excessive force as well as other use-of-force issues.

Survey methods

Survey methods tend to be relatively inefficient at capturing police
use-of-force incidents. The yield depends to some extent on the definition
of force and on the timeframe being referenced. Definitions that include
verbal threats will capture more incidents than definitions limited to
physical contact. Likewise, questions about lifetime experiences will
capture more incidents than questions about the past 6 months or the past
year.

Two strategies for addressing the inefficiency of survey methods in
studying police use of force are using targeted samples to increase the
yield of incidents and supplementing survey research projects on other
topics with use-of-force questions. Both these techniques, which offer
cost-effective ways of studying infrequent events, are underutilized and
could be used to greater advantage in research on use of force by police.

Targeted sampling. Targeted samples trade breadth of coverage for a focus
on high-risk persons or situations. Rather than covering the entire country,
a survey might be restricted to big cities. Instead of surveying an entire
city, only high-crime or low-income areas might be surveyed. In lieu of
sampling all adults, only young adults or males might be sampled. Instead
of questioning all civilians, only persons who have been arrested might be
queried.

If survey efforts concentrated on high-risk persons or situations, the
number of use-of-force incidents captured in a study could be increased,
which would mean that statistical analyses would be more reliable and
potentially more sophisticated. The data can be used for a variety of
purposes. They can be used in epidemiological fashion to generate more
reliable point estimates of police use of force across various conditions.
They can be used to gain a more complete theoretical understanding of
use-of-force incidents using forms of elaboration analysis that examine
subgroups within the sample. They can be used to study important
subpopulations within society, both in terms of point estimates and
theoretical analyses. Depending on the purpose of the investigation,
the characteristics of the sample being targeted and the types of questions
being asked will vary.

If the scope of persons included in a survey is restricted, some questions
will go unanswered. For example, if a survey concentrates on males,
information on females will not be collected. The danger here is that by
restricting inquiry, we may unintentionally confirm our misconceptions.
Nonetheless, targeted samples may be a sensible tradeoff when research
funds are modest and when information is available to weigh the cost of
the tradeoff.

In the Phoenix study, Garner and his colleagues surveyed all persons
arrested over a 2-week period.[4] A reanalysis of the data could tell us if
the number of use-of-force incidents captured for the same expenditure of
resources would be greater by limiting coverage to Friday and Saturday.
The data also could tell us how use of force differs by weekday and
weekend, thus informing us about the biases of a targeted "weekend"
survey. The compromise, of course, is that the results would only be
generalizable to weekend arrests.

The supplement approach. Another strategy for increasing return on
research investments is "piggybacking" one's research onto another
project. The strategy is an opportunistic one that involves locating another
research project that can be supplemented to suit one's needs. The "other"
research project might be in the early stages of planning or initiation, or it
might be an ongoing longitudinal effort. If one is starting a research
project, finding "partners" for combining several research agendas into a
single research vehicle is economical because development and
implementation costs can be shared. Working out differences among
partners can be difficult, however, and can lead to compromises that
seriously detract from the utility and integrity of the research when viewed
from the perspective of one or all of its component parts.

With regard to an ongoing research project, a secondary or supplemental
project can capitalize on the efforts of a primary project in such areas as
sample selection and training of interviewers. However, the secondary
project will have little control over almost all aspects of the research
design. This is fine if the design of the primary project meets the needs of
the secondary project. To the extent that this is not the case, the piggyback
approach extracts a cost from the secondary project in terms of scientific
value that needs to be debited against the economic savings. Also,
researchers may give only limited opportunity to others to become
involved in their ongoing research because they are concerned about
protecting the integrity of their project.

The Police-Public Contact Survey (see chapter 2) by the Bureau of Justice
Statistics (BJS) is a good example of the "supplement" strategy.[5] BJS
added a set of questions about police contact and police use of force to the
National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), which is a 3-year,
seven-panel rotating longitudinal design carried out by the Bureau of the
Census. In this collaboration, which involved a pilot test of a survey
questionnaire, BJS used only one of the NCVS panels. As a vehicle for
testing new survey instruments, NCVS is very cost efficient, functional,
and expeditious. 

The BJS supplement also highlights two important aspects of research on
police use of force. First, surveys of the general population are inefficient
at capturing encounters in which police use force against the public. Of the
6,421 survey respondents nationwide, only 14 reported that police used or
threatened to use force against them in the past year, leading to an annual
estimate of 500,000 persons nationwide. Calculation of the margin of error
around this estimate was not attempted for the pilot survey, but it is likely
to be large because of the small number of cases involved. BJS will
address these issues in a second pilot survey, which will use a sample
more than 10 times larger than that used in the first pilot test.

Another important feature of the BJS survey is that it illustrates the
complexity of use-of-force encounters. In the BJS pilot test, respondents
who indicated that police had used force against them could have been
asked more than 100 questions, depending on their experiences.
Recommended changes to the survey, for the most part, include the
addition of more questions to describe use-of-force incidents in greater
detail. Although the length of the survey is not problematic, given that the
average time to complete it for persons who had contact with police was
10 minutes, the survey makes it evident that a substantial amount of
information has to be collected in order to eliminate ambiguity and ensure
that the data are most pertinent to policy issues.

Observational methods

Observational methods are highly inefficient at capturing use-of-force
incidents not only because these are infrequent events but also because a
researcher can observe only one or two officers on assignment at a time.
Bayley and Garofalo had six observers spend a total of slightly more than
2,000 hours observing police officers in the field.[6] These observations
identified 37 use-of-force incidents by police, the majority of which
involved relatively low levels of force.

A development worth mentioning is the use of video cameras in police
cars. In many cases, the camera is set to operate automatically when an
officer leaves the car. The purpose is to capture police-civilian interactions
so that they are available for later review in case there is a complaint about
the officer's behavior. Although some details or aspects of the encounter
may be missing, incidents so recorded can be considered as observational
data. These data can provide information on the frequency and
characteristics of various types of police-public encounters within the
limited context of automatic recording from a patrol car. Police
management might use the recordings in its efforts to oversee the behavior
of front-line officers. These video recordings also might be used in
training programs and in research, when a high degree of verisimilitude is
required. A limitation of this strategy, however, is that it can be fairly
labor intensive to review the many videos. 

Identifying Important Variation and Correlates

The main purpose of scientific research is to identify variation in things of
interest and link this variation to other factors or variables, which are
called correlates. In the beginning stages of research, scientists usually
focus on accurate measurement of variation. Thus, priority should be given
to development of tools that allow us to determine how often excessive
force occurs.

Social science research, however, moves down several paths at the same
time. While researchers are busy trying to measure variation, they quickly
jump to questions of what factors are associated with higher or lower
levels of excessive force. 

Correlates, if reliable and substantial, allow us to predict. If, for example,
the incidence of excessive force is positively related to the incidence of
violent crime, we know where problems of excessive force will be
greatest. Another practical side of correlates is that they can allow us to
take steps to mitigate problems. Thus, if the incidence of excessive force is
negatively correlated with levels of police officer supervision, increasing
supervision of line officers may reduce or eliminate the problem. Finally,
correlates can help us to understand why things happen as they do, and so
they are the building blocks of theories. Again, if we know that the
incidence of excessive force is highest among new officers, we might
explain this relation by pointing to a lack of experience and training. The
correlates of excessive force might be quite different from the correlates of
excessive use of force, however.

Geographic and temporal variation

In searching the list of possible correlates of excessive force, some factors
stand out as potentially more important than others. In particular,
variations in the incidence of excessive force that are associated with time
and place are especially significant. Geographic variation, in terms of
region of country or size of place, allows us to focus on problems of
excessive force and excessive use of force in concrete terms.

There is a tendency in police research to concentrate on a handful of
departments in large metropolitan areas. There are several practical
reasons for this. Big cities are hotbeds for all sorts of social problems, and
their large populations make them good places to study infrequent events.
Also, police departments in large cities tend to have resources that
facilitate research, such as computerized recordkeeping systems. For these
reasons, which are largely matters of practicality and convenience, police
departments in medium- and small-sized cities often are overlooked as
potential research sites.

Larger metropolitan areas will contain a greater number of use-of-force
incidents, and probably excessive force incidents, than smaller areas.
However, this may be the result of more police-public interactions or more
police officers. When measured as rates per 1,000 arrests or per 100
front-line officers, use-of-force problems actually may be greater in
smaller areas. Also, taken as a group, the many medium and small cities
that dominate our country may constitute the greater part of the
use-of-force problem. Thus, there is a need to broaden the scope of police
research to include departments in medium and small cities. Without this
research, we will not know the answers to many important questions about
the scope of the excessive force problem and about the changing nature
and distribution of the problem across the country.

Studying temporal variation is important because it allows us to determine
whether use-of-force problems are getting better or worse. This
information permits forecasts about the future, which may be important in
galvanizing the perceived need for action. It also may provide a general
sense of how well efforts to curb use-of-force problems are doing.

An ability to investigate geographic and temporal variation requires the
collection of standardized data across places and over time. The IACP
project (see chapter 3) is a move in this direction, although the voluntary
nature of the reporting system limits the utility of the data. A voluntary
system--even one incorporating anonymity--allows the worst departments
to avoid participation, leading to underestimation of the problem. The
need for a fully nationwide reporting system on police use of force already
has been discussed at length, and viable recommendations on how to
implement the system already have been made.[7] Significant
improvement in understanding police use-of-force problems depends in
large measure on significant advancement toward this goal, which has
been slow to date.

Correlates and use of force

There are correlates that span individual, situational, and organizational
factors that may be related to the incidence of excessive force. At the
individual level, personal characteristics of police officers and civilians 
involved in use-of-force incidents, viewed separately and in combination,
may be important. Age, race, gender, education, and economic status are
typical correlates of social behavior, and information on these factors will
help fill out the use-of-force picture in terms of social classifications.

Criminal justice-related factors also are relevant. Researchers would be
interested in work-related variables, such as officers' experience, training,
rank, and nature of work assignments. Also of interest would be
use-of-force histories, civilian complaints, disciplinary actions, and work
performance ratings. Relevant criminal justice information about suspects
would include prior criminal record, history of violence, and gang
involvement.

Situational factors deal with the social and physical context in which
use-of-force events take place. Some important factors to be investigated
are characteristics of the physical setting, circumstances regarding the
initiation of police-civilian encounters, possible drug and alcohol use by
the suspect, presence of weapons, number and types of primary actors
involved in the situation, number and types of secondary actors (e.g.,
bystanders or witnesses), and immediate actions that precipitate use of 
force, with a focus on criminal activity, provocation, and threats, if any.

Organizational factors concentrate on aspects of police departments.
Although formal aspects of the organization are easier to document,
informal aspects of the organization are relevant as well. Some factors to 
examine are:

--Number of employees. Do larger departments tend to have more
use-of-force problems?

--Number and types of administrative units, with a focus on departments
that control misconduct and violence. Does an ethics unit or an integrity
unit make a difference? Does civilian review matter?

--Personnel allocation. Is the ratio of supervisors to line officers related to
the frequency with which force is used?

--Expenditures. Do departments with higher pay scales have lower rates
of use-of-force problems?

--Workforce characteristics. Do departments with a large proportion of
minority officers, female officers, experienced officers, or
college-educated officers have lower rates of excessive force?

--Training and supervision policies. Are the frequency, length, type, and
quality of training programs related to the incidence of excessive force?

--Departmental philosophy. Does community policing bring fewer
use-of-force problems? Do broken-windows or zero-tolerance
philosophies increase these problems?

Under the heading of organizational factors might be included items
external to the organization that shape the work environment. These
factors include crime rates and characteristics of the population being
served, such as poverty rates. Alternatively, these might be labeled
community characteristics.

Evaluating Efforts to Manage Use-of-Force Problems

The last part of the proposed research agenda focuses on evaluation of
attempts to manage police use of force. Here the concern focuses on
activities that are specifically targeted at dealing with use-of-force
problems. These activities might include training, technologies that
provide police officers with new options for safely and effectively
controlling recalcitrant suspects, methods for identifying rogue officers in
advance, management strategies for controlling officer behavior in the
field, or programs designed to change officer attitudes and behaviors in
ways that reduce the use of excessive force.

Technologies

Among the new technologies developed for controlling criminal suspects,
pepper spray and stun guns have received considerable attention. These
technologies often are promoted as alternatives to lethal force, although
they have utility in their own right as tools for behavior control. Research
by Kaminski and colleagues suggests that pepper spray is effective in
controlling disorderly suspects and may reduce injuries to both officers
and suspects.[8] In addition to confirming these findings, research should
investigate where these technologies fit into the use-of-force continuum.
To what extent are these new technologies used as alternatives for higher
or lower levels of force? Also, what evidence is there to suggest that these
new technologies are abused and thus are contributing in some way to the
excessive force problem?

The Christopher Commission report, through its "list of 44" problem
officers, drew attention to the fact that a handful of Los Angeles police
officers had extensive histories of use-of-force problems and that
management often was unresponsive to this situation.[9] Since that time,
there has been an increased interest in information systems that can
identify officers who are at high risk for using excessive force. In essence,
these systems are prediction devices that are updated with new information
on a regular basis. Criminal justice researchers have a long history of
experience with prediction devices as applied to offender behavior, and
many of the same problems and issues that surfaced in that context are
germane here. Practical questions (such as availability and quality of data),
methodological issues (such as selection of statistical techniques and
prediction error), and ethical issues (such as consequences of potentially
noxious classification and privacy of information), all remain to be
explored in relation to using information systems to help manage
use-of-force problems.

Another technology that may influence use of force is video cameras
mounted inside police cars to record police-public interactions. It was
mentioned previously that video recordings could be used for research and
administrative purposes and as evidence in lawsuits. A possible
consequence of this technology is that it may make officers more
circumspect in their use of force, which may show up as fewer
use-of-force incidents and fewer complaints about excessive force.
Comparisons between departments that are using this video technology
and those that are not could address this question.

Training

Some attempts to deal with use-of-force problems are based on strategies
that target the problem at a broader level. A good example of this approach
is training programs designed to promote ethical behavior, enhance
police-community relations, or train officers in verbal techniques for
achieving compliance from civilians. Excessive force issues often are
addressed in these programs.

In some instances, training programs that address use-of-force issues are
part of a more general effort to change police organization and culture.
Perhaps the most popular of these efforts is community policing, which
emphasizes joint working relationships between police and community to
maintain order and promote justice. To the extent that community policing
leads to a sense of partnership that includes feelings of fellowship based
on a sense of common humanity, antagonism between police and the
public should be mitigated and propensities for police to abuse authority or
for the public to perceive abuse by police should be reduced. Part of the
agenda for community policing evaluation research should be to determine
whether a reduction in use of force and complaints of excessive force
occurs. Research also should investigate whether changes in attitudes
about the use of force occur for police and civilians.

Summary

This chapter outlines a research agenda on police use of force, giving
special attention to problems of excessive force. A variety of questions are
raised, both reflecting the complexity of use-of-force issues and the
relative paucity of our knowledge about use-of-force transgressions. Four
sets of research objectives are identified.

First, more work is required on what various people have in mind when
they refer to excessive force and on how they adjudge specific instances of
police behavior when questions of excessive force arise. We need to study
the general public, members of minority groups, police administrators,
patrol officers, judges, and offenders, among others, to understand how
they think about excessive force. This research is important because social
problems often require shared solutions, and shared solutions require a
common basis of understanding and mutual respect for differences in
views.

Second, more and better data on police use of force is needed. Most
discussions about police use of force occur in an empirical vacuum where
arguments are made without the benefit of solid, useful information.
Various suggestions for a national reporting system on police use of force
have been made, but progress toward this goal has been slow, even though
the information collected by such a reporting system could be extremely
valuable. As an interim step, it is recommended that all police departments
maintain records documenting all instances of police use of force and all
injuries to civilians, and that this information be reported regularly to the
public. Maintaining these records will not pose a great burden to police
agencies because use of force is infrequent. Furthermore, the knowledge
gained should be well worth the effort.

Third, also required is research on how use of force by police varies across
time, across cities, and across individual police departments. Further, we
need research on individual, situational, and organizational factors related
to variations in use-of-force levels, along with excessive force levels. In
the process of identifying correlates of use of force and excessive force,
we will increase our theoretical understanding of these events and advance
our ability to predict problematic situations. At an aggregate level,
research also should concentrate on the relation between excessive use of
force, meaning types of situations in which force is used with disturbing
frequency, and excessive force, meaning types of instances in which police
use more force than necessary.

Finally, we need to identify, document, and evaluate interventions,
changes, and reforms that may mitigate police use-of-force problems.
Although our understanding of these problems is incomplete, the urgency
of the situation requires that we seek out actions that are likely to have a
beneficial impact. In some cases, such as community policing, where a
broad spectrum of change is involved, what is required is sensitivity to
use-of-force issues in evaluation studies. In other cases, such as with
police ethics and integrity units, there may be a track record of impact on
the organization that is waiting to be investigated. In addition, the
effectiveness of activities that specifically target use-of-force issues, such
as officer training programs and information management systems, needs
to be determined before we can genuinely advocate widespread adoption
of these programs.

In other chapters of this report, recently completed and ongoing research
projects on police use of force are described. As a group, these research
projects illustrate rigorous methodologies, sophisticated measurement
strategies, cost-effective design features, and the utility of comparisons
across several police departments. These projects provide a good
foundation for developing a research agenda on police use of force. Yet,
substantially more research is needed. Useful, reliable, sound knowledge
provides the best venue for society's attempts to deal with the pernicious
consequences of use-of-force transgressions by police.

Notes

1. McEwen, Tom, National Data Collection on Police Use of Force,
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics
and National Institute of Justice, April 1996, NCJ 160113; and Adams,
Kenneth, "Measuring the Prevalence of Police Abuse of Force," in And
Justice for All: Understanding and Controlling Police Abuse of Force, ed.
William A. Geller and Hans Toch, Washington, DC: Police Executive
Research Forum, 1995: 61-97.

2. Garner, Joel, John Buchanan, Tom Schade, and John Hepburn,
Understanding the Use of Force By and Against the Police, Research in
Brief, Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, November 1996,
NCJ 158614.

3. McEwen, Tom, National Data Collection on Police Use of Force; and
Geller, William A., and Hans Toch, "Improving Our Understanding and
Control of Police Abuse of Force: Recommendations for Research and
Action," in And Justice for All: 277-337.

4. Garner, Joel, John Buchanan, Tom Schade, and John Hepburn,
Understanding the Use of Force By and Against the Police.

5. Greenfeld, Lawrence A., Patrick A. Langan, and Steven K. Smith,
Police Use of Force: Collection of National Data, Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics and National Institute
of Justice, November 1997, NCJ 165040.

6. Bayley, David H., and James Garofalo, "The Management of Violence
by Police Patrol Officers," Criminology, 27(1)(February 1989): 1-27; and
Bayley, David H., and James Garofalo, "Patrol Officer Effectiveness in
Managing Conflict During Police-Citizen Encounters," in Report to the
Governor, Vol. III, Albany: New York State Commission on Criminal
Justice and the Use of Force, 1987: B1-B88.

7. McEwen, Tom, National Data Collection on Police Use of Force; and
Geller, William A., and Hans Toch, "Improving Our Understanding and
Control of Police Abuse of Force: Recommendations for Research and
Action."

8. Kaminski, Robert J., Steven M. Edwards, and James W. Johnson,
"Assessing the Incapacitative Effects of Pepper Spray During Resistive
Encounters With Police," Policing: An International Journal of Police
Strategies and Management, 22(1)(1999): 7-29; and Kaminski, Robert J.,
Steven M. Edwards, and James W. Johnson, "The Deterrent Effects of
Oleoresin Capsicum on Assaults Against Police: Testing the Velcro-Effect 
Hypothesis," Police Quarterly, 1(2)(1998): 1-20.

9. Independent Commission on the Los Angeles Police Department,
Report of the Independent Commission on the Los Angeles Police
Department, Los Angeles: Independent Commission on the Los Angeles
Police Department, 1991.

-------------------------------

Sidenotes

Kenneth Adams, Ph.D., is Associate Professor and Chair of the Criminal
Justice Faculty, School of Public and Environmental Affairs, Indiana 
University-Indianapolis.

"Excessive force is almost always a matter of degree...and circumstance.
Excessive force complaints frequently arise in situations where the officer,
armed and obliged to confront criminality, was doing his job; where he
was duty-bound to intervene; where danger was present and some force
was necessary; or, where witnesses are limited to the victim and the officer
and there is a marked divergence in their views about what happened."
--Cheh, Mary M., "Are Lawsuits an Answer to Police Brutality?" And
Justice for All: Understanding and Controlling Police Abuse of Force, ed.
William A. Geller and Hans Toch, Washington, DC: Police Executive
Research Forum, 1995: 235.

The Phoenix study was supported by the National Institute of Justice under
grant 92-IJ-CX-K028.

Among the observational methods alluded to on this page is systematic
social observation, a field research method used to study police.
"Researchers record events as they see and hear them and do not rely on
others to describe or interpret events. The researchers follow
well-specified procedures that can be duplicated." --Mastrofski, Stephen
D, Roger B. Parks, and Albert J. Reiss, Jr., et al., Systematic Observation
of Public Police: Applying Field Research Methods to Policy Issues,
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice,
December 1998: vii. 

-------------------------------

Bibliography

The publications below are, in whole or in part, related to police use of
force and are among those generated by research supported by the
National Institute of Justice or the Bureau of Justice Statistics either
through grants to outside researchers or through studies by inhouse staff.
For information on the availability of a publication whose listing includes
an NCJ or FS number, please contact the National Criminal Justice
Reference Service (see inside back cover).

Alpert, Geoffrey P. Police Pursuit: Policies and Training. Research in
Brief. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of
Justice, May 1997. NCJ 164831. (The related 60-minute videotape: Alpert,
Geoffrey P. Police in Pursuit: Policy and Practice. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice. NCJ 161836.)

------. Helicopters in Pursuit Operations. Research in Action. Washington,
DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, August
1998. NCJ 171695.

Edwards, Steven M., John Granfield, and Jamie Onnen. Evaluation of
Pepper Spray. Research in Brief. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Justice, National Institute of Justice, March 1997. NCJ 162358.

Fridell, Lorie A., and Antony M. Pate. "Death on Patrol: Killings of
American Law Enforcement Officers." In Critical Issues in Policing:
Contemporary Readings, ed. Geoffrey P. Alpert and Roger G. Dunham.
Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press, 1997.

Garner, Joel, John Buchanan, Tom Schade, and John Hepburn.
Understanding the Use of Force By and Against the Police. Research in
Brief. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of
Justice, November 1996. NCJ 158614. (The related 60-minute videotape:
Garner, Joel H. Use of Force By and Against Police. Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice. NCJ 159739.)

Geller, William A., and Hans Toch, eds. And Justice for All:
Understanding and Controlling Police Abuse of Force. Washington, DC:
Police Executive Research Forum, 1995.

Greenfeld, Lawrence A., Patrick A. Langan, and Steven K. Smith. Police
Use of Force: Collection of National Data. Washington DC: U.S.
Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics and National Institute
of Justice, November 1997. NCJ 165040.

Jefferis, E., R.J. Kaminski, S. Holmes, and D. Hanley. "The Effect of a
Video-taped Arrest on Public Perceptions of Police Use of Force." Journal
of Criminal Justice, 25(5)(1997).

Kaminski, Robert J., Steven M. Edwards, and James W. Johnson. "The
Deterrent Effects of Oleoresin Capsicum on Assaults Against Police:
Testing the Velcro-Effect Hypothesis." Police Quarterly, 1(2)(1998).

------. "Assessing the Incapacitative Effects of Pepper Spray During
Resistive Encounters With Police." Policing: An International Journal of
Police Strategies and Management, 22(1)(1999).

Kaminski, Robert J., and Eric Jefferis. "The Effect of a Violent Televised
Arrest on Public Perceptions of the Police: A Partial Test of Easton's
Theoretical Framework." Policing: An International Journal of Police
Strategies and Management, 21(4)(1998).

Mastrofski, Stephen D., Roger B. Parks, Albert J. Reiss, Jr., Robert E.
Worden, Christina DeJong, Jeffrey B. Snipes, and William Terrill.
Systematic Observation of Public Police: Applying Field Research
Methods to Policy Issues. Research Report. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, December 1998. NCJ
172859.

McEwen, Tom. National Data Collection on Police Use of Force.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics
and National Institute of Justice, April 1996. NCJ 160113.

National Institute of Justice. Oleoresin Capsicum: Pepper Spray as a Force
Alternative. Technology Assessment Program. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, March 1994.

------. Preliminary Investigation of Oleoresin Capsicum. Law Enforcement
and Corrections Standards and Testing Program. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, April 1995. NIJ
Report 100-95.

------. Positional Asphyxia--Sudden Death. National Law Enforcement
Technology Center Bulletin. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice,
National Institute of Justice, June 1995.

------. High Speed Pursuit: New Technologies Around the Corner.
National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center Bulletin.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice,
October 1996.

------. Pursuit Management Task Force. Research Preview. Washington,
DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, August
1998. FS 000225.

Pate, Antony M., and Lorie A. Fridell, with Edwin E. Hamilton. Police
Use of Force: Official Reports, Citizen Complaints, and Legal
Consequences. Vols. I and II. Washington, DC: Police Foundation, 1993.

Pinizzotto, Anthony J., Edward F. Davis, and Charles E. Miller III. In the
Line of Fire: Violence Against Law Enforcement. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation and National
Institute of Justice, October 1997.

Scrivner, Ellen M. The Role of Police Psychology in Controlling
Excessive Force. Research Report. Washington, DC: National Institute of
Justice, 1994. NCJ 146206.

------. Controlling Police Use of Force: The Role of the Police
Psychologist. Research in Brief. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Justice, National Institute of Justice, 1994. NCJ 150063.

The following are among the objectives of ongoing NIJ-supported
use-of-force research projects, which may result in future publications:

--Measuring use of force relative to suspect resistance in two police
agencies.

--Identifying the frequency, rate, and type of force used in a county police
department, including whether the introduction of pepper spray affected
use of force or the extent of injuries to officers and civilians.

--Determining, through a national survey of police agencies, how they
organize their critical-incident response capabilities and what types of
actions, including use of force, that officers and civilians take during the
incidents.

--Surveying a national sample of law enforcement agencies to determine
the prevalence, distribution, and principal features of early warning
systems as a response to the problem officer and evaluating the
effectiveness of such systems in three police departments.

--Examining the use of force by police when encountering persons with
impaired judgment.

--Examining serious assaults on police in two jurisdictions to identify
neighborhood risk factors and areas of significant spatial clustering.

-------------------------------

To obtain an electronic version of this report, please visit the NIJ World
Wide Web site at 

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij or contact:

National Criminal Justice Reference Service
Box 6000
Rockville, MD 20849-6000
Phone: 800-851-3420
Phone: 301-519-5500
E-mail: askncjrs.org

-------------------------------                        

NCJ 176330