U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

National Institute of Justice

Research for Practice

The Effectiveness and Safety of Pepper Spray

03 APR.
U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

810 Seventh Street N.W.

Washington, DC 20531

John Ashcroft

Attorney General

Deborah J. Daniels

Assistant Attorney General

Sarah V. Hart

Director, National Institute of Justice

This and other publications and products of

the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice

can be found on the World Wide Web at the

following site:

Office of Justice Programs

National Institute of Justice

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij
Findings and conclusions of the research reported here are those of

the authors and do not reflect the official position or policies of the

U.S. Department of Justice.

The North Carolina study discussed in this report, “An Evaluation of

Oleoresin Capsicum (O.C.) Use by Law Enforcement Agencies: Impact on

Injuries to Officers and Suspects,” by J. Michael Bowling and Monica

Gaines, was supported by NIJ under award number 1997–LB–VX–K018.

The in-custody deaths study discussed in this report, “Deaths in Police

Confrontation When Oleoresin Capsicum is Used,” by Charles S. Petty,

was supported by NIJ under purchase order number 2001–M7–56.

APR. 03

The Effectiveness and Safety of Pepper Spray

Comments regarding this

Research for Practice 

may be e-mailed to

askost@ojp.usdoj.gov or

sent by postal mail to 

LTL Program Manager,

National Institute of Justice, 

810 Seventh Street N.W.,

Washington, DC 20531.

To learn more about NIJ’s

less-than-lethal research

and development program, visit http://www.

ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/ 

sciencetech/ltl.htm.

NCJ 195739
ii

RESEARCH FOR PRACTICE / APR. 03

ABOUT THIS REPORT

This report presents the findings from two recent unpublished NIJ-funded studies

that used different methodologies to test pepper spray’s

safety and effectiveness.

One study looked at officer

and suspect injuries in three

North Carolina police jurisdictions before and after pepper

spray was introduced. The

other examined the deaths of

63 suspects held in custody

after pepper spray was used

in their arrest.

What did the

researchers find?

■ The North Carolina study

found that the number of

injuries to police officers

and suspects declined after

pepper spray was introduced. Complaints that

the police used excessive

force also declined.

■ The study of in-custody

deaths concluded that

pepper spray contributed 

to death in two of the 63

cases, both involving people with asthma. In the

other cases, the researcher

concluded that death was

caused by the arrestee’s

drug use, disease, positional asphyxia, or a combination of these factors.

What were the studies’

limitations?

■ In the North Carolina study,

procedures for identifying

officer and suspect injuries

differed considerably from

agency to agency and within each agency over time,

which limited the extent of

the conclusions that could

be drawn.

■ The number of in-custody

deaths in which pepper

spray was used in the

arrest process is very low,

which makes identification

of trends difficult.

■ Each arrest situation is

unique; it is virtually impossible to collect enough

nearly identical arrest scenarios with and without

pepper spray in the field 

to conduct a quantitative

study.

Who should read these

studies?

Law enforcement policymakers and practitioners,

defense and prosecution

attorneys involved in pepper

spray cases, and medical

examiners.
1

THE EFFECTIVENESS AND SAFETY OF PEPPER SPRAY

Pepper spray, or oleoresin

capsicum (OC), is used by

law enforcement and corrections agencies across the

United States to help subdue

and arrest dangerous, combative, violent, or uncooperative subjects in a wide variety

of scenarios. Though generally assumed to be safe and

effective, the consequences

of the use of OC, as with any

use of force, can never be

predicted with certainty. The

need for reassurance on

these points remains. This

Research for Practice summarizes the results of two

unpublished NIJ-funded studies on the safety and effectiveness of pepper spray in

real-life arrests and compares

them with previous studies.

The goal: to expand the

scope of knowledge on this

complex subject.

One study looked at officer

and subject injuries in three

North Carolina police jurisdictions before and after pepper

spray was introduced. The

other examined 63 incidents

nationwide in which people

were sprayed with OC in the

arrest process and later died

in custody.

The Effectiveness and Safety 

of Pepper Spray

The North Carolina study

found that the number of

injuries to police officers and

suspects decreased after

pepper spray was introduced.

Complaints that the police

used excessive force also

declined.

The study of in-custody

deaths, which follows a similar study conducted in 1994,1

concluded that exposure to

pepper spray was a contributing cause of death in 2 of the

63 fatalities, and both cases

involved people with asthma.

In the other 61 cases, death

was judged to have resulted

from the arrestee’s use of

drugs, disease, positional

asphyxiation (which may

occur when subjects are

placed in a prone position,

typically handcuffed behind

the back, in which breathing

becomes more difficult), or a

combination of these factors.

These findings complement

those of another recent

experiment that used healthy

volunteers who inhaled pepper spray and were then

placed in a sitting position or

handcuffed in a prone position. The volunteers exhibited
2

RESEARCH FOR PRACTICE / APR. 03

no breathing difficulties in

either position.

The North Carolina

study

Claims of pepper spray’s

effectiveness were tested in

a 2-year study conducted by

a multidisciplinary team of

investigators at the University of North Carolina’s Injury

Prevention Research Center

in Chapel Hill, North Carolina.

This research sought to

assess whether the introduction of pepper spray had

reduced the number of— ■ Injuries to police officers

from assaults.

■ Injuries to suspects from

police use of force.

■ Excessive force complaints

against the police.

The records of three North

Carolina police departments—

the Charlotte-Mecklenburg

Police Department (CMPD),

the Winston-Salem Police

Department (WSPD), and the

North Carolina State Highway

Patrol (SHP)—were compared for the periods before

and after the introduction of

pepper spray by each agency.

SHP was the first of the

three to introduce pepper

spray in January 1993. WSPD

and CMPD followed suit in

April 1993 and January 1995,

respectively.

Data sources

Officer injuries. All information on the use of force by

Charlotte-Mecklenburg officers (including injuries to 

officers and suspects) came

from the CMPD Use of Force

Database. Information on injuries to Winston-Salem officers and suspects was taken

from the Injury Database,

1990–1998. Information on

State Highway Patrol officer

injuries came from their Worker’s Compensation and

Medical Only Claims files.

Records in which the injury

resulted from a motor vehicle

crash or actions unrelated 

to an arrest were excluded.

Researchers applied statistical methods to determine

whether observed declines 

in the number of injuries 

after the introduction of 

pepper spray were significant enough to be attributed

to its use.

Injuries to suspects.

Suspect injury data were

available from the CharlotteMecklenburg and WinstonSalem police departments.

No information was available

for injuries to suspects
arrested by the State Highway Patrol.

Excessive force complaints.

Although data on excessive

force complaints were collected from all sites, only the

State Highway Patrol had

data going back far enough 

to analyze statistically.

Results

Officer injuries. In Charlotte,

monthly counts of injured

officers declined steadily

from 1991 to 1998 (see

exhibit 1). This decline began

3

THE EFFECTIVENESS AND SAFETY OF PEPPER SPRAY

Injuries

0

5

10

15

20

Jan. 1991

July 1991

Jan. 1992

July 1992

Ju

Jan. 1996

ly 1994

Jan. 1993

July 1993

Jan. 1994

Jan. 1995

July 1995

July 1996

Jan. 1997

July 1997

Jan. 1998

Pepper spray introduced

Exhibit 1. Charlotte: Officer injuries

before pepper spray was

introduced and continued at

roughly the same rate afterward. Before pepper spray

was introduced in WinstonSalem, there were two

upward trends in monthly

counts of officers injured, the

first ending in August 1991

and the second in December

1992. After pepper spray was

introduced, officer injuries

declined, followed by an increase, then a relatively stable period of low counts

beginning in December 1995

(see exhibit 2).
4

RESEARCH FOR PRACTICE / APR. 03

Injuries

Jan. 1988

Jan. 1989

Jan. 1990

Jan. 1991

Jan. 1992

Jan. 1993

Jan. 1994

Jan. 1995

Jan. 1996

0

3

6

9

12

15

Jan. 1997

Pepper spray introduced

Exhibit 3. State Highway Patrol: Officer injuries

Injuries

Jan.1990

July 1990

Jan.1991

July 1991

July 199

Jan.1995

3

Jan.1992

July 1992

Jan.1993

Jan.1994

July 1994

July 1995

July 1996

Jan.1997

July 1997

Jan.1996

0

2

4

6

8

10

12 Pepper spray introduced

Jan.1998

Exhibit 2. Winston-Salem: Officer injuries
Injuries

Jan. 1991

July 1991

July

Jan. 1995

 1993

Jan. 1992

July 1992

Jan. 1993

Jan. 1994

July 1994

July 1995

July 1996

Jan. 1997

July 1997

Jan. 1996

5

10

15

20

25 Pepper spray introduced

July 1998

5

THE EFFECTIVENESS AND SAFETY OF PEPPER SPRAY

The monthly count of injured

State Highway Patrol officers,

however, shows a substantial

decline that corresponds with

the implementation of pepper

spray. In 1992, 87 officers

were injured, whereas only

58 were injured in 1993, a 33-

percent decline over a 1-year

period (see exhibit 3).

Suspect injuries. Monthly

counts of suspects injured by

CMPD officers began falling

after the introduction of pepper spray (see exhibit 4). In

Winston-Salem, on the other

hand, monthly counts of 

Exhibit 4. Charlotte: Suspect injuries

suspects injured by WSPD

officers had already been

declining before pepper spray

was introduced (see exhibit 5).

Excessive force complaints.

Ninety-four excessive force

complaints were filed against

State Highway Patrol officers

from 1975 to 1998, peaking

in 1992—the year before

pepper spray was issued.

Complaints dropped sharply

after the introduction of pepper spray (see exhibit 6).

Thus, the data suggest relationships between the use of
6

RESEARCH FOR PRACTICE / APR. 03

Injuries

Jan. 1990

July 1990

Jan. 1991

July 1991

Jan. 1992

July 1992

Jan. 1993

July 1993

Jan. 1994

July 1994Jan. 1995

July 1995

Jan. 1996

July 1996

Jan. 1997

July 1997

0

3

6

9

12

15

Jan. 1998

Pepper spray introduced

Exhibit 5. Winston-Salem: Suspect injuries

1975

1977

19

1991

85

1979

1981

1983

1987

1989

1993

1995

1997

Complaints

0

3

6

9

12

15

1998

Pepper spray introduced

Exhibit 6. State Highway Patrol: Excessive force complaints
7

THE EFFECTIVENESS AND SAFETY OF PEPPER SPRAY

pepper spray and declines in

the number of State Highway Patrol officer injuries,

suspect injuries in Charlotte,

and excessive use-of-force

complaints against SHP officers. Although pepper spray

could have contributed to

declines in officer injuries

in Charlotte and WinstonSalem and suspect injuries in

Winston-Salem, the available

data were not sufficient to

support those claims. A 1998

study, however, indicated

that the introduction of pepper spray reduced the number of assaults on police

significantly in the Baltimore

County (Maryland) Police

Department.

2

Study limitations. Due to

differences among the

study’s data sources, only a

limited number of conclusions could be drawn. The

procedure for identifying officer and suspect injuries differed considerably from

agency to agency and within

each agency over time. The

availability of data at each

site differed, depending on

the level of computer use

and the sophistication of 

programming and software.

The systems in place at the

State Highway Patrol and in

Winston-Salem in the early

1990s required officers to

describe the circumstances

leading up to injuries. Thus,

determination of the number

of injuries depended on the

officer’s recall of the incident

and the degree of detail in his

narrative report.

Moreover, injuries captured

in one system might have

been overlooked in others.

The State Highway Patrol

included only those injuries

for which officers had filed Worker’s Compensation

claims, whereas cases identified in Winston-Salem and

Charlotte were not limited to

those requiring medical

attention or loss of work.

The in-custody 

deaths study

Early on, as pepper spray use

began to spread, questions

arose as to its safety, especially after several exposed

arrestees died in custody. A

professor of forensic sciences and pathology at the

University of Texas, Southwestern Medical Center,

recently conducted a study

of 73 cases of in-custody

deaths following pepper

spray use to determine the

role, if any, played by pepper

spray.
8

RESEARCH FOR PRACTICE / APR. 03

For each case, the author 

collected reports from law

enforcement sources, emergency medical technicians,

emergency room personnel,

coroners and medical examiners, and toxicologists. Analysis of police reports of the

confrontation was combined

with the more quantifiable

autopsy findings and, finally,

with numerically precise toxicological data. The author

believes that information

from each of these sources

is necessary to have the

maximum confidence in the

cause of death.

The author did not always

agree with the cause of

death listed by the autopsy

surgeon or medicolegal officer. In some of these cases,

he had more or different

information than was available to the certifying official

at the time an opinion was

given on the cause of death.

Classifying the cases

Of the 73 reported cases of

in-custody deaths allegedly

involving pepper spray, 10

were excluded from the

study. Three cases were

excluded because investigation showed that pepper

spray had not been used.

Another seven were excluded because insufficient

details were included in the

case reports.

The remaining 63 cases were

broken down into four subsets (see exhibit 7): ■ Clear cut—cases in which

the cause of death was

clear and well-founded.

■ Combined effects—cases

in which the cause of death

could be attributed to two

or more factors working

together.

■ Outliers—cases that defied

categorization.

■ Asthma—cases in which

compromised air passages

to the lungs were found at

autopsy.

Clear-cut cases. In 12 of

the 23 cases included in the

clear-cut category, drugs

alone were determined to be

the cause of death. In another four cases, death was

attributed to drugs and heart

disease. In the remaining

seven cases, the author

attributed death to positional

asphyxia, which can occur

when subjects are placed in 

a position in which they cannot use the muscles that

move air in and out of their

lungs. When a subject is

made to lie face down, hands

cuffed behind, pressure
9

THE EFFECTIVENESS AND SAFETY OF PEPPER SPRAY

on the abdomen forces

the abdominal contents

up against the diaphragm,

making it harder to breathe.

This situation is exacerbated

when the subject is obese.

Weights applied to the back,

such as an arresting officer

placing his weight on the

subject’s shoulder-blade area,

also interfere with a suspect’s ability to breathe (in

one case reported in this

study, a sofa was placed on

the subject to help control

him). Pepper spray was ruled

out as a direct or contributing

cause in all of these deaths.

Combined effects. In these

cases, drugs and disease

combined with the confrontational situation to such a

degree that it was impossible

to isolate a single cause of

death. In 23 cases, death

was attributed to a combination of the confrontational

situation and drugs. In five

cases, death was attributed

to the confrontational situation and the effects of disease. In another four cases,

all three factors contributed

to death. Again, pepper spray

was ruled out as a cause or

contributing factor in these

deaths.

Outlier cases. Other

weapons or health issues

were involved in the deaths

Exhibit 7. In-custody death cases

Number

Category of cases

Category I: Clear cut 23

IA: Drugs alone 12

IB: Drugs and disease 4

IC: Positional asphyxia 7

Category II: Combined effects 32

IIA: Confrontational situation + drugs 23

IIB: Confrontational situation + disease 5

IIC: Confrontational situation + drugs and disease 4

Category III: Outliers (uncategorizable) 6

Category IV: Asthma 2

Total cases examined in study 63

and were likely the main

cause of death.

Asthma. In the two cases

involving asthma, death was

attributed to the disease. In

one case, details of the confrontation with law enforcement were not available, but

the autopsy found signs of

preexisting asthma, and the

medical examiner certified

the death as asthma precipitated by the use of pepper

spray. In the other case,

signs of asthma were not

found, but the autopsy

revealed airway damage that

could have made the subject

susceptible to bronchial

spasms triggered by inhaled
10

RESEARCH FOR PRACTICE / APR. 03

pepper spray. The autopsy

surgeon listed OC and disease as the cause of death.

Pepper spray was used more

times in this case than in any

other, but according to police

officers, it was ineffective.

The subject, who was obese,

was handcuffed behind his

back and placed in a facedown position when being

transported. The difficulty of

breathing in this position may

have been compounded by

the damage already done to

his airways. In this case, the

confrontational situation

could have caused or contributed to death.

Was pepper spray the

cause of death? 

For pepper spray to cause

death, it would have to make

breathing difficult by closing

or narrowing the bronchial

tubes. The subject would

have to struggle to both

inhale and exhale. These

effects would be noticeable

shortly after the application

of pepper spray. Yet, except

for the two cases in which

the subjects were classified

as asthmatics, comments

regarding breathing (other

than “ceased breathing”)

were found in only five case

reports, none of which

referred to a struggle to

breathe. In none of these

cases did death immediately

follow pepper spray application. For these reasons, the

study concluded that pepper

spray was not the direct or

sole cause of death in these

five cases.

Lessons and

observations

In addition to concluding that

pepper spray did not cause

or contribute to death in 61

out of 63 cases, the author

viewed pepper spray as a 

relatively innocuous force

option, ranking at the low

end of the “escalation of

force” scale. Although pepper spray was reported by

arresting officers to be effective in only 20 percent of the

cases studied, all confrontations examined in the present study were distinguished

by the fact that they ended in

the subject’s death.

A 1999 study that examined

690 incidents of pepper spray

use concluded that pepper

spray was effective 85 percent of the time, according to

the broadest definition of the

term “effectiveness.”3 None

of the arrestees in these

incidents died in custody.

Other studies have reported

lower and higher effectiveness rates, but effectiveness
11

THE EFFECTIVENESS AND SAFETY OF PEPPER SPRAY

is a subjective term and its

definition varies across studies. The 1999 study found

that the effectiveness rate

reported by officers was significantly reduced when subjects exposed to pepper

spray appeared to be on

drugs (about 13 percent

of the incidents). In the incustody death study, toxicological data showed that 39

of 63 subjects (62 percent)

had some level of drugs in

their body. This apparent

large difference in drug use

and varying interpretations of

what constitutes effectiveness may explain some of

the differences in effectiveness rates reported in the

two studies.

The current study also concluded that, despite some

skepticism as to its existence,4 positional asphyxia is

real and can (and does) cause

death. Although pepper spray

was not found to be effective

in any of the cases of positional asphyxia examined in

this study, its precise role in

these cases could not be

determined. The results of a

recent experiment that tested the effect of pepper spray

on drug-free, healthy volunteers, by itself and when

combined with positional

restraint, are discussed

below.

Pepper spray and 

positional restraint

In another study, medical

researchers at the University

of California–San Diego

measured the effects of pepper spray on breathing and

other health parameters, particularly when combined with

positional restraint.5 Subjects

(34 recruits from a law enforcement training academy)

were exposed to pepper

spray and a placebo spray

and then placed in a sitting

position or handcuffed in

the “hogtie” or “hobble”

position.

The study found that pepper

spray inhalation alone does

not pose a significant risk for

respiratory compromise or

asphyxiation, even when

combined with positional

restraint. Researchers found

no evidence that OC exposure resulted in any additional change in respiratory

function in the restraint position. In both the OC and

placebo groups, pulmonary

function was restricted in the

restraint position, but measurements remained within

the normal range. Moreover,

there were no statistical differences between the OC

and placebo groups relative

to these declines.
12

RESEARCH FOR PRACTICE / APR. 03

Pepper spray did, however,

result in an increase in blood

pressure of 10 to 15 percent,

perhaps due to the discomfort and pain associated with

it. The clinical implications of

this finding are unknown.

This study had several limitations: ■ Conditions that occur in the

field are impossible to replicate in the laboratory. 

■ The effects of prolonged

sprays and repeated exposures were not studied.

■ All of the subjects were

cadets at the local police

academy and were generally healthy.

■ Subjects wore goggles to

reduce pepper spray exposure to the eyes, which

causes irritation and pain.

(The purpose of the study

was to measure acute

effects of inhalation). 

■ Restrained subjects were

placed on a medical examination table rather than on

a hard surface, as often

occurs in the field. 

■ The study did not investigate the long-term effects

of pepper spray exposure

or the potential for complications from chronic occupational exposure to it.

Practical implications

In-custody deaths occurred

before pepper spray was

introduced and still occur

today in cases not involving

pepper spray. Determining

the risks of pepper spray in

arrest situations is complicated by two facts: ■ The number of in-custody

deaths in which pepper

spray was used in the

arrest process is very low.

■ Every situation in which a

suspect resists arrest is

unique; it is impossible to

collect enough useful data

on nearly identical documented arrest scenarios

with and without the use

of pepper spray.

The studies cited in this

report do not and cannot

prove that pepper spray will

never be a contributing factor

in the death of a subject

resisting arrest. In the incustody death study summarized here, the evidence led

the author to believe that,

except for two cases, the

deaths could be explained as

being caused by the struggle

with officers and the presence of drugs or alcohol (or

both) even if OC had not

been used.
13

THE EFFECTIVENESS AND SAFETY OF PEPPER SPRAY

The clinical study of subjects

exposed to pepper spray

and placed under positional

restraint, even hogtied,

strongly indicates that these

conditions alone are unlikely

to produce any significant

risk to subjects. That study,

however, was performed on

healthy subjects who were

not on drugs or obese. They

had not fought with officers

or subjected themselves to

other physiological or psychological stress that could have

compromised their health.

These complicating conditions, often found in the

field, cannot be replicated in

a laboratory. Thus, there can

be no definitive clinical determination of the risk of pepper spray use in all arrest

circumstances.

The North Carolina study

provided results that, in

some instances, supported

the general belief that the

use of pepper spray will

reduce injuries to police officers and suspects and excessive force complaints against

police. Limitations in the

data, however, made it impossible to draw conclusions

on all three effectiveness

measures at all three study

sites.

The in-custody death study

noted that pepper spray was

reported to be effective in

only about 20 percent of the

incidents. This rate is much

lower than that found in a

1999 study of arrests involving pepper spray, which

examined a large number of

incidents in which no deaths

occurred. The subjects in the

in-custody death study had a

much higher rate of drug use,

however, and there is evidence that pepper spray is

less effective on subjects

who are on drugs. A possible

implication of these observations is that officers may

want to move quickly to

another force option if subjects appear to be on drugs

and seem unaffected by a

blast of pepper spray that

clearly hit them in the face.

Doing so could reduce risks

to officers from continually

aggressive subjects.

The results of all studies discussed in this Research for

Practice seem to confirm that

pepper spray is a reasonably

safe and effective tool for

law enforcement officers

to use when confronting

uncooperative or combative

subjects; they provide no reason to stop using this important less-than-lethal weapon.

Other studies continue to be

conducted on pepper spray,

however, and this will not be

the last word on the subject.
14

RESEARCH FOR PRACTICE / APR. 03

Additional reading

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.

Kaminski, Robert J., Steven

M. Edwards, and James W.

Johnson, “The Deterrent

Effects of Oleoresin Capsicum on Assaults Against

Police: Testing the VelcroEffect Hypothesis,” Police

Quarterly 1 (2) (1998): 1–20.

National Law Enforcement

Technology Center, “Positional Asphyxia—Sudden Death,”

National Law Enforcement

Technology Center Bulletin,

Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Justice,

National Institute of Justice,

June 1995.

Notes

1. Granfield, John, Jami Onnen, and

Charles S. Petty, “Pepper Spray and

In-Custody Deaths,” Executive Brief:

Science and Technology, International Association of Chiefs of Police

and National Institute of Justice,

March 1994.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. Much of this skepticism resulted

from a case in which a forensic

pathologist answered that he could

not prove, in the case in question,

that death resulted from positional

asphyxia. (See Price v. County of San

Diego 990F Supp 130.)

5. More information on this study

can be found in Chan, Theodore C.,

et al., Pepper Spray’s Effects on a

Suspect’s Ability to Breathe, Research in Brief, Washington, DC:

U.S. Department of Justice, National

Institute of Justice, December 2001,

NCJ 188069.
The National Institute of Justice is the

research, development, and evaluation

agency of the U.S. Department of Justice.

NIJ provides objective, independent, 

nonpartisan, evidence-based knowledge 

and tools to enhance the administration 

of justice and public safety. 

NIJ is a component of the Office of Justice

Programs, which also includes the Bureau

of Justice Assistance, the Bureau of Justice

Statistics, the Office of Juvenile Justice

and Delinquency Prevention, and the

Office for Victims of Crime.