revised on 1/6/98 Police Use of Force Collection of National Data By Lawrence A. Greenfeld Patrick A. Langan, Ph.D. Steven K. Smith, Ph.D. BJS Statisticians with assistance from Robert J. Kaminski, National Institute of Justice November 1997, NCJ-165040 U.S. Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics Jan M. Chaiken, Ph.D. Director This report was written by Lawrence A. Greenfeld, Patrick A. Langan, and Steven K. Smith of the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Information on the programs at the National Institute of Justice was provided by Robert J. Kaminski. Jodi Brown assisted with verification. Tom Hester and Tina Dorsey edited and produced the report, assisted by Jayne Robinson. Marilyn Marbrook supervised final production, assisted by Yvonne Boston. The authors would like to gratefully acknowledge the numerous people who made the development and administration of the Police-Public Contact Survey possible. At the Bureau of the Census, Kathy Creighton, Chief Crime Surveys Branch of the Demographic Surveys Division, Marilyn Monahan, and Edwina Jaramillo all facilitated the final construction of the questionnaire and managed the field aspect of data collection. Ruth Beads and Steve Phillips of the Programming Branch processed the data and Dave Hubble of the Statistical Methods Division provided the estimation specifications. In addition, we would like to express our appreciation to the more than two dozen people who provided comments on the questionnaire during its development. Finally, we would like to extend our thanks to Mark Henriquez and John Firman of the International Association of Chiefs of Police who contributed information on the activities of their organization on this topic. Data presented in this report can be obtained from the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data at the University of Michigan, 1-800-999-0960. An electronic version of this report and other reports are available from the BJS Internet page: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Cover graph: About 1 in 5 persons age 12 or older had a face-to-face contact with a police officer during 1996. About a quarter of 1% of all persons of this age alleged that police threatened or used force. Number of residents - 216 million No face-to-face contact Face-to-face contact with with police in 1996 police in 1996 171 million 45 million Residents Victim Force needed or witness threatened or offered to crime or used during help 14.4 million the contact 14.6 million (32% of 500,000 (33% of contacts) (1% of contacts) contacts) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Contents Foreword Highlights National data collection on police use of force Planning for a national data collection program The Police-Public Contact Survey National Police-Use-of-Force Database Project National research on the use of force by police Plans and recommendations for the collection of data on police use of force Appendixes Questionnaire for Police-Public Contact Survey Appendix I: Selected responses to Police-Public Contact Survey Appendix II: Data tables from Police-Public Contact Survey Foreword This publication represents the second annual report to the Congress as required by Section 210402 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, which mandates the acquisition of data by the Attorney General on the "use of excessive force by law enforcement officers." The findings reported are the result of the joint efforts of the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) and the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) to undertake the data collection and research activities outlined in the initial report. The first report, National Data Collection on Police Use of Force, NCJ-160113, April 1996, described the activities that would be carried out in 1996 as experiments in both learning from the public about their contacts with the police and learning from the police what kinds of information they maintain on their contacts with the public. In addition, the first report described some of the new research projects that had been fielded at various sites examining force and the circumstances surrounding its use. To learn more about the use of force requires an understanding of the reasons for and the results of police-citizen encounters. During 1996, BJS carried out a special survey of 6,421 residents age 12 or older entitled the Police-Public Contact Survey. The survey was designed to obtain information to help guide future development of a final questionnaire on this topic. The pilot survey was not intended as a source of detailed or precise statistics on the topic of police use of force. However, its results do provide preliminary estimates of the prevalence of citizen contacts with the police, including contacts in which police use force. One of the most significant developments from fielding the Police-Public Contact Survey is that we are now able to estimate, for the first time, the prevalence of all kinds of encounters between the police and members of the public, favorable as well as unfavorable. In 1996, for example, about 45 million Americans age 12 or older (about 1 in 5 residents of this age) were estimated to have had at least one face-to-face contact with a police officer. Of these, about 500,000 (about 1 in 500 residents of this age) were estimated to have been warned about a potential use of force or actually had force used against them during a contact with police during 1996. Although the preliminary survey did not permit estimating the extent of "excessive" use of force, it is clearly only a small fraction of this number. BJS and NIJ also undertook a joint project with the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) to acquire use of force data from local law enforcement agencies. Now in its second year of funding, this project has focused on developing a uniform set of data collection goals and developing a constituency for supplying data on these incidents. During the past year, nearly 400 local law enforcement agencies indicated an interest in the project by requesting copies of the data collection instruments and the software devised by the project to collect incident-level data for reporting to the national database. The project has also established a World Wide Web site to advise the public and law enforcement agencies about the mission of the data collection effort (http://www.policeforce.org). We believe these data collection efforts have initiated a new opportunity to better understand what takes place when citizens and police interact. For the majority of such contacts, members of the public initiate the contact with the police, and most often it is to report a crime or seek assistance. We gratefully acknowledge the assistance of attendees at the Police Use-of-Force Workshop in 1995, the IACP, participating law enforcement agencies, the Bureau of the Census, and those persons who provided information to the Police-Public Contact Survey. Jan M. Chaiken, Ph.D. Director Bureau of Justice Statistics Jeremy Travis Director National Institute of Justice -------------------------------------------------- Highlights from the Police-Public Contact Survey -------------------------------------------------- Prevalence of citizen contact with police * An estimated 44.6 million persons (21% of the population age 12 or older) had a face-to-face contact with a police officer during 1996. * Men, whites, and persons in their 20's were the most likely to have face-to-face contact. * Hispanics and blacks were about 70% as likely as whites to have contacts with the police. * Nearly 3 in 10 persons with a contact in 1996 reported multiple contacts with police during the year. ---------------------------------------------------------------- About the Police-Public Contact Survey In 1996 the Census Bureau interviewed a nationally representative sample of 6,421 persons age 12 or older. Extrapolated to a national population, the 6,421 represent nearly 216 million persons. Interviewers determined that 1,308 out of the 6,421 had face-to-face contact with police during the year. The 1,308 represent about 44.6 million persons nationwide. Of the 6,421 persons, 14 said that they were hit, 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 that they experienced some other form of force. Extrapolated to a national population, the 14 represent nearly 500,000 persons. Because the 500,000 estimate is based on so few cases, there is a wide margin of error around the 500,000 figure. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Reasons for citizen contact with police * The most common reasons cited for contact with police among residents age 12 or older: -- an estimated 33% of residents who had contact with police had asked for or provided the police with some type of assistance; and -- an estimated 32% of those who had contact with police had reported a crime, either as a victim or a witness. Receiving traffic tickets and being involved in traffic accidents were also common reasons for police contacts. -- For just under a third of those with contacts, the police initiated the contact; for most, nearly half of those with contacts, the citizen had initiated the contact. (The remainder were unclear from the data.) -- Teenagers were the most likely to have a police-initiated contact, and persons age 60 or older were the least likely. -- Persons age 60 or older were the most likely to have a citizen-initiated contact with the police, and teenagers were the least likely. -- Hispanics had a higher level of police-initiated contacts and a lower level of self-initiated contacts. Police actions during contacts with citizens -- An estimated 1.2 million persons were handcuffed during 1996, or about 0.6% of the population age 12 or older. -- Men, minorities, and persons under the age of 30 represented a relatively large percentage of those handcuffed, compared to their representation among persons with contact with police. -- An estimated 500,000 persons (0.2% of the population age 12 or older) were hit, held, pushed, choked, threatened with a flashlight, restrained by a police dog, threatened or actually sprayed with chemical or pepper spray, threatened with a gun, or experienced some other form of force. Of the 500,000, about 400,000 were also handcuffed. -- The total estimated number who were handcuffed or were hit, held, pushed, choked, threatened with a flashlight, restrained by a police dog, threatened or actually sprayed with chemical or pepper spray, threatened with a gun, or who experienced some other form of force was 1.3 million persons (0.6% of the population age 12 or older). -- Of the 1.3 million, about 60% were persons who, for some reason, had aroused police suspicions. Recommended changes to the survey -- Analysis of the pretest data reveals the following needed changes in future editions of the Police-Public Contact Survey: ask whether the respondent or the police initiated the contact; expand the list of specific reasons for police-public contact to obtain greater detail; ask whether, from the respondent's perspective, the force applied was appropriate or excessive; ask more questions about traffic stops; investigate possible discrepancies between what this survey found versus what is known from other data sources. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- The limited pretest sample found 1,308 respondents (representing 44.6 million persons) who had a face-to-face police contact-- Respondent self-reports Contact involved Indication Persons with threat or of possible All respondents police contact use of force provocation Total 6421 1308 14 10 White 5029 1086 7 5 Black 630 97 2 1 Hispanic 495 74 4 3 Other 267 51 1 1 Fourteen respondents reported a police threat or use of force. This included 7 of the 1,086 whites with police contact (0.6%), 2 of the 97 blacks with police contact (2.1%), and 4 of the 74 Hispanics with police contact (5.4%). The small number of respondents prevents a reliable comparison of police use of force experienced by black, white, and Hispanic respondents. The pretest findings do demonstrate that a full-sample survey could provide useful information about the differences, if any, in the extent to which racial and ethnic subgroups of the population experience police use of force. Ten of the fourteen respondents indicating that police force was threatened or used also reported their own actions may have provoked police to threaten or use force during the contact. For example, the respondent threatened the officer or resisted being handcuffed. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------ National data collection on police use of force ------------------------------------------------ Introduction The lack of reliable data on the extent of excessive force received the attention of the U. S. Congress in enacting the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. The act requires the Attorney General to collect data on excessive force by police and to publish an annual report from the data (Title XXI, Subtitle D, Police Pattern or Practice): Section 210402. Data on Use of Excessive Force -- * The Attorney General shall, through appropriate means, acquire data about the use of excessive force by law enforcement officers. * Data acquired under this section shall be used only for research or statistical purposes and may not contain any information that may reveal the identity of the victim or any law enforcement officer. * The Attorney General shall publish an annual summary of the data acquired under this section. The first report to Congress in April 1996 entitled National Data Collection on Police Use of Force summarized what was known from studies that examined the issue of police use of force and gathered data on the incidence of its use. The report noted some of the difficulties encountered by researchers and police executives in collecting use-of-force data, including variations in definitions of police use of force, reluctance by police agencies to provide reliable data, concerns about the misapplication of reported data, the lack of attention to provocation, and the degree of detail needed to adequately describe individual incidents. Federally funded efforts by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) and the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) were initiated during this past year to collect national data on police use of force. This report describes some results of these efforts. Subsequent annual reports will provide results from continuing federally sponsored activities. ------------------------------------------------ Planning for a national data collection program ------------------------------------------------ Police-use-of-force workshop In May 1995 the National Institute of Justice and the Bureau of Justice Statistics convened a Police Use-of- Force Workshop to discuss the provisions of Section 210402 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act. The workshop brought together over 40 experts, including chiefs of police, lawyers, researchers, police union representatives, Federal agency representatives, police trainers, and civilian review board representatives. The participants discussed the obstacles to acquiring data on excessive force and debated the most appropriate collection procedures. Workshop participants noted that acquiring data on the use of excessive force would be difficult because there is no single, consensual definition of "excessive force" among police, researchers, and legal analysts and there is little agreement about the best sources for obtaining data relevant to the incidence and prevalence of excessive force. Workshop participants considered possible methods that could be used to gather data from the two major sources of information: the public and law enforcement agencies. The first-year report to Congress In April 1996 BJS and NIJ forwarded the first annual report to the Congress that described the various strategies under consideration for addressing the requirements of Title XXI. This report (NCJ-160113, April 1996) reviewed the available research literature and discussed the objectives of newly funded research on this topic undertaken by NIJ. The report also described a number of potential data collection challenges, including variable definitions used by agencies in determining whether force had been used and other statistical and organizational impediments. The report examined the potential availability of use-of-force data from a variety of sources, such as official agency records (law enforcement records, court records, citizen complaint board records, arrest records, and injury reports), national surveys of law enforcement officers, and national surveys of the public. The report concluded with information on two data collection strategies selected, based on the workshop described above: * BJS would undertake a police-public contact supplement to the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), the second largest ongoing household survey sponsored by the Federal Government. * NIJ and BJS would jointly fund the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) to adapt and expand the data collection protocols for measuring the use of force developed by the Virginia Association of Chiefs of Police (VACOP) for use by local police departments in other States. Fielding the data collection programs The Police-Public Contact Survey BJS fielded a pretest of the police-public contact survey in 1996. Public review and comment on the survey instrument was obtained through a December 1995 notification in the Federal Register. A 3-month data collection effort was conducted during May, June, and July 1996 among 6,421 persons age 12 or older. The survey instrument reflected comments received from about two dozen external reviewers. In February 1997 the Bureau of the Census provided BJS with a final dataset containing the results of 6,421 interviews. The police use-of-force database project In 1993 and 1994 the VACOP asked local law enforcement agencies in the State to voluntarily provide data on the use of force. This effort laid the foundation for a Federal grant awarded to IACP jointly by BJS and NIJ in September 1995. This grant provided a year of funding for IACP to examine the viability of a national program to collect incident-level data on the use of force. Through a series of meetings around the country with State and local law enforcement agencies and the State Associations of Chiefs of Police (SACOP), the IACP developed a standardized data collection form for agencies to use in recording information about use-of-force incidents. During the year seven State associations volunteered to serve as pilot sites to evaluate the forms and to encourage participation within their respective States. In September 1996 a second-year grant was awarded to continue the program. IACP has created a version of the data collection forms that can be filled out on a computer using a Windows-based interface. As of March 1997 nearly 400 local law enforcement agencies had requested this data-entry software, though the agencies from whom data have been received to date are primarily participants in the VACOP program. The project has established an Internet site (http://www.policeforce.org) as a source of information for the public and also for participating local law enforcement agencies. Future data collection The Police-Public Contact Survey offered a useful opportunity to assess the public's willingness to describe their interactions with the police. The small size of this pilot study, however, imposed limitations for in-depth analysis. After reviewing the individual items on the pretest questionnaire for their clarity and production of useful data, BJS may propose, for public comment, a final version of its survey for fielding in 1998. BJS and NIJ have continued to fund the IACP's National Police-Use-of-Force Database Project in FY 97. No funding has been sought to continue the project in FY 98. In FY 95, FY 96, and FY 97, no funds were appropriated to support the two collection programs described. Because funding was specifically requested to fulfill the Title XXI mandate for annual data collection on the police use of excessive force, but was not provided, it is unclear whether the pilot efforts can be continued. --------------------------------- The Police-Public Contact Survey --------------------------------- The pretest Police-Public Contact Survey was conducted as a special supplement to an ongoing survey of households that provides data for the National Crime Victimization Survey. The NCVS is a continuously operating survey (since 1973) in which interviews are conducted with the American public concerning recent crime victimization experiences. Interviews (both face-to-face and by phone) are carried out by the U.S. Census Bureau under the sponsorship of the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Only persons age 12 or older are eligible for interview in the NCVS. Collecting the data Developing the questionnaire Prior to preparing the pretest version of the questionnaire, other questionnaires were examined that included questions about police use of force. Included among the questionnaires examined were instruments used by the Phoenix Police Department, the Virginia Association of Chiefs of Police, the Police Executive Research Forum, and the International Association of Chiefs of Police. BJS, together with NIJ, also commissioned three outside experts on the use of force to prepare papers recommending alternative measurement issues and strategies. BJS and NIJ jointly sponsored a Police Use-of-Force Workshop on May 31, 1995. The workshop solicited advice on data collection considerations from more than 40 police officials, researchers, and represent-atives of various organizations, including citizen complaint boards ***Footnote 1: See McEwen. National Data Collection on Police Use of Force, NCJ-160113, April 1996, for a list of attendees.*** FBI and Civil Rights Division officials from the Department of Justice also attended the workshop. The participants urged BJS to consider integrating questions on use of force by law enforcement into the ongoing questionnaire protocols. Following the workshop, BJS staff prepared an initial version of the questionnaire for the Police-Public Contact Survey. To obtain comments and suggestions for improving the questionnaire, BJS published an announcement in the Federal Register (Vol. 60, No. 234) on December 6, 1995, notifying interested persons that the questionnaire was available for review. In response to the notification and to other outreach efforts, BJS received comments from about 30 persons. Reviewers included eight police chiefs, three other police employees, and numerous researchers. As a result of reviewers' comments, significant modifications were made to the original questionnaire. Suggestions were adopted for: (a) distinguishing private security officers from public police, (b) distinguishing between different types of police contacts, (c) obtaining information on provocation associated with police use of force, (d) obtaining information both on prevalence and incidence of contacts, (e) and obtaining the respondent's assessment of the propriety of police conduct. Prior to finalizing the questionnaire, Census Bureau staff convened respondent focus groups and utilized the services of their cognitive laboratory staff to identify questions that would possibly cause difficulty for respondents. In addition, Field Division staff were asked to comment on potential problem areas for their staff in carrying out the interviews. Following these efforts, a final version of the instrument (see pages 23-28) was prepared by the Forms Design Branch of the Census Bureau, and interviewer training was conducted during April 1996. Selecting the sample and fielding the questionnaire The NCVS is based on interviews with representative samples of American households. Once a household is selected to be in the sample, all the members of that household age 12 or older are placed on a schedule to be interviewed every 6 months for 3 years. The survey design calls for each household member to be interviewed seven times altogether over the 3-year period. Of all the interviews conducted in the NCVS in any given month, approximately one-seventh involve persons being interviewed for the first time, another one-seventh involve those being interviewed for the second time, another one-seventh involve interviews for the third time, and so on. Persons designated to be asked the battery of questions for the Police-Public Contact Survey were limited to the one-seventh of the sample that was scheduled for its seventh (and final) interview in May, June, or July of 1996. These outgoing rotation households were chosen to minimize adverse effects on the NCVS of participation in this special supplement, while at the same time providing a nationally representative sample of respondents. Sample sizes were as follows: 1996 Number interview of persons month interviewed Total 6,421 May 2,144 June 2,217 July 2,060 Because those interviewed had a known probability of selection, it is possible to weight the sample data to provide national estimates of the number of persons with and without contacts with the police. The 6,421 persons interviewed represented 216,000,000 persons age 12 or older, an average statistical weight per person interviewed of nearly 34,000. Respondents in the Police-Public Contact Survey were asked about their contacts with police during the 12 months prior to their interview. Respondents interviewed in May 1996 were therefore 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. Interviews in July 1996 covered the period from August 1995 through July 1996. On average, the 12-month reference period included 6 months in 1995 and 6 months in 1996. To simplify presentation of findings from the Police-Public Contact Survey, this report describes police-public contacts as "1996 contacts," but in fact about half the contacts were in 1995 and half were in 1996. The questionnaire was fielded beginning in May 1996. Monthly activity and data reports were provided to BJS staff within 2 weeks following the month being reported upon. BJS staff carried out summary analyses of monthly data in an effort to identify and correct problem areas in the administration of the instrument. Field reports indicated no identifiable questionnaire, respondent, or response denigration problems during the 3-month period of interviewing. Interviewing was terminated in August 1996. Among persons who had no contact with police, the interview took 1 minute on average to complete. Among those who had police contact, the average length of the interview was 10 minutes. The survey of the 6,421 persons was intended as a pretest of the questionnaire. Consequently, the survey should not be viewed as a source of in-depth or precise statistics on the topic of police use of force. Rather, survey findings provide empirical information to help guide future development of an improved questionnaire on the topic. Because of the preliminary nature of the survey, the usual practice of testing observed differences for statistical significance was not followed. Many of the findings from the pretest were consistent with what might be expected. For example, the likelihood of a police-initiated contact was found to decline with age. However, certain findings were counterintuitive and should not be taken seriously due to the small sample size in this pretest ***Footnote 2: Estimates of rare events based on small samples are unreliable. With larger samples, estimates become more reliable.*** For example, males undoubtedly are more likely than females to be suspected of a crime. Yet pretest results indicated little difference between the sexes: 1.3% of males and 1.1% of females said they were suspected of a crime. Similarly, results regarding warrants are not credible: 0.2% of males and 0.3% of females said police had a warrant for their arrest. One possible explanation for the counterintuitive results is small sample size. One of the goals of the pretest was to investigate use of force by police during encounters with citizens. Two specific questions in the questionnaire were used to identify persons against whom force was used or threatened: questions 2a and 2b. * 2a. "In any of these contacts with a police officer, did any officer warn you that he or she would use physical force such as: a nightstick or baton, a firearm, a chemical spray, a flashlight, a police dog, or any device other than handcuffs to restrain you or to take you into custody?" * 2b. "In any of these contacts with a police officer, did any officer actually use any form of physical force against you including using any of the items just mentioned?" A "yes" to either 2a or 2b was the sole basis for distinguishing persons against whom force was used (or threatened) from those against whom force was not used (or threatened). On this basis, of the total 6,421 respondents in the survey, 14 were classified in this report as persons against whom force was used or threatened. Because of the small number of respondents reporting that force was used or threatened, in-depth analysis of the details of use-of-force incidents was not possible. Results of the data collection The prevalence of police contact with citizens In 1996 there were about 216 million U.S. residents age 12 or older. Based upon the results of the Police-Public Contact Survey, about 45 million U.S. residents, or about 21% of those age 12 or older, were estimated to have had at least one face-to-face contact with a law enforcement officer during the year (figure 1).***Footnote 3: Survey findings published throughout the report were all based on statistically weighted estimates.*** --------------------------------------------------------------------- Figure 1: Number of residents age 12 or older with face-to-face contact with police during 1996, by reason for contact Number of residents age 12 or older 216 million No face-to-face contact Face-to-face contact with police in 1996 with police in 1996 171 million 45 million Assistance from or to police 15 million Victim or witness to crime 14 million Traffic ticket from police 11 million Involved in/witnessed traffic accident 7 million Questioned as possible suspect in crime 4 million Police served warrant 0.5 million Community meetings/ casual contacts with police 2 million Other reasons 20 million Some respondents reported more than one reason for face-to-face contact with police during 1996. Consequently the sum of detailed reasons for contacts exceeds the 45 million perons shown. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Respondents were asked to identify the major reasons for their contacts with the police and also the frequency of such contacts during the year. The most common reasons given for having such contacts were that the respondent sought the assistance of or provided assistance to the police (15 million), was a victim of a crime or a witness to a crime (14 million), or received a traffic ticket from the police (11 million). About 1 in 4 males were estimated to have had a contact with the police compared to about 1 in 5 females (figure 2). Black and Hispanic residents were about equally likely to have had a contact with the police, and whites were more likely than either minority to have had a police contact during 1996. Persons age 60 or older had the lowest prevalence of contact with the police (11%), and persons age 20 to 29 had the highest contact levels (27%). --------------------------------------------------------------------- Figure 2: Percentage of respondents with face-to-face contact with police in 1996, by race, sex, and age Percent of residents age 12 or older with face-to-face contact with police in 1996 21% Contacts by sex of respondents Males 23% Females 19 Contacts by race and ethnicity of respondents White respondents 22% Black respondents 16 Hispanic respondents 15 Contacts by age of respondents Age 12-29 19% Age 20-29 27 Age 30-39 24 Age 20-49 24 Age 50-59 19 Age 60 or older 11 ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Traffic tickets Based on survey results, about 10.5 million people of the nearly 200 million age 16 or older -- or 5% -- received at least 1 traffic ticket in 1996. The overall national rate rises to 6% when the 10.5 million are calculated as a percentage of the Nation's 177 million licensed drivers. However, the rate for the youngest drivers -- teenagers in the age range 16 to 19 -- is nearly twice the overall national rate: 11.4%. The rate of being ticketed is highest for teenagers and declines with age (figure 3). ---------------------------------------------------------------- Figure 3: Percent of licensed drivers of each age receiving at least one traffic ticket in 1996 Estimated percent of licensed drivers Age receiving a traffic ticket 16-19 11.4% 20-29 9.7 30-39 7.1 40-49 5.0 50-59 3.8 60 or older 2.0 Overall 6.0% Note: The number of licensed drivers at each age was obtained from Highway Statistics, 1995, the Federal Highway Administration. --------------------------------------------------------------- Estimated percent of licensed drivers who received a traffic ticket within each age group in 1996 Overall -- 6.0% 16-19 -- 11.4 20-29 -- 9.7 30-39 -- 7.1 40-49 -- 5.0 50-59 -- 3.8 60 or older -- 2.0 The high ticketing rates of teenagers is reflected in the fact that licensed drivers age 16 to 19 account for about 5% of all drivers but nearly 10% of those receiving tickets. Percent of: Those with Drivers tickets Total 100.0% 100.0% 16-19 5.2% 9.8% 20-29 19.0 30.9 30-39 23.2 27.4 40-49 20.3 17.1 50-59 13.1 8.2 60 or older 19.3 6.5 Among the 10.5 million who received a traffic ticket in 1996, an estimated 15.5%, or about 1.6 million persons, received more than 1 ticket during the year. The 1.6 million represent about 1% of the 177 million licensed drivers. Teenagers and persons in their twenties accounted for just over 60% of those with multiple traffic tickets during 1996, more than double their share of licensed drivers. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Citizens with multiple police contacts Some of the respondents had repeated contacts with police during 1996 (figure 4). Among persons who reported a crime to police, approximately a fourth said they reported a crime on more than one occasion during the year. The repeat contact rate was also a fourth for certain other contacts: ask police for help, offer help to police, and witness to a crime. The repeat contact rate was below a fourth among those who said they were ticketed (16%), those who were in an accident (9%), those who had witnessed an accident (13%), those who were victims (15%), those who felt they had been suspected of a crime (11%), and those who were questioned about their presence in a particular area (19%). The repeat contact rate was highest among persons who had casual encounters with police (60%) and those who attended community meetings with police (41%). ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Figure 4: Of persons with each type of contact, the percent having more than one contact of that type, 1996 Percent of those with multiple face-to-face contacts with police Report a crime 24.1% Need help 26.0 Help police 26.0 Traffic ticket 15.7 Involved traffic accident 8.5 Witnessed traffic accident 12.9 Crime victim 15.4 Witnessed a crime 23.4 Suspect in a crime 11.2 Questioned about presence 18.6 Served a warrant 43.1 Casual encounter 60.3 Community meetings 40.9 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Reasons for contacts with police Among residents age 12 or older, an estimated 7% said they had a contact with a police officer during 1996 because they had witnessed a crime or they had been the victim of a crime (figure 5). About the same percentage of the population said they had sought the assistance of the police for some other reason, and about 5% of residents of this age said they had received a traffic ticket during the year. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Figure 5. Percentage of respondents with face-to-face contact with police in 1996, by selected reasons for contact Percent of residents with face-to-face contact with police 21% Witness to or victim of crime 7% Males 7% Females 6 White respondents 7 Black respondents 5 Hispanic respondents 4 Age 12-19 5 Age 20-29 9 Age 30-39 8 Age 40-49 8 Age 50-59 6 Age 60 or older 3 Needed help or offered help to police Males 7% Females 7 White respondents 7 Black respondents 5 Hispanic respondents 5 Age 12-19 5 Age 20-29 8 Age 30-39 8 Age 40-49 9 Age 50-59 7 Age 60 or older 4 Traffic ticket Males 6% Females 4 White respondents 6 Black respondents 3 Hispanic respondents 5 Age 12-19 5 Age 20-29 9 Age 30-39 7 Age 40-49 5 Age 50-59 4 Age 60 or older 2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- The survey questionnaire did not specifically ask who initiated the contact: the respondent or police. However, most contacts, by their nature, can be categorized as either police initiated or citizen initiated. Accordingly, respondents who said the reason for the contact was (a) to report a crime, (b) to ask police for help, (c) to offer assistance to police, (d) to give information about their victimization, or (e) to give information about a crime they had witnessed, were categorized as citizen-initiated contacts. Respondents who said the reason for the contact was that they were (a) ticketed, (b) a suspect, (c) questioned about being in a particular area, or (d) being served an arrest warrant, were categorized as police-initiated contacts. Other types of contacts -- such as having a casual encounter with police or attending a community meeting with police -- were left unclassified because such contacts are frequently initiated by either. Overall, about 44% of respondents had initiated the contact with the police during 1996, while for about 32% of respondents the police had initiated the contact -- for the remainder (24%), it is uncertain how the contact had been initiated (figure 6). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Figure 6: Percentage of face-to-face contacts which were police- or citizen-initiated in 1996, by race, age, and sex of respondents Police Respondent initiated initiated Total 31.5% 43.6% Male 34.1 41.3 Female 28.7 46.2 White 31.1 44.4 Black 30.0 41.7 Hispanic 41.9 34.1 Age 12-19 41.0 34.2 20-29 38.1 41.6 30-39 33.5 43.5 40-49 27.0 47.5 50-59 22.8 50.4 60 or older 18.6 45.1 Figure does not separately show those contacts in which it could not be determined who initiated the contact. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Male respondents are more likely than female respondents to report that the police initiated the contact, while female respondents are more likely than males to have initiated the contact ***Footnote 4: These and other differences noted in this report were not tested for statistical significance.*** While white and black respondents were about equally likely either to have initiated the contact or to have had the police initiate contact, Hispanic respondents reported a different basis for contacts with the police. Compared to white and black respondents, Hispanic respondents evidenced a higher level of police-initiated contact and a lower level of self-initiated contact. Language and cultural barriers as well as prior experience with police in native countries may play a significant role in the distribution of police contacts among Hispanic residents: Who initiates contact with police? Un- Re- deter- Total Police sident mined Reisdents White 100% 31% 44% 25% Black 100 30 42 28 Hispanic 100 42 34 24 The percentage of respondents reporting that police initiated the face-to-face contact declines with age. Conversely, the percentage of respondents reporting that they had initiated the police contact increases with age: Who inities contact with police? Un- Re- deter- Total Police sident mined Age 12-19 100 41% 34% 25% 20-19 100 38 42 20 20-39 100 34 44 22 40-49 100 27 48 25 50-59 100 23 50 27 60 or older 100 19 45 36 Actions by police during contacts with citizens The survey questionnaire included detailed questions (Questions 6a, 6b, and Check Item D) about specific types of force police might have used (or threatened to use). For example, one question asked: Did a police officer "kick you?" Another question asked: Did a police officer "push you?" Responses to each of the questions were analyzed to learn which specific types of force were alleged to have occurred ***Footnote 5: The questionnaire (Questions 2a and 2b) asked respondents whether police used or threatened force. Only respondents who said "yes" were then asked to be specific about the type of force used or threatened.*** For many types, no one in the survey said that type of force had occurred. For example, no one alleged that they had been kicked, hit with a flashlight, attacked by a police dog, or shot at by police. The specific types of force that were alleged to have occurred were: hit, held, pushed, choked, threatened with a flashlight, restrained by a police dog, threatened or actually sprayed with chemical or pepper spray, threatened with a gun, or some other form of force used against them. Altogether, 14 respondents, representing 500,000 persons nationwide (or 0.2% of the total population age 12 or older), alleged that one of the aforementioned types of force occurred. In addition to those types of force, approximately 400,000 out of the 500,000 would have also been handcuffed. The remaining 100,000 were not handcuffed. Separate from questions about police use of force, respondents were asked whether they had been handcuffed by police. Based on survey results, an estimated 1.2 million people altogether were handcuffed in 1996, or about 0.6% of the total population age 12 or older. The 1.2 million includes the 400,000 who were handcuffed during an encounter that also included one of the specified types of force. The remaining 800,000 out of the 1.2 million were handcuffed only. To summarize, in 1996 an estimated 500,000 persons were hit, held, pushed, choked, threatened with a flashlight, restrained by a police dog, threatened or actually sprayed with chemical or pepper spray, threatened with a gun, or had some other form of force used against them (figure 7). An estimated 800,000 had none of these forms of force used against them but were handcuffed only. The 500,000 plus the 800,000 total to 1.3 million, or 0.6% of the population age 12 or older. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Figure 7: Distribution of residents by whether or not the contact with police involved handcuffing or a threat or actual use of force, 1996 Number of persons with face-to-face contact with police in 1996 44,600,000 Contacts without Contacts with Contacts with force handcuffing only force or the threat of force 43,300,000 800,000 500,000* Sex of respondent Sex of respondent Sex of respondent Males 52% Males 67% Males 87% Females 48 Females 33 Females 13 Race and ethnicity Race and ethnicity Race and ethnicity of respondent of respondent of respondent White 82% White 64% White 48% Black 9 Black 15 Black 16 Hispanic 5 Hispanic 16 Hispanic 28 Age of respondent Age of respondent Age of respondent 12-19 12% 12-19 20% 12-19 51% 20-29 22 20-29 34 20-29 14 30-39 24 30-39 18 30-39 21 40 or older 40 40 or older 28 40 or older 14 Note: Figures may not add to 100% because of rounding and the exclusion of those persons classified as "other" from the presentation. *Most of the 500,000 also said they were handcuffed. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Demographic characteristics of persons having contact with police varied according to the nature of the contact. For example, in 1996 males accounted for 47% of those reporting no contact with the police, 53% of those with a contact, 57% of those contacts initiated by the police, and 73% of contacts in which handcuffing occurred. A similar pattern was seen for minorities and persons under age 30. Those describing contacts with police that resulted in handcuffing were the most likely to have been male, minority, and young: Type of contact with police in 1996 Hand- No Any Initiat- cuffed con- con- ed by during tact tact police contact Total (in millions) 171.0 44.6 14.0 1.2 Percent of total Male 47% 53% 57% 73% Minority 21 15 16 36 Under age 30 30 35 44 57 Statistics on handcuffing compared to FBI arrest statistics Demographic characteristics of persons handcuffed by police (from the Police-Public Contact Survey) generally correspond closely to characteristics of persons arrested by police (from the FBI's Crime in the United States 1995, Washington, D.C., 1996). Males comprised 73% of persons handcuffed and 80% of those arrested. Persons under age 30 were 57% of persons handcuffed and 59% of those arrested. However, blacks were 17% of persons handcuffed but 32% of those arrested. Police handling of suspects Based upon respondent descriptions of the reasons for a face-to-face contact with police, an estimated 4.4 million persons age 12 or older were questioned during 1996 either as possible suspects in a crime or because the police were suspicious about their presence in an area. About 17% of the 4.4 million, or 740,000 persons, reported that during the contact they were "patted down" or searched by the police (figure 8). Of the 4.4 million, altogether 365,000 (8%) were handcuffed. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Figure 8: Actions taken by police among self-perceived suspects in a crime, 1996 Persons who were questioned by police as possible suspects in a crime 4,430,000 Patted down by police Not patted down by police 740,000 3,690,000 Handcuffed 224,000 Handcuffed 141,000 Force used or threatened 292,000 Force used or threatened 69,000 Neither 224,000 Neither 3,480,000 Note: Respondents were classified as believing they were suspects if they reported the police asked them questions about a crime they thought they were involved in or if the police questioned them about their presence in a particular area. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Among those patted down by police, 70% said they were also handcuffed or force was threatened or used during the contact. For the 5 out of 6 respondents who attributed the contact to police suspicions about them and who were not patted down, less than 6% reported that they were handcuffed or threatened with force or had force used against them. It cannot be determined from these data the order in which the police decisions occurred to pat down, handcuff, or invoke force or the threat of force or even whether the police considered respondents as suspects prior to engaging in any of these actions. What is known is that about 8 out of 10 people who felt the police considered them possible suspects or who indicated they believed that the police were suspicious about them during a contact also reported they were not patted down, were not handcuffed, and were not threatened with force. Potential provocation during police-citizen contacts Because of the small number of respondents in the Police-Public Contact Survey who reported use of force or the threat of force, no firm conclusions can be drawn about possible provocation by the respondent even if he or she may have self-reported such provocation during a forceful contact with police. Therefore, the specific actions of the respondent are not presented. Respondents who reported that they were threatened with force or against whom force was used were queried about any of their behaviors during the contact with police that could have provoked police. Among the estimated 500,000 persons who were threatened with force or against whom force was actually used, most self-reported that they had engaged in at least 1 of the following -- threatening the officer, assaulting the officer, arguing with the officer, interfering with the officer in the arrest of someone else, possessing a weapon, blocking an officer or interfering with his/her movement, trying to escape or evade the officer, resisting being handcuffed, resisting being placed in a police vehicle, inciting bystanders to become involved, trying to protect someone else from an officer, or drinking or using drugs at the time of the contact. Of the 6,421 persons interviewed in the Police-Public Contact Survey, 14 (representing 500,000 persons) said police used or threatened force. The 14 were then asked a series of questions intended to determine if their conduct at the time may have pro- voked police to use force. Ten gave answers that suggested they may have provoked police. Answers from the remaining four did not suggest provocation. No firm conclusions can be drawn from these results. The main reason is that the sample upon which results are based is too small to yield a reliable national estimate of the number of instances of unprovoked police use of force. Conclusions Given the small number of cases, a preliminary conclusion that could be drawn is that use of force is rare in police-citizen contacts and it is often accompanied, according to the self-reports of respondents, by some possibly provocative behavior. Larger samples of citizens in the future would help to clarify both the extent and type of provocation in cases of police use of force and, more importantly, shed light on those interactions in which no potential provocation was reported to have occurred. ---------------------------------------------- National Police Use-of-Force Database Project ---------------------------------------------- Project background During the past 2 years, the National Police Use-of-Force Database Project has been under development as a pilot effort to collect incident-based use-of-force information from local law enforcement agencies. The project is administered by the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) with funding from the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) and the National Institute of Justice (NIJ). In September 1995 BJS and NIJ awarded a 1-year grant of $199,976 to the IACP to undertake the implementation of a common set of data collection activities across a number of jurisdictions. The collection would permit the development of comparable statistics on the use of force. During the first year the IACP held series of meetings with State and local agencies, various members of the State Associations of Chiefs of Police (SACOP), and the U.S. Border Patrol to formulate a standard data collection form to record incident-level police-use-of-force information. Seven SACOP organizations -- Arkansas, New Jersey, New York, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and West Virginia -- volunteered to serve as pilot sites to encourage participation among local police agencies within their States. The U.S. Border Patrol also volunteered to participate. The data collection instrument and data transmission procedures were field-tested by agencies in the pilot States during 1996. In September 1996 IACP was awarded a second grant to continue data collection and reporting. As of March 1997 almost 400 individual law enforcement agencies had indicated an interest in participation by requesting copies of the documentation for the collection program or by reviewing the Windows-based software that was developed to facilitate data collection/reporting to the national database. Expanding project participation The IACP has taken an active role in keeping the Nation's law enforcement community informed about the data base project. These activities include holding a workshop at the 1996 IACP annual conference, as well as providing information to the National Association of Women Law Enforcement Executives, the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives, the National Sheriffs' Association, and the Hispanic Command Officers Association. The project has been highlighted in several local and professional publications. For example, an article in the October 1996 issue of the journal Law Enforcement Technology was responsible for increased requests from local departments for the IACP software. The project has also developed a program of field outreach to the participating pilot sites and local departments. Project staff are currently working with several local police departments to develop an on-line report that will meet or exceed the current police use-of-force accreditation requirement of the Commission for Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies, Inc. (CALEA). Furthermore, technical assistance from the IACP is available to all participating agencies and those interested in participating. Project home page (www.policeforce.org) In December 1996 the National Police Use-of-Force Database Project implemented an Internet site on the World Wide Web. The website facilitates public access to information about the project. It contains a general description of the project as well as electronic links to other criminal justice agencies such as the BJS, NIJ, and the FBI. Additionally, it contains links to several comprehensive directories of law enforcement agencies with Internet websites. Data collection procedures Each participating agency uses the electronic use-of-force form to record information surrounding the incident. These incidents are then aggregated and either sent to the participating SACOP office and then forwarded to the IACP or sent directly to the IACP. Procedures to protect agency identification The actual name and location of each participating agency are not available on the dataset. At the time of software installation, each local agency is provided a randomly generated unique identification number to accompany their data submission. This ensures the anonymity of contributing agencies. A second unique identification number is generated at the State level for statewide data transmitted to the IACP. Therefore the exact identification of the data contributor cannot be determined from the submitted data. Agencies can release their own data to the public if desired. Locally the information may be public as a matter of State law. Electronic file transfer Originally, the project was designed to use a floppy disk to transfer data from local and State agencies to the central database. However, as the number of participants in the project grows, the handling of numerous disks will become more difficult. A system to facilitate the electronic transfer of data from State and local agencies to the central database is being developed. A full-time automated data server has been dedicated for use-of-force project participants. The site provides the latest use-of-force software upgrades and technical documentation. Two SACOP States are using this facility to automate their transfer of data on a test basis. This will soon be expanded to all interested pilot States and independent local agencies. This activity will allow large amounts of data to be received efficiently and reduce reliance on floppy-disk transfer (figure 9). -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Figure 9: Participating agencies in the national use of force database project National dataset International Association of Chiefs of Police State Association of Chiefs of Police (Source Agencies) Federal law enforcement agencies (Source Agencies) State and local law enforcement agencies Individual law enforcement personnel Individual law enforcement personnel -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Types of data collected The automated database allows direct entry of incident-related information, including type of force used, characteristics of the officer and the subject, and whether a related complaint was filed. The incident record consists of three parts -- a form describing when the incident occurred and the circumstances, a form obtaining information on the officer involved and the type of force used, and a form on the subject, compiling demographic information as well as any forceful behavior on his/her part. Analytic opportunities The database project will support a wide variety of possible research activities relating to the officer, the subject, and the circumstances under which force is used in law enforcement. Among the types of standard reports that will be generated from the database project are -- * Type of force used by incident circumstance * Subject drug/alcohol intoxication at time of incident * Number of use-of-force incidents per officer * Force incidents by officer ranked by years of service * Force incidents by officer ranked by age of officer * Force incidents by subject ranked by age of subject * Subject ranked by type of force used * Race, gender, and education for officers and subjects * Complaints and complaint dispositions. Preliminary data While some preliminary data are available covering the first jurisdictions to participate, no specific statistical findings are included in this report, because data collection continues from other jurisdictions to ensure more complete coverage and greater representativeness. It is anticipated that data from this project will be available for analysis for the next annual report to the Congress. ----------------------------------------------------------- National research on the use of force by police by Robert J. Kaminski, National Institute of Justice ----------------------------------------------------------- Current research This section presents brief summaries of recently completed and ongoing National Institute of Justice (NIJ) supported research on police use of force. While these studies build on NIJ's history of funding on this particular issue,***Footnote 6: See, for example, Kenneth J. Matulia, A Balance of Forces (1982), supported by NIJ Grant No. 79-NI-AX-0131, and Arnold Binder, Peter Scharf, and Raymond Galvin, Use of Deadly Force by Police Officers. NIJ Final Report, Grant No. 79-NI-AX-0134, 1982.*** NIJ has also examined the problem of use of force between the police and the public within a broader context. For example, in 1996 NIJ and the Office of Community Oriented Police Services conducted the National Symposium on Police Integrity. Approximately 200 professionals -- including police executives; police officers; researchers; and labor union, civil rights, community, and government representatives -- were assembled for a 2 1/2-day meeting to discuss the current issues of police integrity. While the use of excessive force by police was not highlighted as a central topic, the issue was discussed and reviewed at the symposium in relation to selecting, hiring, training, and maintaining professional standards and integrity. NIJ also has supported research on violence against the police, such as Pinizzotto, Davis, and Miller's (1997) in-depth study of 52 officers seriously assaulted and Pate and Fridell's (1993) analysis of trends and circumstances of felonious killings of law enforcement officers. Regarding studies on the use of excessive force by police, four recent projects have been completed, and two additional studies are expected to be finished this year. Survey of agencies In 1992, Antony Pate and Lorie Fridell received an NIJ grant to survey a representative sample of 1,697 law enforcement agencies***Footnote 7: The sample consisted of 1,016 municipal police departments, 588 sheriffs' agencies, 43 county police departments, and 50 State police agencies, from which 1,111 completed surveys were obtained (representing a 65.5% response rate).*** regarding their use-of-force reporting policies, the types of force used by officers, citizen complaints about excessive force, the disposition of those complaints, and litigation concerning allegations of excessive force in the previous year. Among the findings are that most agencies mandate the reporting of only more serious forms of force usage by officers (for example, firearm discharges); the use of unarmed physical force is much more common than the use of less-than-lethal weapons or firearms; rates of excessive use-of-force complaints ranged from 15.7 to 47.5 per 1,000 sworn personnel, depending on agency size; and 329 responding agencies reported 2,558 civil suits filed in 1991 resulting from excessive force charges, while 348 responding agencies reported 122 criminal charges, and 114 responding agencies reported paying almost $50 million in civil damages among those cases disposed in 1991, even though few cases were resolved in favor of the litigant (two-thirds of the civil suits were pending at the time of the survey). Findings from the survey were published in two volumes by The Police Foundation in Police Use-of-Force: Official Reports, Citizen Complaints, and Legal Consequences (Pate and Fridell, 1993). Researchers' recommendations The Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) received an NIJ grant to bring together top researchers in the policing and criminal justice field to review, synthesize, and present new theoretical approaches and empirical research addressing the problem of excessive force by police. In PERF's publication, edited by William Geller and Hans Toch, contributing authors addressed definition and measurement issues, correlates of police use of force, administrative review procedures, the utility of lawsuits for preventing brutality, public opinion about excessive force, police recruit screening methods, theoretical and international perspectives on excessive force, and other issues. While the findings and recommendations from this report are too numerous to summarize here, they are presented in PERF's report And Justice for All: A National Agenda for Understanding and Controlling Police Abuse of Force (Geller and Toch, 1995). Police pursuits The issue of police pursuits and the use of excessive force was examined by Geoffrey Alpert, University of South Carolina, using multiple methods and sources of data (such as agency records, a national survey, and interviews with police managers, officers, and offenders). Based on a sample of 737 municipal and county police agencies ***Footnote 8: Four hundred thirty-six agencies provided usable data, representing a 59.2% response rate.*** selected between October 1994 and May 1995, the study found that 38% of departments do not collect or maintain information on police pursuits and only 31% consistently maintain police-pursuit statistics. Most departments (91%) had written policies governing pursuits, but in many departments the policies were developed more than 25 years ago. Sixty percent of the agencies provide entry-level driver training to recruits, but little or no training on decisionmaking, such as when to pursue. In 1993, one-quarter of the departments experienced pursuits that resulted in officers using force to apprehend a suspect, but in only 24 incidents were allegations of excessive or unreasonable force filed against the officer. Case studies revealed that adopting a "violent-felony only" pursuit policy reduced pursuits from 279 in 1992 to 51 in 1993 in the Metro-Dade Police Department, while the number of pursuits increased from 17 in 1993 to 122 in 1994 following the adoption of a more liberal pursuit policy by the Omaha Police Department. This study also utilized multivariate analyses to identify factors predictive of pursuit-related accidents and injuries, and the likelihood of suspect escape. In addition, surveys of officers, jailed suspects, and the public were conducted. The full details of this study are available in the final report entitled Police Pursuit Driving and the Use of Excessive Force (Alpert, 1996). Police psychologists In The Role of Police Psychology in Controlling Excessive Force (1994), Ellen Scrivner examined the role of police psychologists in identifying risk factors among police officers that contribute to police use of excessive force in performing their duties. In addition to examining the types of services provided to officers in a sample of police agencies, her survey of 65 police psychologists identified five profiles of officers with excessive-force problems. These were officers with personality disorders, officers who experienced previous job-related traumatic incidents, officers who experienced early-career-stage problems (for example: impulsiveness or low tolerance for frustration), officers who were sensitive to challenge and provocation, and officers who were experiencing personal problems (for example, separation, divorce, or loss of status). Several suggestions for dealing with the problem of excessive force are offered in this report. Scrivner subsequently received a supplemental grant to examine model programs in police departments that use psychologists to develop interventions to respond to the use of excessive force by officers. The final report for this project has been reviewed and is being updated prior to publication. Phoenix police study The Phoenix Police Department, in conjunction with Rutgers University and Arizona State University, received an NIJ grant to study the incidence and nature of the force used by and against Phoenix police officers during arrest situations.***Footnote 9: The research team consisted of Joel Garner and Jeffrey Fagan (Rutgers University); Tom Schade, John Hepburn, and Aogan Mulcahy (Arizona State University); and John Buchanan and Richard Groeneveld Phoenix Police Department).*** Officers were surveyed over a 2-week period in June 1994, resulting in analysis of 1,585 adult custody arrests.***Footnote 10: This number represents 85% of the total adult custody arrests made during the study period.*** An additional sample of 185 suspect interviews were matched to the officer surveys to obtain the suspect's perspective of the arrest incident. Examining the full range or continuum of force used in arrest situations (from police presence to the use of deadly force), this study found that officers and suspects used some physical force in about 1 of every 5 and 1 of every 6 arrests, respectively; the magnitude of the force used by officers and suspects was typically at the low end of the continuum; officers used a weapon in only 2% of the arrests, which most often was a flashlight; and the single best predictor of police use of force was suspect use of force. Other predictors were whether the arrest involved both a male officer and suspect, whether the suspected offense was violent, and whether the suspect was involved with a gang, under the influence of alcohol, or known to be resistive, assaultive, or armed with a weapon. The Principal Investigator of the Phoenix study, Joel Garner, is currently engaged in a five-city replication.***Footnote 11: The cities are St. Petersburg, Florida; Dallas, Texas; Colorado Springs, Colorado; Charlotte, North Carolina; and San Diego, California.*** This multisite project builds upon and seeks to overcome certain limitations of the research from Phoenix. For example, it will attempt to examine the role of neighborhood characteristics as determinates of the amount of force used by and against the police. Findings from this project are expected in October 1998. Multidepartment study In An Analysis of Police Use-of-Force Data, Geoffrey Alpert is analyzing and comparing data sets on police use of force from three police departments (Eugene and Springfield, Oregon; Metro-Dade, Florida). These data will be analyzed to determine the relationships among the amounts of resistance met by police, the amounts of force used by officers to control suspects, and the demographic characteristics of suspects and officers. A unique aspect of this study is that the use-of-force data collected by the Eugene and Springfield Police Departments was obtained within a broader context of determining the essential types and minimum levels of physical abilities (work skills) that police officers require to perform their duties. Officers in these agencies were asked to complete a "physical abilities job task analysis" data collection form for 1 month beginning in 1995. Because the focus of the survey was not to obtain data on use of force for departmental review purposes, some of the validity problems typically associated with the reporting on use of force by officers may be avoided. The Metro-Dade Police Department data consist of 1,311 use-of-force reports from 1992 to 1994. These reports contain information regarding the type of force used, the amount of citizen resistance, and the nature of injuries incurred. This study is expected to be completed in June 1998. To obtain copies of these final reports, please contact NCJRS at 1-800-732-3277. References Alpert, Geoffrey. Police Pursuit Driving and the Use of Excessive Force. NIJ Final Report, Grant No. 95-IJ-CX-0066, 1996. Binder, Arnold; Peter Scharf; and Raymond Galvin. Use of Deadly Force by Police Officers. NIJ Final Report, Grant No. 79-NI-AX-0134, 1982. Fridell, Lorie A. and Antony M. Pate. Death on Patrol: Felonious Homicides of American Police Officers. NIJ Draft Final Report, Grant No. 91-IJ-CX-K025, 1995. Garner, Joel; John Buchanan; Tom Schade; and John Hepburn. Understanding the Use of Force By and Against the Police. NIJ Research in Brief, 1996. Geller, William A. and Hans Toch, eds. And Justice for All: A National Agenda for Understanding and Controlling Police Abuse of Force. Washington, D.C.: Police Executive Research Forum, 1995. Matulia, Kenneth J. A Balance of Forces. Gaithersburg, MD: International Association of Chiefs of Police, 1982. Pate, Antony M. and Lorie A. Fridell. Police Use of Force: Official Reports, Citizen Complaints, and Legal Consequences, Volumes I and II. Washington, D.C.: The Police Foundation, 1993. Pinizzotto, Anthony J.; Edward F. Davis; and Charles E. Miller III. In the Line of Fire: A Study of Selected Felonious Assaults on Law Enforcement Officers. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 1997. Scrivner, Ellen M. The Role of Police Psychology in Controlling Excessive Force. NIJ Research Report, NCJ-146206, 1994. --------------------------------------------------------------- Plans and recommendations for the collection of data on police use of force --------------------------------------------------------------- National Institute of Justice In FY 97 NIJ continues to fund research on police activities and would consider proposals that address police use-of-force issues. In progress police use-of-force projects previously described will continue throughout 1998. Bureau of Justice Statistics Questionnaire for Police-Public Contact Survey No major problems were encountered in using the questionnaire with the 6,421 respondents. Nevertheless, in the process of analyzing the data on the 6,421, ideas emerged for improving both the administration and content of the questionnaire, most notably: * Respondents were presented with a list of 12 specific reasons for having contact with police: for example, "to report a crime" or "you were involved in a traffic accident." A 13th reason was nonspecific: "some other reason -- Please specify." Most of the reasons given under "Please specify" are listed in Appendix I. As can be seen, many need not have been separately specified because they clearly fit into 1 of the existing 12 categories. Some, though, did not conveniently fit into any of the 12. For example, some respondents said their job (as probation officer, as parole officer, or as court employee) brought them into daily contact with police, suggesting the need to expand the questionnaire's list of specific reasons for contact to include "job-related contacts." Other categories should be added as well. Note that altogether about 160 respondents gave a reason under "Please specify" but only about a third of them were also coded as responding affirmatively to any of the 12 specific reasons. Thus, more respondents had 1 of the 12 specified types of contacts than were coded by interviewers. * Only respondents who said police questioned them about suspected criminal activity were asked whether they were frisked. Consequently, it is not possible to estimate from the survey the percentage of the total population who were frisked, only the percentage of self-described suspects who were frisked. The question of frisking should be asked of all respondents who had face-to-face contacts. Similarly, not all respondents were asked whether they were subsequently charged with a crime, and not all were asked for their evaluation of police conduct during their encounter. The survey's value would be enhanced if all respondents were asked such questions. * The questionnaire asked respondents whether police used or threatened "force." Only respondents who said "yes" were then asked to be specific about the type of force used or threatened. A better approach to identifying persons against whom force was used might be to present the respondent with a list of actions -- for example, hit you, pushed you, threatened you with a flashlight -- and have the respondent indicate all that apply. All respondents would then be asked whether they perceived that the police had used or threatened force. A respondent who does not say that any of the listed actions took place, yet says force was used, would then be asked to specify the type of force. All respondents who said that force was used would then be presented a list of citizen actions that sometimes provoke police to use force -- for example, argued with police, resisted being handcuffed, tried to run away -- and asked to indicate all that apply. * Many of the contacts that citizens have with police are in connection with traffic stops. To learn more about these stops, the questionnaire should ask whether the respondent was the driver or a passenger; whether the driver received a ticket, a written warning, or a verbal warning; and what the nature of the stop was (random stop, moving violation). * Respondents should be asked who initiated the contact: the respondent or police. * Certain findings (for example, number of persons handcuffed, number who were crime victims) appeared inconsistent with what other national statistics indicate or suggest. Efforts to improve the survey should investigate such inconsistencies. National police use-of-force database project The project is designed to provide useful information for the Nation to better understand the circumstances under which force is used by the police and to estimate the overall number of incidents. Just as important as these aims is that local agencies can use the data generated by their own departments for better resource management and service delivery. Data can be used by department managers to identify the most likely circumstances under which force is used by their officers and to develop training curricula for officers regarding the appropriate level of force and use of equipment. Law enforcement will be in a better position to assess the change in use of force resulting from new areas of training and equipment. The project will continue to streamline the data collection and transmission procedures to facilitate data collection and reporting. Expanding the number of participating agencies and docu-menting the utility of the data are also important ongoing project activities. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I: Selected responses to Police-Public Contact Survey ------------------------------------------------------------------ Selected responses to question 1c. "How would you best describe the reasons for these in-person contacts with the police over the last 12 months?. . . Please specify" Specified reasons that fit into category (a) to report a crime 1) Had contact with police when machinery owned by respondent was vandalized 2) Had contact with police when some kids threw rocks at son's car and broke windshield 3) Showed police where vandalism at work occurred 4) Reported theft of car 5) Theft of car stereo when someone broke in car 6) Reported break-in of residence/business 7) To report theft of property 8) To report a stalking 9) Called police to pick up stolen tires found in bushes 10) Provided police with a statement for a robbery report 11) Police talked to respondent about someone using credit card 12) Respondent is supervisor -- called police when employees were threatened to be shot 13) Respondent works at convenience store -- called police for gas run-offs 14) Police responded to 911 call 15) Police responded to house burglar alarm 16) Respondent shot someone 17) Talked to police about a stabbing outside apartment building -- respondent was not a witness 18) Saw police when found suspicious narcotics and turned them in 19) To aid in police investigation Specified reasons that fit into category (b) to ask for assistance 1) Locked keys in car 2) Alarm system malfunctioned -- police investigated 3) Driveway blocked by vehicle -- police called 4) Police officer gave respondent's car a jump-start 5) Officer pulled beside car to shine lights while fixing flat tire 6) Reported daughter/brother as runaways 7) Police had to remove son with mental problems from school 8) Police came because respondent had threatened suicide 9) Police looking for respondent's sister's children -- wanted officer present when respondent told sister 10) Police contacted respondent to let him know son was killed in car wreck 11) Police responded to a fire 12) Death at home 13) To discuss personal matters regarding son's ex-wife 14) Saw police about permit/license 15) Saw police after neighbor child came to respondent's door in distress 16) Asked for increased police surveillance 17) To check out Census Bureau lady 18) 93-year-old respondent called police because he thought man was going to give him a bath 19) Ran out of gasoline 20) Asked officer for directions 21) Received a ride 22) Conservation officer -- bow hunter safety course 23) Personal reason 24) Police wrote up accident report when respondent fell on pavement 25) Police contacted respondent about a prescription 26) When tornado hit my house Specified reasons that fit into category (c) to let the police know about a problem 1) To report a smoking incident on city bus 2) Disturbance outside respondent's home 3) Saw police at school when there are problems 4) Police responded to fights (domestic violence, other fights) 5) Saw police when let them know about bike in walkway 6) Reported a lady with no shoes outside at 4 in the morning in sub-zero weather 7) Reported suspicious people in the neighborhood 8) Had sold house to people in Montana Freemen compound 9) Police contacted respondent regarding dumpster in neighborhood 10) Animals in neighborhood Specified reasons that fit into category (d) you received a traffic or parking violation 1) Received a ticket (not wearing a seatbelt, driving too close, parking ticket) 2) Received a warning for speeding 3) Stopped for a traffic violation 4) Parked in fire lane -- officer asked respondent to leave 5) Respondent forgot to put tag decal on license tag -- officer did not give ticket or warning Specified reason that fit into category (e) you were involved in a traffic accident 1) Relating to an accident (to report an accident, make out an accident report) Specified reason that fit into category (h) a crime in which you had been a witness 1) Witnessed a crime Specified reasons that fit into category (i) a crime they thought you were involved in 1) Police confiscated property 2) Police thought respondent threw egg at car Specified reasons that fit into category (l) casual encounters with police 1) Gave donation to police for police association 2) Spoke to officers on a casual basis 3) Police seeking money for charity 4) Friends with policeman 5) Helped officer find an address 6) Police came into restaurant 7) Some officers are customers of respondent 8) Social basis (to have coffee, say hello) 9) Doing volunteer work Specified reasons that fit into category (m) community meetings with police 1) School meeting in class regarding police work 2) Gets in contact with the police for the Town WATCH 3) While working on election board 4) Police talked to students at school Specified reasons that did not fit into existing categories Legal/criminal justice contacts 1) Asked to leave during divorce proceeding 2) Neighbor complained about children making too much noise 3) Swimming in river 4) Saw police when doing community service to satisfy fighting 5) Saw police when posted bail 6) Saw police when visiting someone in State prison 7) Police contacted respondent about shoveling snow into street 8) Neighbors complained about music being too loud during party 9) Saw police when took gun in to be destroyed 10) Son got in fight at school, police brought him home 11) Son shooting fireworks _ neighbors called police 12) Traffic school 13) Civil summons, court order, served subpoena 14) Jury duty 15) Respondent working with undercover policeman 16) Respondent works at bank -- police investigating ATM fraud 17) Respondent had to go to court 18) Crime was committed in another apartment -- police came to respondent's apartment by mistake 19) Saw police when escorted rape victim to hospital 20) Police looking for someone Job-related contacts 1) Respondent is a school official who meets with police after a student gets arrested 2) Works with police on a daily basis 3) During court proceedings -- respondent is a lawyer 4) Respondent works with local sheriff to help people locate flaws in security systems 5) Respondent is chief of security on job -- called police for authorization to search other employees' workplace 6) Respondent works at hospital and officers bring in prisoners for treatment 7) Sees police every day on job because respondent notifies police of people needing help (EMT worker) 8) Respondent is dispatcher for wrecking service -- has contact with police routinely 9) Works with police (bail bondsman and town mayor) Other motor-vehicle-related contacts 1) Passenger in car when driver received speeding ticket 2) Police stopped car for routine traffic stop 3) Pulled over because had arm out of car window 4) Police stopped respondent to check weight of truck 5) To pick up relative's car 6) Department of Transportation inspection 7) Police conducted a safety check 8) Talked to police about a ticket daughter received and should not have Questioning by the police 1) Questioned by the police (for break-in of neighbor's house, police investigation of area crime) ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II Data tables from Police-Public Contact Survey ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Table 1a. U.S. population who had face-to-face contact with police, by sex, race, ethnicity, and reason for contact, 1996 Estimated percent of population Sex Race and ethnicity Reason for face-to-face contact Total Male Female White Black Hispanic Other For any reason 20.7 22.5 19.0 22.1 15.6 15.1 19.1 I reported a crime 5.9 6.1 5.7 6.5 4.1 3.7 4.4 I asked police for help 4.7 4.5 4.8 5.1 2.9 2.9 4.9 I reported a problem 3.7 4.0 3.3 3.9 2.0 3.2 4.2 Police ticketed me 5.1 6.1 4.1 5.5 3.2 5.0 3.1 I was in a traffic accident 2.5 2.6 2.5 2.7 2.0 1.4 2.3 I witnessed an accident 1.1 1.0 1.1 1.2 0.6 0.6 0.7 I was the victim of a crime 3.1 3.0 3.3 3.5 1.4 2.1 3.3 I witnessed a crime 1.6 1.9 1.4 1.7 1.6 1.0 1.0 Police suspected me of a crime 1.2 1.3 1.1 1.2 0.8 1.9 1.6 Police asked why I was there 1.2 1.5 1.0 1.3 1.4 0.5 1.9 Police had a warrant for my arrest 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.2 ... I had a casual encounter 3.7 3.9 3.5 4.2 2.5 1.9 1.9 I attended a community meeting 1.1 1.2 1.1 1.2 1.1 0.2 1.5 Some other reason 6.5 7.0 6.0 3.9 2.0 3.2 4.2 Estimated number Sex Race and ethnicity Reason for face-to-face contact Total Male Female White Black Hispanic Other Population total 215528900 104205370 111323530 163882680 25393550 17158920 9093740 For any reason 44556000 23399000 21158000 36262000 3964000 2593000 1738000 I reported a crime 12722000 6351000 6371000 10640000 1049000 634000 399000 I asked police for help 10087000 4735000 5352000 8393000 744000 500000 450000 I reported a problem 7892000 4194000 3698000 6449000 508000 557000 378000 Police ticketed me 10947000 6337000 4610000 8988000 815000 865000 278000 I was in a traffic accident 5454000 2677000 2777000 4501000 501000 241000 210000 I witnessed an accident 2326000 1076000 1250000 2007000 151000 102000 65000 I was the victim of a crime 6755000 3108000 3646000 5753000 343000 360000 299000 I witnessed a crime 3467000 1934000 1532000 2776000 419000 179000 93000 Police suspected me of a crime 2611000 1362000 1249000 1945000 197000 326000 143000 Police asked why I was there 2690000 1578000 1112000 2070000 361000 84000 175000 Police had a warrant for my arrest 492000 195000 297000 378000 84000 30000 ... I had a casual encounter 8042000 4104000 3938000 6901000 640000 327000 174000 I attended a community meeting 2437000 1201000 1236000 1986000 285000 32000 134000 Some other reason 14066000 7342000 6723000 11760000 1075000 724000 506000 Note: Persons having multiple contacts or more than one reason for any single contact appear in the table more than once. Consequently, the sum of the detailed reasons for contact exceeds the 44.5 million persons total shown. Percentages were derived from unrounded data. All population numbers are rounded. ... Not in sample. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Table 1b. U.S. population who had face-to-face contact with police, by age of respondent and reason for contact, 1996 Estimated percent of population in each age category Reason for face-to-face contact 12-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60 or older For any reason 18.6 27.3 24.3 23.6 18.7 10.9 I reported a crime 4.4 8.2 7.4 7.0 5.4 2.8 I asked police for help 3.5 5.7 5.6 6.2 4.4 2.4 I reported a problem 2.6 3.9 5.1 4.8 3.7 1.7 Police ticketed me 4.6 8.9 6.7 4.7 3.5 1.7 I was in a traffic accident 2.4 3.1 3.2 2.4 2.1 1.9 I witnessed an accident 1.2 2.2 1.2 0.8 1.1 0.1 I was the victim of a crime 3.1 4.2 4.3 3.2 2.3 1.5 I witnessed a crime 1.2 2.9 1.6 2.0 1.4 0.5 Police suspected me of a crime 2.4 2.0 1.1 0.9 0.8 0.4 Police asked why I was there 2.4 1.7 1.0 1.6 0.6 0.3 Police had a warrant for my arrest 0.6 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 I had a casual encounter 4.1 4.5 4.2 5.2 2.7 1.6 I attended a community meeting 1.3 0.6 1.4 1.8 1.1 0.6 Some other reason 5.5 7.9 6.4 8.7 6.8 3.9 Estimated number in each age category Reason for face-to-face contact 12-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60 or older Population total 30224900 36557440 43574000 38783630 24810910 41194440 For any reason 5634000 9967000 10588000 9147000 4634000 4490000 I reported a crime 1319000 3011000 3209000 2702000 1346000 1136000 I asked police for help 1062000 2081000 2420000 2413000 1081000 1000000 I reported a problem 783000 1408000 2239000 1866000 909000 687000 Police ticketed me 1388000 3262000 2898000 1805000 870000 688000 I was in a traffic accident 732000 1130000 1376000 912000 519000 785000 I witnessed an accident 356000 797000 538000 299000 277000 58000 I was the victim of a crime 930000 1535000 1865000 1241000 578000 605000 I witnessed a crime 370000 1075000 708000 767000 345000 202000 Police suspected me of a crime 726000 730000 484000 334000 189000 148000 Police asked why I was there 721000 616000 454000 625000 158000 117000 Police had a warrant for my arrest 190000 70000 76000 95000 30000 31000 I had a casual encounter 1237000 1659000 1812000 2025000 670000 640000 I attended a community meeting 400000 206000 598000 709000 279000 246000 Some other reason 1676000 2898000 2806000 3389000 1681000 1586000 Note: Percentages were derived from unrounded data. All population numbers are rounded. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Table 2a. U.S. population who had face-to-face contact with police, by sex, race and ethnicity, and reason for contact, 1996 Estimated percent of population Sex Race and ethnicity Reason for face-to-face contact Total Male Female White Black Hispanic Other For any reason 20.7% 22.5% 19.0% 22.1% 15.6% 15.1% 19.1% I was a victim or witness to crime 6.7 7.0 6.4 7.3 5.2 4.0 5.0 I needed or offered help 6.8 6.9 6.7 7.4 4.5 4.7 6.4 Police ticketed me 5.1 6.1 4.1 5.5 3.2 5.0 3.1 I saw or was in a traffic accident 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.5 2.0 1.6 3.0 I came under suspicion 2.1 2.3 1.8 2.0 1.7 2.1 3.1 Police had a warrant for my arrest .2 .2 .3 .2 .3 .2 ... I attended a community meet 1.1 1.2 1.1 1.2 1.1 .2 1.5 Some other reason 9.1 9.9 8.3 10.0 6.2 5.5 7.1 Estimated number Sex Race and ethnicity Reason for face-to-face contact Total Male Female White Black Hispanic Other Population total 215528900 104205370 111323530 163882680 25393550 17158920 9093740 For any reason 44556000 23399000 21158000 36262000 3964000 2593000 1738000 I was a victim or witness to crime 14417000 7247000 7170000 11970000 1310000 680000 458000 I needed or offered help 14586000 7144000 7443000 12052000 1138000 814000 582000 Police ticketed me 10947000 6337000 4610000 8988000 815000 865000 278000 I saw or was in a traffic accident 6744000 3280000 3465000 5694000 501000 274000 275000 I came under suspicion 4430000 2430000 2000000 3337000 443000 366000 283000 Police had a warrant for my arrest 492000 195000 297000 378000 84000 30000 ... I attended a community meeting 2437000 1201000 1236000 1986000 285000 32000 134000 Some other reason 19556000 10308000 9248000 16405000 1562000 945000 644000 Reason for face-to-face conSpecific items under question 1c that formed basis for categorized reason I was a victim or witness to crime (a) (g) (h) I needed or offered help (b) (c) Police ticketed me (d) I saw or was in a traffic accident (e) (f) I came under suspicion (i) (j) Police had a warrant for my arrest (k) I attended a community meeting (m) Some other reason (l) (n) (o) Note: Percentages were derived from unrounded data. All population numbers are rounded. ...Not in sample. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Table 2b. U.S. population who had face-to-face contact with police, by age of respondent and reason for contact, 1996 Estimated percent of population in each age category Reason for face-to-face contact 12-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60 or older For any reason 18.6 27.3 24.3 23.6 18.7 10.9 I was a victim or witness to crime 5.4 9.3 8.3 8 6.1 2.9 I needed or offered help 4.9 7.8 8.1 9.2 6.6 3.7 Police ticketed me 4.6 8.9 6.7 4.7 3.5 1.7 I saw or was in a traffic accident 3.1 4.4 3.6 3 2.6 1.9 I came under suspicion 3.7 2.9 1.8 2.4 1.2 0.5 Police had a warrant for my arrest 0.6 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 I attended a community meeting 1.3 0.6 1.4 1.8 1.1 0.6 Some other reason 8.4 11.1 9.4 12.1 8.2 5.1 Estimated number in each age category Reason for face-to-face contact 12-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60 or older Population total 30224900 36557440 43574000 38783630 24810910 41194440 For any reason 5634000 9967000 10588000 9147000 4634000 4490000 I was a victim or witness to crime 1617000 3389000 3605000 3103000 1511000 1191000 I needed or offered help 1474000 2846000 3535000 3549000 1646000 1507000 Police ticketed me 1388000 3262000 2898000 1805000 870000 688000 I saw or was in a traffic accident 943000 1623000 1575000 1179000 638000 785000 I came under suspicion 1112000 1077000 802000 927000 306000 206000 Police had a warrant for my arrest 190000 70000 76000 95000 30000 31000 I attended a community meeting 400000 206000 598000 709000 279000 246000 Some other reason 2531000 4044000 4090000 4704000 2045000 2111000 Reason for face-to-face contact Specific items under question 1c that formed basis for categorized reason I was a victim or witness to crime (a) (g) (h) I needed or offered help (b) (c) Police ticketed me (d) I saw or was in a traffic accident (e) (f) I came under suspicion (i) (j) Police had a warrant for my arrest (k) I attended a community meeting (m) Some other reason (l) (n) (o) Note: Percentages were derived from unrounded data. All population numbers are rounded. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Table 3. U.S. population who had face-to-face contact with police, by sex, race and ethnicity, age, and whether contact was citizen- or police-initiated, 1996 Estimated percent of population Sex Race and ethnicity Who initiated contact Total Male Female White Black Hispanic Other Any contact 20.7 22.5 19.0 22.1 15.6 15.1 19.1 Police 6.5 7.7 5.5 6.9 4.7 6.3 5.4 Respondent 9.0 9.3 8.8 9.8 6.5 5.2 8.4 Undetermined 5.1 5.5 4.8 5.4 4.4 3.6 5.2 Estimated number Sex Race and ethnicity Who initiated contact Total Male Female White Black Hispanic Other Population total 215528900 104205370 111323530 163882680 25393550 17158920 9093740 Any contact 44556000 23399000 21158000 36262000 3964000 2593000 1738000 Police 14052000 7975000 6077000 11280000 1191000 1087000 494000 Respondent 19420000 9655000 9765000 16114000 1653000 885000 768000 Undetermined 11085000 5769000 5316000 8868000 1120000 621000 476000 Not applicable (no conta 170972000 80807000 90166000 27621000 21430000 14566000 7356000 Estimated percent of population in each age category Who initiated contact 12-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60 or older Any contact 18.6 27.3 24.3 23.6 18.7 10.9 Police 7.6 10.4 8.1 6.4 4.3 2.0 Respondent 6.4 11.4 10.6 11.2 9.4 4.9 Undetermined 4.6 5.5 5.6 6.0 5.0 4.0 Estimated number in each age category Who initiated contact 12-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60 or older Population total 30224900 36557440 43574000 38783630 24810910 41194440 Any contact 5634000 9967000 10588000 9147000 4634000 4490000 Police 2310000 3798000 3550000 2467000 1057000 835000 Respondent 1928000 4149000 4611000 4343000 2333000 2025000 Undetermined 1396000 2020000 2427000 2337000 1243000 1631000 Not applicable (no contact) 24591000 26590000 32986000 29636000 20177000 36704000 Note: Percentages were derived from unrounded data. All population numbers are rounded. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Table 4. U.S. population who were handcuffed by police, by sex, race, and ethnicity, and age, 1996 Estimated percent of population Sex Race and ethnicity Total Male Female White Black Hispanic Other Handcuffed .6% .8% .3% .4% .8% 1.4% .9% Estimated number Sex Race and ethnicity Total Male Female White Black Hispanic Other Population total 215528900 104205370 111323530 163882680 25393550 17158920 9093740 Handcuffed 1192000 868000 325000 680000 197000 235000 79000 Estimated percent of population in each age category 12-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60 or older Handcuffed 1.3% .8% .5% .5% .4% ... Estimated number in each age category 12-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60 or older Population total 30224900 36557440 43574000 38783630 24810910 41194440 Handcuffed 384000 301000 214000 198000 96000 ... Note: Percentages were derived from unrounded data. All population numbers are rounded. ... Not in sample. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Table 5. U.S. population who were subjected to force or threat of force by police, by sex, race, ethnicity, and age, 1996 Estimated percent of population Sex Race and ethnicity Total Male Female White Black Hispanic Other Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Not subjected to force or threat of force 99.8 99.6 99.9 99.9 99.7 99.2 99.6 Subjected to actual force or threat of force 0.2 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.8 0.4 Estimated number Sex Race and ethnicity Total Male Female White Black Hispanic Other Population total 215528900 104205370 111323530 163882680 25393550 17158920 9093740 Not subjected to force or threat of force 215026000 103769000 111257000 163642000 25312000 17016000 9055000 Subjected to actual force or threat of force 503000 437000 66000 241000 81000 143000 39000 Estimated percent of population in each age category 12-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60 or older Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 Not subjected to force or threat of force 99.1 99.8 99.8 99.8 100 100 Subjected to actual force or threat of force 0.9 0.2 0.2 0.2 ... ... Estimated number in each age category 12-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60 or older Population total 30224900 36557440 43574000 38783630 24810910 41194440 Not subjected to force or threat of force 29967000 36486000 43469000 38715000 24811000 41194000 Subjected to actual force or threat of force 258000 71000 105000 69000 ... ... Note: Percentages were derived from unrounded data. All population numbers are rounded. ...Not in sample. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 4/24/98 tld END OF FILE