Programs to Collect Data on Law Enforcement Activities: Overview and Issues

Changes from July 6, 2020 to March 2, 2021

This page shows textual changes in the document between the two versions indicated in the dates above. Textual matter removed in the later version is indicated with ~~red strikethrough~~ and textual matter added in the later version is indicated with blue.

Programs to Collect Data on Law Enforcement
~~July 6, 2020~~March 2, 2021
Activities: Overview and Issues
Nathan James
The death of George Floyd in The death of George Floyd in May 2020, in Minneapolis, MN, while he was in the custody of Minneapolis, MN, while he was in the custody of ~~law enforcement,~~
Analyst in Crime Policy Analyst in Crime Policy
law enforcement, and several other recent high-profile deaths of African Americans at the hands and several other recent high-profile deaths of African Americans at the hands of police, have of police, have

generated interest in legislation to reform policing practices. generated interest in legislation to reform policing practices. ~~Two major pieces of legislation that~~
~~Kristin Finklea~~
~~contain police reform proposals are before Congress: H.R. 7120, the George Floyd Justice in~~
~~Specialist in Domestic~~
~~Policing Act of 2020—passed by the House on June 25, 2020—and S. 3985, the Just and~~
~~Security~~
~~Unifying Solutions to Invigorate Communities Everywhere (JUSTICE) Act .~~

~~Each bill would establish programs to collect data on a variety of policing~~ Law enforcement Kristin Finklea reform legislation—the George Floyd Justice and Policing Act of 2021 (JIPA; H.R. 1280)—has Specialist in Domestic been introduced in the 117th Congress. Similar legislation passed the House in the 116th Security Congress; it was not taken up by the Senate. JIPA would establish programs for law enforcement agencies to collect data on a variety of activities, such as the ~~activities, such as the~~

use of force, racial profiling, use of force, racial profiling, ~~the use of no-knock warrants,~~ and in-custody deaths. In some cases, and in-custody deaths. In some cases,
state and local law enforcement agencies would report these data directly to the Department of Justice (DOJ). In other state and local law enforcement agencies would report these data directly to the Department of Justice (DOJ). In other
instances, states would be required to establish systems for collecting required data and reporting them to DOJ. instances, states would be required to establish systems for collecting required data and reporting them to DOJ. ~~Both pieces~~
~~of legislation~~The bill would provide incentives for state and local governments to report data by attaching conditions to the Edward would provide incentives for state and local governments to report data by attaching conditions to the Edward
Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) orand the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) programs. the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) programs.
DOJ currently operates programs to collect and report data on the use of force by police officers and in -custody deaths. For DOJ currently operates programs to collect and report data on the use of force by police officers and in -custody deaths. For
instance, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) collects data on use-of-force incidents that result in the death or serious instance, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) collects data on use-of-force incidents that result in the death or serious
bodily injury of a person, as well as when a police officer discharges a firearm at or in the direction of a person. DOJ also bodily injury of a person, as well as when a police officer discharges a firearm at or in the direction of a person. DOJ also
collects data on deaths of people who are temporarily detained, under arrest, in the process of being arrested, en route to be collects data on deaths of people who are temporarily detained, under arrest, in the process of being arrested, en route to be
incarcerated, or incarcerated at a municipal or county jail, a state prison, a state-run boot camp prison, a boot camp prison that incarcerated, or incarcerated at a municipal or county jail, a state prison, a state-run boot camp prison, a boot camp prison that
is contracted out by the state, any state or local contract facility, or any other local or state correctional facility (including is contracted out by the state, any state or local contract facility, or any other local or state correctional facility (including
juvenile facilities), per the requirement of the Death in Custody Reporting Act of 2013 (P.L. 113-242). juvenile facilities), per the requirement of the Death in Custody Reporting Act of 2013 (P.L. 113-242).
The data collection programs proposed by The data collection programs proposed by ~~the House and Senate bills~~JIPA might raise the following questions might raise the following questions ~~that policymakers~~
~~could consider~~for consideration by policymakers : :
 Could these programs require state and local governments to submit duplicative data to DOJ, and might the  Could these programs require state and local governments to submit duplicative data to DOJ, and might the
requirement to submit overlapping data to different components of DOJ decrease the quality of the data due requirement to submit overlapping data to different components of DOJ decrease the quality of the data due
to “reporting fatigue”? to “reporting fatigue”?
  ~~Is the purpose of collecting data on racial profiling to further knowledge about how the police might use an~~
~~individual’s race or ethnicity in decisions about enforcing the law, or is it to serve as a potential deterrent to~~
~~racial~~ How would the collection of data from federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies prevent racial profiling? Would the data collection help researchers better understand racial profiling and develop prevention programs, or is it expected that the reporting and dissemination of these data would deter racial profiling? profiling?
 Could the requirement for states to collect data from local law enforcement agencies and then submit these  Could the requirement for states to collect data from local law enforcement agencies and then submit these
data to DOJ—while possibly lessening the administrative burden on DOJ—result in less accurate and data to DOJ—while possibly lessening the administrative burden on DOJ—result in less accurate and
incomplete data? A local law enforcement agency may be more likely to recognize a reportable excessive incomplete data? A local law enforcement agency may be more likely to recognize a reportable excessive
use-of-force incident by one of its officers than a state official. State officials may be faced with the choice use-of-force incident by one of its officers than a state official. State officials may be faced with the choice
of accepting submissions at face value or putting in place a mechanism for auditing the data submitted to of accepting submissions at face value or putting in place a mechanism for auditing the data submitted to
them by local law enforcement (similar to what the FBI uses to audit data submitted to the Uniform Crime them by local law enforcement (similar to what the FBI uses to audit data submitted to the Uniform Crime
Reporting Program). Reporting Program).
 Could attaching conditions to JAG and COPS funding as a means of incentivizing state and local  Could attaching conditions to JAG and COPS funding as a means of incentivizing state and local
governments to report data prohibit agencies such as the FBI and the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS)— governments to report data prohibit agencies such as the FBI and the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS)—
both of which have experience with managing large data collection programsboth of which have experience with managing large data collection programs —from collecting data for the —from collecting data for the
programs? The entity that collects these data would be responsible for certifying that grant recipients are programs? The entity that collects these data would be responsible for certifying that grant recipients are
meeting the reporting requirements, but Office of Budget and Management guidance requires statistical meeting the reporting requirements, but Office of Budget and Management guidance requires statistical
agencies to operate separately from policymaking activities. agencies to operate separately from policymaking activities.
 Does the threat of reducing a local government’s JAG funding provide enough incentive for it to comply  Does the threat of reducing a local government’s JAG funding provide enough incentive for it to comply
with data reporting requirements, especially if the costs of complying would exceed the amount of funding with data reporting requirements, especially if the costs of complying would exceed the amount of funding
the local government would lose for noncompliance? JAG funding, though a large grant program at DOJ, the local government would lose for noncompliance? JAG funding, though a large grant program at DOJ,
most likely accounts for a relatively small portion of any local government’s policing budget. most likely accounts for a relatively small portion of any local government’s policing budget.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

Programs to Collect Data on Law Enforcement Activities: Overview and Issues

he death of George Floyd he death of George Floyd, in May 2020, in Minneapolis, MN, while in the custody of law enforcement, in Minneapolis, MN, while in the custody of law enforcement,
along with several other high-profile deaths of African Americans at the along with several other high-profile deaths of African Americans at the T hands of the hands of the
T police (including Michael Brown in Ferguson, MO, Eric Garner in Staten police (including Michael Brown in Ferguson, MO, Eric Garner in Staten Island, NY, Island, NY,
Philando Castile in Falcon Heights, MN, Philando Castile in Falcon Heights, MN, ~~and~~ Breonna Taylor in Louisvil e, KYBreonna Taylor in Louisvil e, KY, and Daniel Prude in Rochester, NY), have served as ), have served as
catalysts for anti-police brutality protests in cities across the country. These deaths and the catalysts for anti-police brutality protests in cities across the country. These deaths and the
resulting protests have spurred congressional interest in resulting protests have spurred congressional interest in policing reform legislation. policing reform legislation.
~~Two major pieces of legislation that contain police reform proposals are before Congress: H.R.~~
~~7120,~~Law enforcement reform legislation has been introduced in the 117th Congress as the George ~~the George~~ Floyd Justice in Policing Act of Floyd Justice in Policing Act of ~~2020—passed by the House on June 25,~~
~~2020—and S. 3985, the Just and Unifying Solutions to Invigorate Communities Everywhere~~
~~(JUSTICE) Act. Both bil s~~2021 (JIPA, H.R. 1280). The legislation would address a variety of topics—such as promoting better training would address a variety of topics—such as promoting better training
for law enforcement officers, for law enforcement officers, ~~making~~seeking to ban the use of chokeholds the use of chokeholds ~~a federal crime~~and carotid holds, prohibiting racial , prohibiting racial
profiling, and changing how law enforcement officers use force. profiling, and changing how law enforcement officers use force. ~~Both bil also would~~The bil would also require state require state
and local governments to submit to the federal government more data on police activities. and local governments to submit to the federal government more data on police activities.
Similar legislation passed the House in the 116th Congress (H.R. 7120); it was not taken up by the Senate. The 21st Century Policing Task Force, which President Obama established through executive The 21st Century Policing Task Force, which President Obama established through executive
order in the wake of the events in Ferguson, MO,1 was charged with identifying best practices and order in the wake of the events in Ferguson, MO,1 was charged with identifying best practices and
offering recommendations on how policing practices can promote effective crime reduction while offering recommendations on how policing practices can promote effective crime reduction while
building public trust. In testimony before the task force, the building public trust. In testimony before the task force, the members of the Division of Policing of the American Division of Policing of the American
Society of Criminology noted that “the United States presently employs a broad array of social Society of Criminology noted that “the United States presently employs a broad array of social
and economic indicators in order to gauge the overal ‘health’ of the nation, it has a much more and economic indicators in order to gauge the overal ‘health’ of the nation, it has a much more
limited set of indicators concerning the behavior of the police and the quality of law limited set of indicators concerning the behavior of the police and the quality of law
enforcement.”2 The task force stated that more research and data collection are needed to know enforcement.”2 The task force stated that more research and data collection are needed to know
“what works and what does not work, which policing practices are effective and which ones have “what works and what does not work, which policing practices are effective and which ones have
unintended consequences.”3 In its final report, the task force encouraged law enforcement unintended consequences.”3 In its final report, the task force encouraged law enforcement
agencies to adopt a culture of transparency by, among other things, making available to the public agencies to adopt a culture of transparency by, among other things, making available to the public
data on stops, summonses, arrests, reported crimes, and other law enforcement activities.4 The data on stops, summonses, arrests, reported crimes, and other law enforcement activities.4 The
task force also recommended that law enforcement agencies’ use-of-force policies include a task force also recommended that law enforcement agencies’ use-of-force policies include a
requirement for data on officer-involved shootings and in-custody deaths to be reported to the requirement for data on officer-involved shootings and in-custody deaths to be reported to the
federal government.5 federal government.5
This report discusses the programs to col ect data on state and local law enforcement activities This report discusses the programs to col ect data on state and local law enforcement activities
that would be authorized by that would be authorized by ~~H.R. 7120 and S. 3985~~JIPA. It also provides an overview of existing . It also provides an overview of existing
Department of Justice (DOJ) programs to Department of Justice (DOJ) programs to ~~col ect~~collect data on the use of force by law enforcement data on the use of force by law enforcement
officers and in-custody deaths. The report concludes with a review of selected issues officers and in-custody deaths. The report concludes with a review of selected issues
policymakers might consider when policymakers might consider when debating policing reform. debating policing reform.

1 Executive Order 13684, “Establishment of the President’s T ask Force on 21 st Century Policing,” 79 1 Executive Order 13684, “Establishment of the President’s T ask Force on 21 st Century Policing,” 79 Federal Register
76865, December 23, 2014. 76865, December 23, 2014.
2 President’s T ask Force on 21st Century Policing, 2 President’s T ask Force on 21st Century Policing, Final Report of the President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing, ,
U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services Office, May 2015U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services Office, May 2015 , p. 19 (, p. 19 (~~hereinafter~~hereinaft er
President’s T ask Force on 21st Century Policing Final Report , 2015). President’s T ask Force on 21st Century Policing Final Report , 2015).
3 President’s T ask Force on 21st Century Policing Final Report , 2015, pp. 19-20. 3 President’s T ask Force on 21st Century Policing Final Report , 2015, pp. 19-20.
4 President’s T ask Force on 21st Century Policing Final Report , 2015, p. 13. 4 President’s T ask Force on 21st Century Policing Final Report , 2015, p. 13.
5 President’s T ask Force on 21st Century Policing Final Report , 2015, p. 21. 5 President’s T ask Force on 21st Century Policing Final Report , 2015, p. 21.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service
1 1

Programs to Collect Data on Law Enforcement Activities: Overview and Issues

Legislative ~~Proposals~~Proposal to Collect Data on Law
Enforcement Activities
Since the Since the ~~events~~death of Michael Brown and subsequent civil unrest in Ferguson, MO, in Ferguson, MO, ~~in 2014,~~ and elsewhere, there have been numerous legislative proposals that there have been numerous legislative proposals that
would have established programs to collect would have established programs to collect data on law enforcement activities. Although DOJ data on law enforcement activities. Although DOJ
currently collects data on certain federal law enforcement activities, comprehensive data regarding state collects data on certain federal law enforcement activities, comprehensive data regarding state
and local practices are unavailable. This section of the report provides an overview of data and local practices are unavailable. This section of the report provides an overview of data
collection programs that would be created collection programs that would be created ~~by H.R. 7120 and S. 3985.6~~
~~H.R. 7120, the~~ by JIPA.6 The George Floyd Justice in Policing Act
~~H.R. 7120 , the~~of 2021 The George Floyd Justice in Policing Act George Floyd Justice in Policing Act~~, would direct~~ of 2021 (JIPA; H.R. 1280), would direct the Attorney General to develop regulations to carry out data collection on a variety of data collection on a variety of
policing practices, policing practices, including law enforcement use of force and racial profiling. including law enforcement use of force and racial profiling.
Data on Law Enforcement Practices
~~H.R. 7120~~JIPA would require federal, state, tribal, and local law enforcement agencies to report data would require federal, state, tribal, and local law enforcement agencies to report data
to DOJ on traffic violation stops, pedestrian stops, frisks and body searches, and the use of deadly to DOJ on traffic violation stops, pedestrian stops, frisks and body searches, and the use of deadly
force force by their~~by a~~ law enforcement law enforcement ~~officer~~officers. Reporting agencies would be required to include in these data . Reporting agencies would be required to include in these data
the race, ethnicity, age, and gender of the officers and members of the public involved. In the race, ethnicity, age, and gender of the officers and members of the public involved. In
incidents involving the use of deadly force, agencies would also be required to provide incidents involving the use of deadly force, agencies would also be required to provide
 a description of when and where law enforcement officers used deadly force and  a description of when and where law enforcement officers used deadly force and
whether it resulted in death; whether it resulted in death;
 a description of deadly force directed against an officer and whether it resulted in  a description of deadly force directed against an officer and whether it resulted in
injury or death; and injury or death; and
 the law enforcement agency’s justification for use of deadly force, if the agency  the law enforcement agency’s justification for use of deadly force, if the agency
determines it was justified. determines it was justified.
States would be required to ensure to DOJ’s satisfaction that the state and each local law States would be required to ensure to DOJ’s satisfaction that the state and each local law
enforcement agency in the state are in substantial compliance with the data reporting enforcement agency in the state are in substantial compliance with the data reporting
requirements. In the case of noncompliance, a state would not be al owed to receive funding requirements. In the case of noncompliance, a state would not be al owed to receive funding
under the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) program,7 the Community under the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) program,7 the Community
Oriented Policing Services (COPS) program,8 or any other DOJ law enforcement assistance Oriented Policing Services (COPS) program,8 or any other DOJ law enforcement assistance
program. program.
~~Data on Use of Force~~
~~H.R. 7120 would require states and Indian tribes receiving JAG funds to report to DOJ data on~~
~~the use of force by any local or tribal law enforcement officers. States and tribes would be~~
~~required to submit reports on~~

6 T his report does not include a discussion of proposals in the 6 T his report does not include a discussion of proposals in the ~~two bills~~ legislation to expand law enforcement’s access to records to expand law enforcement’s access to records
related to officer misconduct because these efforts are qualitatively different related to officer misconduct because these efforts are qualitatively different ~~than~~th an the data collection proposals the data collection proposals
discussed in this report. For more information on proposals on access to information related to officer misconduct, see discussed in this report. For more information on proposals on access to information related to officer misconduct, see
CRS In Focus IF11585, CRS In Focus IF11585, Proposals for System s of Records on “Wandering Officers”..
7 For more information on the JAG program, see CRS In Focus IF10691, 7 For more information on the JAG program, see CRS In Focus IF10691, The Edward Byrne Memorial Justice
Assistance Grant (JAG) Program . .
8 For more information on the COPS program, see CRS In Focus IF10922, 8 For more information on the COPS program, see CRS In Focus IF10922, Community Oriented Policing Services
(COPS) Program . .
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service
2 2

link to page 9 link to page 9 link to page 9 Programs to Collect Data on Law Enforcement Activities: Overview and Issues

Data on Use of Force The legislation would require states and Indian tribes receiving JAG funds to report to DOJ data on the use of force by any local or tribal law enforcement officers. States and tribes would be required to submit reports on  incidents where a local or tribal law enforcement officer uses deadly force  incidents where a local or tribal law enforcement officer uses deadly force
against a civilian; against a civilian;
 incidents where a civilian shoots a local or tribal law enforcement officer;  incidents where a civilian shoots a local or tribal law enforcement officer;
 incidents involving the death or arrest of a local or tribal law enforcement officer;  incidents involving the death or arrest of a local or tribal law enforcement officer;
 any other incidents involving use of force by or against a local or tribal law  any other incidents involving use of force by or against a local or tribal law
enforcement officer that are not included in one of the above instances; enforcement officer that are not included in one of the above instances;
 deaths in custody; and  deaths in custody; and
 use of force in arrests and bookings.  use of force in arrests and bookings.
A report for each incident would be required to include the following information: A report for each incident would be required to include the following information:
 the national origin, sex, race, ethnicity, age, disability, English language  the national origin, sex, race, ethnicity, age, disability, English language
proficiency, and housing status of each civilian against whom a local or tribal law proficiency, and housing status of each civilian against whom a local or tribal law
enforcement officer used force; enforcement officer used force;
 the date, time, and location of the incident—including whether it was on school  the date, time, and location of the incident—including whether it was on school
grounds—the zip code, and whether the jurisdiction in which the incident grounds—the zip code, and whether the jurisdiction in which the incident
occurred al ows for the open carry or concealed carry of a firearm; occurred al ows for the open carry or concealed carry of a firearm;
 whether the civilian was armed, and if so, what type of weapon the civilian had;  whether the civilian was armed, and if so, what type of weapon the civilian had;
 the type of force used against the officer, the civilian, or both, including the types  the type of force used against the officer, the civilian, or both, including the types
of weapons used; of weapons used;
 the reason force was used;  the reason force was used;
 a description of any injuries sustained as a result of the incident;  a description of any injuries sustained as a result of the incident;
 the number of  the number of officers and civilians involved in the incident; and civilians involved in the incident; and
 a brief description of the circumstances surrounding the incident, including the  a brief description of the circumstances surrounding the incident, including the
type of force used by al involved persons; the legitimate police objective type of force used by al involved persons; the legitimate police objective
necessitating the use of force; resistance encountered by each law enforcement necessitating the use of force; resistance encountered by each law enforcement
officer involved in the incident; efforts by officers to de-escalate the situation and officer involved in the incident; efforts by officers to de-escalate the situation and
minimize the level of force used; and, if applicable, why efforts were not made to minimize the level of force used; and, if applicable, why efforts were not made to
de-escalate the situation or minimize the use of force. de-escalate the situation or minimize the use of force.
States and Indian tribes would be required to develop their own systems to ensure that al local States and Indian tribes would be required to develop their own systems to ensure that al local
and tribal law enforcement officers are reporting al applicable incidents, but would not be and tribal law enforcement officers are reporting al applicable incidents, but would not be
required to submit reports under this program for incidents that are reportable under the Death in required to submit reports under this program for incidents that are reportable under the Death in
Custody Reporting Act Custody Reporting Act ~~(see “Deaths in Custody Reporting Program”).~~.9
States and Indian tribes would be required to use open source data (e.g., media accounts) to verify States and Indian tribes would be required to use open source data (e.g., media accounts) to verify
information on incidents they report to DOJ. States and Indian tribes would be required to update information on incidents they report to DOJ. States and Indian tribes would be required to update
the information they submit to DOJ to include any reportable incidents they discover through a the information they submit to DOJ to include any reportable incidents they discover through a
9 H.R. 1280 would exempt states and Indian tribes from reporting deaths that they are required to report under 34 U.S.C. §12104(a)(2), which is a reference to the codification of the Death in Custody Reporting Act of 2000 (DCRA 2000; P.L. 106-297). Congress expanded the scope of this program through the Death in Custody Reporting Act of 2013 (P.L. 113-242), which is codified at 34 U.S.C. §60105. For more information, see the “ Deaths in Custody Reporting Program” section. Congressional Research Service 3 Programs to Collect Data on Law Enforcement Activities: Overview and Issues search of open sources. Failure to search open source data would be considered noncompliance search of open sources. Failure to search open source data would be considered noncompliance
with the program’s conditions. States and Indian tribes that do not comply with the program’s with the program’s conditions. States and Indian tribes that do not comply with the program’s
requirements would be subject to a penalty of up to 10% of their JAG award. DOJ would be requirements would be subject to a penalty of up to 10% of their JAG award. DOJ would be
required to publish an annual report using the data collected under this program. required to publish an annual report using the data collected under this program.
Data on Racial Profiling
~~H.R. 7120~~ The bil would require DOJ, in consultation with stakeholders, to issue regulations regarding would require DOJ, in consultation with stakeholders, to issue regulations regarding
the collection of data to eliminate racial profiling by federal, state, and local law enforcement the collection of data to eliminate racial profiling by federal, state, and local law enforcement
~~Congressional Research Service~~
3

~~link to page 8 link to page 8~~ ~~Programs to Collect Data on Law Enforcement Activities: Overview and Issues~~

agencies. The regulations would need to provide for data collection on al routine or spontaneous agencies. The regulations would need to provide for data collection on al routine or spontaneous
investigatory investigatory ~~activities9~~activities10 and for these data to and for these data to
 be disaggregated by race, ethnicity, national origin, gender, disability, and  be disaggregated by race, ethnicity, national origin, gender, disability, and
religion; religion;
 include the date, time, and location of such investigatory activities; and  include the date, time, and location of such investigatory activities; and
 include detail sufficient to permit an analysis of whether a law enforcement  include detail sufficient to permit an analysis of whether a law enforcement
agency is engaging in racial profiling. agency is engaging in racial profiling.
These data would be submitted These data would be submitted directly from law enforcement agencies to DOJ’s Civil Rights Division and the Bureau of Justice to DOJ’s Civil Rights Division and the Bureau of Justice
Statistics (BJS)Statistics (BJS)~~, and~~. Law enforcement agencies would be prohibited from including any personal y identifiable agencies would be prohibited from including any personal y identifiable
information in submitted data. BJS would be required to analyze the data for disparities in the information in submitted data. BJS would be required to analyze the data for disparities in the
percentage of drivers or pedestrians stopped percentage of drivers or pedestrians stopped relative to the proportion of the population passing relative to the proportion of the population passing
through the neighborhood; hit rates (i.e., through the neighborhood; hit rates (i.e., the rate at which contraband was found during a search); and the contraband was found during a search); and the
frequency of searches performed on frequency of searches performed on drivers who are people of color relative to drivers who are people of color relative to ~~white~~White drivers. drivers.
BJS would be required to make a report of its findings available to Congress and the public. State, BJS would be required to make a report of its findings available to Congress and the public. State,
tribal, and local governments that apply for JAG or COPS funding would be required to certify tribal, and local governments that apply for JAG or COPS funding would be required to certify
that they have policies that require data collection in accordance with the regulations issued by that they have policies that require data collection in accordance with the regulations issued by
DOJ. DOJ.
~~S. 3985, the JUSTICE Act~~
~~S. 3985, the JUSTICE Act, among other things, would incentivize reporting to an existing data~~
~~collection program on law enforcement use of force and would direct data collection on no-knock~~
~~warrants.~~
~~Mandatory Participation in the Federal Bureau of Investigation~~Current Department of Justice Efforts to Collect Data on Law Enforcement Activities DOJ currently has programs that seek to collect data on the use of force by the police. These programs include the FBI’s Use-of-Force
~~Data Collection Program~~
~~S. 3985, the JUSTICE Act would require state, local, and tribal governments to submit data to the~~
~~Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) Use-of-Force Data Collection program (see “Use-of-~~
~~Force Data Col ection”).~~
~~State and local governments that do not submit data to the FBI’s Use-of-Force Data Collection~~
~~program would be subject to a 20% penalty on their JAG al ocation for the first year of~~
~~noncompliance and up to a 25% penalty for each subsequent year of noncompliance.~~
~~Data on No-Knock Warrants~~
~~S. 3985 would require state and local governments to submit reports to DOJ on the use of no-~~
~~knock warrants. They would be required to submit the following data on each instance where a~~
~~law enforcement agency serves a no-knock warrant:~~Data Collection program, which collects data on certain instances of the use of force by law enforcement officers, and data collected pursuant to the Death in Custody Reporting Act of 2013 (P.L. 113-242), which col ects data on deaths that occur when someone is in the custody of law enforcement or corrections agencies.

910 H.R. H.R. ~~7120~~1280 would define would define routine or spontaneous investigatory activities as interviews; traffic stops; pedestrian stops; as interviews; traffic stops; pedestrian stops;
frisks and other types of body searches; consensual or nonconsensual searches of the persons, property, or possessions frisks and other types of body searches; consensual or nonconsensual searches of the persons, property, or possessions
(including vehicles) of individuals using any form of public or private transportation, including motorists and (including vehicles) of individuals using any form of public or private transportation, including motorists and
pedestrians; data collection and analysis, assessments, and predicated investigations; inspections and interviews of pedestrians; data collection and analysis, assessments, and predicated investigations; inspections and interviews of
entrants into the United States that are more extensive than those customarily carried out; immigration -related entrants into the United States that are more extensive than those customarily carried out; immigration -related
workplace investigations; and such other types of law enforcement encounters compiled for or by the Federal Bureau of workplace investigations; and such other types of law enforcement encounters compiled for or by the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI) or Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). Investigation (FBI) or Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS).
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service
4 4

Programs to Collect Data on Law Enforcement Activities: Overview and Issues

~~ the reason for which the warrant was issued, including each violation of law~~
~~listed on the warrant;~~
~~ whether, in the course of carrying out the warrant, force was used that resulted in~~
~~property damage, serious bodily injury, or death or whether any law enforcement~~
~~officer, suspect, or bystander was injured or kil ed;~~
~~ the sex, race, ethnicity, and age of each person found at the location for which the~~
~~no-knock warrant was issued;~~
~~ whether the location searched matched the location described in the warrant; and~~
~~ whether the warrant included the specific information required under the Fourth~~
~~Amendment and any applicable federal, state, or local law related to the use of~~
~~no-knock warrants.~~
~~States would be required to ensure that al units of local government in the state are submitting~~
~~data on no-knock warrants. State and local governments that do not submit the required data~~
~~would be subject to a 20% penalty on their JAG al ocation for the first year of noncompliance and~~
~~up to a 25% penalty for each subsequent year of noncompliance.~~
~~DOJ would be required to publish a report that includes the data submitted by federal, state, and~~
~~local law enforcement agencies, along with information on the crime rate in local jurisdictions~~
~~that submit data on no-knock warrants. Data on no-knock warrants related to investigations that~~
~~are open as of the date the applicable data report is due would not be included.~~
~~Current Department of Justice Efforts to Collect~~
~~Data on Law Enforcement Activities~~
~~DOJ currently has programs that seek to collect data on the use of force by the police. These~~
~~programs include the FBI’s Use-of-Force Data Collection program, which collects data on certain~~
~~instances of the use of force by law enforcement officers, and data collected pursuant to the Death~~
~~in Custody Reporting Act of 2013 (P.L. 113-242), which col ects data on deaths that occur when~~
~~someone is in the custody of law enforcement or corrections agencies.~~
Use-of-Force Data Collection Program
The FBI launched its Use-of-Force Data Collection program on January 1, 2019. The FBI notes, The FBI launched its Use-of-Force Data Collection program on January 1, 2019. The FBI notes,
law enforcement use of force has long been a topic of national discussion, but a number of law enforcement use of force has long been a topic of national discussion, but a number of
high-profile cases involving law enforcement use of force have heightened awareness of high-profile cases involving law enforcement use of force have heightened awareness of
these incidents in recent years. However, the opportunity to analyze information related to these incidents in recent years. However, the opportunity to analyze information related to
use-of-force incidents and to have an informed dialogue is hindered by the lack of use-of-force incidents and to have an informed dialogue is hindered by the lack of
nationwide statistics. To address the topic, representatives from major law enforcement nationwide statistics. To address the topic, representatives from major law enforcement
organizations are working in collaboration with the FBI to develop the National Use-of-organizations are working in collaboration with the FBI to develop the National Use-of-
Force Data Collection.Force Data Collection.1011
The program’s stated goal is “not to offer insight into single use-of-force incidents but to provide The program’s stated goal is “not to offer insight into single use-of-force incidents but to provide
an aggregate view of the incidents reported and the circumstances, subjects, and officers an aggregate view of the incidents reported and the circumstances, subjects, and officers

~~10 U.S. Department of Justice, FBI, “ National Use-of-Force Data Collection,” at https://www.fbi.gov/services/cjis/ucr/~~
~~use-of-force (hereinafter FBI’s Use of Force Data website).~~
~~Congressional Research Service~~
5

~~Programs to Collect Data on Law Enforcement Activities: Overview and Issues~~

~~involved.”11~~involved.”12 The data collected are not intended to be used to assess whether the officers involved The data collected are not intended to be used to assess whether the officers involved
in use-of-force incidents acted lawfully or within the bounds of department policy. in use-of-force incidents acted lawfully or within the bounds of department policy.
The FBI’s The FBI’s ~~program collects data on~~Use-of-Force Data Collection program includes use-of-force incidents that result in the death or serious use-of-force incidents that result in the death or serious
bodily bodily ~~injury12~~injury13 of a person or any incident when a law enforcement officer of a person or any incident when a law enforcement officer discharges a firearm at discharges a firearm at
or in the direction of a person. For each incident, the FBI collects data on the circumstances or in the direction of a person. For each incident, the FBI collects data on the circumstances
surrounding the incident (e.g., date and time, number of officers who applied force, and reason surrounding the incident (e.g., date and time, number of officers who applied force, and reason
for the initialfor the initial contact between the officer and the subject); subject information (e.g., demographic contact between the officer and the subject); subject information (e.g., demographic
information, injuries sustained, type of force used, and whether the subject was armed); and information, injuries sustained, type of force used, and whether the subject was armed); and
officer information (e.g., demographic information, whether the officer officer information (e.g., demographic information, whether the officer discharged a firearm, and discharged a firearm, and
whether the officer was injured).whether the officer was injured).1314 Federal, state, tribal, and local law enforcement agencies are Federal, state, tribal, and local law enforcement agencies are
responsible for submitting use-of-force data to the FBI. Although participation is voluntary, law responsible for submitting use-of-force data to the FBI. Although participation is voluntary, law
enforcement agencies are encouraged to participate. The FBI works with major law enforcement enforcement agencies are encouraged to participate. The FBI works with major law enforcement
organizations and the FBI’s Criminal Justice Information Services’ organizations and the FBI’s Criminal Justice Information Services’ Advisory Policy Board to Advisory Policy Board to
develop support for participation.develop support for participation.1415
Beginning in 2019, law enforcement agencies could submit use-of-force data to the FBI, and the Beginning in 2019, law enforcement agencies could submit use-of-force data to the FBI, and the
FBI indicated that data would be released “on a regular basis of no less than two times a year.”FBI indicated that data would be released “on a regular basis of no less than two times a year.”15
16 However, the FBI has not yet released any However, the FBI has not yet released any detailed use of force data. In July 2020, the FBI announced that 5,043 federal, state, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies submitted use-of-force data to the National Use-of-Force Data Collection program for 2019, and these agencies employ 41% of al federal, state, local, and tribal sworn officers.17 The FBI noted that it worked 11 U.S. Department of Justice, FBI, “ National Use-of-Force Data Collection,” at https://www.fbi.gov/services/cjis/ucr/use-of-force (hereinafter FBI’s Use of Force Data website). 12 FBI’s Use of Force Data website. 13~~use of force data. According to the FBI, approximately~~
~~40% of law enforcement agencies are submitting data, and the first tranche of data is expected to~~
~~be available in summer 2020.16~~
~~Deaths in Custody Reporting Program~~
~~On behalf of DOJ, BJS started collecting data on arrest-related deaths in 2000, pursuant to the~~
~~Death in Custody Reporting Act of 2000 (DCRA 2000; P.L. 106-297). The act required recipients~~
~~of Violent Offender Incarceration/Truth-in-Sentencing Incentive grants17 to submit data to DOJ~~
~~on the death of any person who is in the process of being arrested, en route to be incarcerated, or~~
~~incarcerated at a municipal or county jail, state prison, or other local or state correctional facility~~
~~(including juvenile facilities). The provisions of this act expired in 2006.18~~
~~Congress reauthorized the act by passing the Death in Custody Reporting Act of 2013 (DCRA~~
~~2013). The act requires states to submit data to DOJ regarding the death of any person who is~~

~~11 FBI’s Use of Force Data website.~~
12 T he FBI defines T he FBI defines serious bodily injury as “bodily injury that involves a substantial risk of death, unconsciousness, as “bodily injury that involves a substantial risk of death, unconsciousness,
protracted and obvious disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of a bodily member, organ, or protracted and obvious disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of a bodily member, organ, or
mental faculty.” FBI’s Use of Force Data website. mental faculty.” FBI’s Use of Force Data website.
1314 More information on the specific data the FBI collects on each use-of-force incident can be found on the FBI’s Use More information on the specific data the FBI collects on each use-of-force incident can be found on the FBI’s Use
of Force Data website. of Force Data website.
14 15 T he Advisory Policy Board is responsible for reviewing policy and technical and operational issues related to T he Advisory Policy Board is responsible for reviewing policy and technical and operational issues related to
Criminal Justice Information Services Division programs. It is comprised of 35 representatives from criminal justice Criminal Justice Information Services Division programs. It is comprised of 35 representatives from criminal justice
agencies and national security agencies and organizations throughout the United States. agencies and national security agencies and organizations throughout the United States.
1516 FBI’s Use of Force Data website. 17 U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, “FBI Releases 2019 Participation Data for the National Use-of-Force Data Collection,” press release, July 27, 2020, https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/fbi-releases-2019-participation-data-for-the-national-use-of-force-data-collection (hereinafter, “FBI July 2020 use-of-force data press release”). Congressional Research Service 5 Programs to Collect Data on Law Enforcement Activities: Overview and Issues with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to establish criteria regarding when certain levels of data can be released, and based on these criteria the FBI only released data on participation levels for 2019.18 Deaths in Custody Reporting Program On behalf of DOJ, BJS started collecting data on arrest-related deaths in 2000, pursuant to the Death in Custody Reporting Act of 2000 (DCRA 2000; P.L. 106-297). The act required recipients of Violent Offender Incarceration/Truth-in-Sentencing Incentive grants19 to submit data to DOJ on the death of any person who is in the process of being arrested, en route to be incarcerated, or incarcerated at a municipal or county jail, state prison, or other local or state correctional facility (including juvenile facilities). The provisions of this act expired in 2006.20 Congress reauthorized the act by passing the Death in Custody Reporting Act of 2013 (DCRA 2013). The act requires states to submit data to DOJ regarding the death of any person who is ~~FBI’s Use of Force Data website.~~
~~16 T om Jackman, “FBI Launched Database on Police Use of Force Last Year, but Only 40 Percent of Police~~
~~Participated,” Washington Post, June 17, 2020.~~
~~17 T he Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (P.L. 103-322) authorized funding for grants to states~~
~~for building or expanding correctional facilities. T o be eligible for funding under the program , a state had to~~
~~demonstrate it had either increased the number of violent offenders who were arrested and sentenced to incarceration,~~
~~along with increasing the average length of violent offenders’ sentences, or that the state had implemented truth-in-~~
~~sentencing laws that would require violent offenders to serve at least 85 % of their sentences.~~
~~18 H.Rept. 113-285.~~
~~Congressional Research Service~~
6

~~Programs to Collect Data on Law Enforcement Activities: Overview and Issues~~

detained, under arrest, in the process of being arrested, en route to be incarcerated, or incarcerated detained, under arrest, in the process of being arrested, en route to be incarcerated, or incarcerated
at a municipal or county jail, a state prison, a state-run boot camp prison, a boot camp prison that at a municipal or county jail, a state prison, a state-run boot camp prison, a boot camp prison that
is contracted out by the state, any state or local contract facility, or any other local or state is contracted out by the state, any state or local contract facility, or any other local or state
correctional facility (including juvenile facilities). States face up to a 10% reduction in their correctional facility (including juvenile facilities). States face up to a 10% reduction in their
funding under the JAG program if they do not provide the data. The act extends the reporting funding under the JAG program if they do not provide the data. The act extends the reporting
requirement to federal agencies. requirement to federal agencies.
BJS established the Deaths in Custody Reporting Program (DCRP) as a way to collect the data BJS established the Deaths in Custody Reporting Program (DCRP) as a way to collect the data
required by DCRA 2000, and it continued to collect data after the initial authorization expired in required by DCRA 2000, and it continued to collect data after the initial authorization expired in
2006. BJS collected data on deaths that occurred in correctional institutions and arrest-related 2006. BJS collected data on deaths that occurred in correctional institutions and arrest-related
deaths (ARDs)—though BJS acknowledged problems with ARD data before suspending that data deaths (ARDs)—though BJS acknowledged problems with ARD data before suspending that data
collection effort in 2014. In a report on ARDs for 2003-2009, BJS noted that “arrest-related collection effort in 2014. In a report on ARDs for 2003-2009, BJS noted that “arrest-related
deaths are under-reported” and that the data are “more representative of the nature of arrest-deaths are under-reported” and that the data are “more representative of the nature of arrest-
related deaths than the volume at which they occur.”related deaths than the volume at which they occur.”1921 An assessment of data collected by BJS An assessment of data collected by BJS
from 2003 to 2009 and in 2011 indicated that the DCRP had captured about half of ARDs in this from 2003 to 2009 and in 2011 indicated that the DCRP had captured about half of ARDs in this
time frame. time frame.2022
BJS has since replaced the DCRP with the Mortality in Correctional Institutions (MCI) program, BJS has since replaced the DCRP with the Mortality in Correctional Institutions (MCI) program,
~~which collects data on deaths that occur while inmates are in the custody of local jails, state~~
~~prisons (including inmates housed in private prisons), or the Bureau of Prisons. BJS notes that~~
~~MCI collects “many, but not al , of the elements outlined in [DCRA 2013], but because MCI is~~
~~collected for statistical purposes only, it cannot be used for DCRA enforcement.”21~~
~~Starting with FY2019 JAG awards, states are required to submit DCRA 2013 data to the Bureau~~
~~of Justice Assistance (BJA) where it can be used for DCRA enforcement, not to BJS where it is~~
~~used for statistical purposes. States are responsible for establishing their own policies and~~
~~procedures to ensure they collect and submit complete data.22 DCRA 2013 does not require DOJ~~
~~to publish data submitted by states pursuant to the act, and BJA has noted that it wil maintain the~~
~~information internal y—though the data may be subject to Freedom of Information Act requests.23~~
~~DOJ’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG) notes that data col ected by BJA pursuant to DCRA~~
~~2013 is duplicative of data collected by BJS through the MCI program. Both agencies collect data~~
~~on deaths in state and local correctional institutions through their respective programs. BJS plans~~
~~to continue to collect data through the MCI program because it “compliments BJS’s overal~~
~~correctional research.”24~~

19which collects data on deaths that occur while inmates are in the custody of local jails, state 18 According to the FBI, based on the criteria they developed with OMB, when agencies submitting use-of-force data represent more than 40% of the officers in the nation, participation data may be released. When 60% of the total officer population is represented, ratios and percentages, as well as the most frequently reported responses to questions (in list format without actual counts) may be published. When 80% of officers are represented by submitted data, aggregate use-of-force data may be presented. If at any time the data from agencies represents less than 40% of the total officer population, the FBI will not disseminate use-of-force data. FBI July 2020 use-of-force data press release. 19 T he Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (P.L. 103-322) authorized funding for grants to states for building or expanding correctional facilities. T o be eligible for funding under the program , a state had to demonstrate it had either increased the number of violent offenders who were arrested and sentenced to incarceration , along with increasing the average length of violent offenders’ sentences, or that the state had implemented truth-in-sentencing laws that would require violent offenders to serve at least 85 % of their sentences. 20 H.Rept. 113-285. 21 Andrea M. Burch, Andrea M. Burch, Arrest-Related Deaths, 2003-2009―Statistical Tables, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of , U.S. Department of Justice, Office of
Justice Programs (OJP), BJS, NCJ 235385, November 2011, p. 1 (hereinafterJustice Programs (OJP), BJS, NCJ 235385, November 2011, p. 1 (hereinafter BJS, BJS, Arrest-Related Deaths, 2003-2009). ).
20 22 U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General (OIG), U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General (OIG), Review of the Department of Justice’s
Im plem entation of the Death in Custody Reporting Act of 2013 , December 2018, p. 3, at https://oig.justice.gov/reports/, December 2018, p. 3, at https://oig.justice.gov/reports/
2018/e1901.pdf (hereinafter2018/e1901.pdf (hereinafter, OIG’s report on DOJ’s implementation of the Death in Custody Reporting Act). Congressional Research Service 6 Programs to Collect Data on Law Enforcement Activities: Overview and Issues prisons (including inmates housed in private prisons), or the Bureau of Prisons. BJS notes that MCI collects “many, but not al , of the elements outlined in [DCRA 2013], but because MCI is collected for statistical purposes only, it cannot be used for DCRA enforcement.”23 Starting with FY2019 JAG awards, states are required to submit DCRA 2013 data to the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) where it can be used for DCRA enforcement, not to BJS where it is used for statistical purposes. States are responsible for establishing their own policies and procedures to ensure they collect and submit complete data.24 DCRA 2013 does not require DOJ to publish data submitted by states pursuant to the act, and BJA has noted that it wil maintain the information internal y—though the data may be subject to Freedom of Information Act requests.25 DOJ’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG) notes that data col ected by BJA pursuant to DCRA 2013 is duplicative of data collected by BJS through the MCI program. Both agencies collect data on deaths in state and local correctional institutions through their respective programs. BJS plans to continue to collect data through the MCI program because it “compliments BJS’s overal correctional research.”26 Selected Issues JIPA would expand the amount and type ~~OIG’s report on DOJ’s implementation of the Death in Custody Reporting Act).~~
~~21 U.S. Department of Justice, OJP, BJS, “ Mortality In Correctional Institut ions (MCI) (Formerly Deaths In Custody~~
~~Reporting Program (DCRP)),” at https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=19.~~
~~22 U.S. Department of Justice, OJP, Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA),~~ ~~Death in Custody Reporting Act, Performance~~
~~Measurem ent Tool, Frequently Asked Questions, February 2020, p. 2, at https://bja.ojp.gov/sites/g/files/xyckuh186/~~
~~files/media/document/DCRA-FAQ_508.pdf (hereinafter BJA’s Death in Custody Reporting Act, Performance~~
~~Measurement T ool FAQ).~~
~~23 BJA’s Death in Custody Reporting Act, Performance Measurement T ool FAQ, p. 3.~~
~~24 OIG’s report on DOJ’s implementation of the Deat h in Custody Reporting Act, p. 14.~~
~~Congressional Research Service~~
7

~~Programs to Collect Data on Law Enforcement Activities: Overview and Issues~~

~~Selected Issues~~
~~H.R. 7120 and S. 3985 would expand the amount~~ of data the federal government collects on of data the federal government collects on
certain law enforcement activities. DOJ’s experiences with implementing the requirements of the certain law enforcement activities. DOJ’s experiences with implementing the requirements of the
Death in Death in Custody Reporting Act and the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act Custody Reporting Act and the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act
(SORNA; P.L. 109-248)(SORNA; P.L. 109-248)2527 may provide insight into some of the issues policymakers might may provide insight into some of the issues policymakers might
consider when evaluating legislationconsider when evaluating legislation ~~to provide incentives~~ for state and local governments to for state and local governments to
submit data to DOJ on law enforcement submit data to DOJ on law enforcement activities. activities.
Potential Overlap Between Data Collection Programs ~~in H.R. 7120~~
~~and S. 3985~~
In a 2018 report, DOJ’s OIG raised concerns that DOJ collects duplicative data on the use of In a 2018 report, DOJ’s OIG raised concerns that DOJ collects duplicative data on the use of
force by law enforcement officers and in-custody deaths.force by law enforcement officers and in-custody deaths.2628 Both the FBI’s Use-of-Force Data Both the FBI’s Use-of-Force Data
Collection program and BJA’s data collection pursuant to DCRA 2013 include data on deaths Collection program and BJA’s data collection pursuant to DCRA 2013 include data on deaths
resulting from the use of force by police officers. In addition, data BJA collects pursuant to resulting from the use of force by police officers. In addition, data BJA collects pursuant to
DCRA 2013 are duplicative of data collected by BJS through the MCI program; both collect data DCRA 2013 are duplicative of data collected by BJS through the MCI program; both collect data
on deaths in state and local correctional institutions as of FY2019. The OIG noted that on deaths in state and local correctional institutions as of FY2019. The OIG noted that
“duplicative reporting requirements can confuse respondents and increase the risk of respondent “duplicative reporting requirements can confuse respondents and increase the risk of respondent
fatigue, which can diminish data quality.” fatigue, which can diminish data quality.”27
~~Some of the proposed data collection programs in the House and Senate bil s~~ 29 23 U.S. Department of Justice, OJP, BJS, “ Mortality In Correctional Institutions (MCI) (Formerly Deaths In Custody Reporting Program (DCRP)),” at https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=19. 24 U.S. Department of Justice, OJP, Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), Death in Custody Reporting Act, Performance Measurem ent Tool, Frequently Asked Questions, February 2020, p. 2, at https://bja.ojp.gov/sites/g/files/xyckuh186/files/media/document/DCRA-FAQ_508.pdf (hereinafter BJA’s Death in Custody Reporting Act, Performance Measurement T ool FAQ). 25 BJA’s Death in Custody Reporting Act, Performance Measurement T ool FAQ, p. 3. 26 OIG’s report on DOJ’s implementation of the Death in Custody Reporting Act, p. 14. 27 T he Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA; P.L. 109-248) provides a “comprehensive set of minimum standards for sex offender registration and notification in the United States.” U.S. Department of Justice, OJP, Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, and T racking, “ SORNA, Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act ,” at https://smart.ojp.gov/sorna. 28 OIG’s report on DOJ’s implementation of the Death in Custody Reporting Act . 29 OIG’s report on DOJ’s implementation of the Death in Custody Reporting Act, p. 14. Congressional Research Service 7 link to page 7 link to page 7 Programs to Collect Data on Law Enforcement Activities: Overview and Issues Some of the proposed data collection programs in JIPA might partial y might partial y
duplicate existing DOJ data collection programs. duplicate existing DOJ data collection programs. ~~H.R. 7120~~The legislation would, for example, , for example, ~~would~~ require states to require states to
submit use-of-force data. These data would be similar to data collected by state and local submit use-of-force data. These data would be similar to data collected by state and local
governments for purposes of being submitted to the governments for purposes of being submitted to the ~~FBI’s~~existing, but voluntary, FBI Use-of-Force Data Collection program. Use-of-Force Data Collection program.
~~If H.R. 7120~~If the legislation were enacted, it is possible that local law enforcement agencies would be submitting were enacted, it is possible that local law enforcement agencies would be submitting
data on officer-involved shootings to a state agency so the state agency could report data on officer-involved shootings to a state agency so the state agency could report those data to those data to
DOJDOJ, while also submitting similar data on officer-involved shootings while also submitting similar data on officer-involved shootings directly to the FBI for its existing to the FBI for its existing
Use-of-Force Data Collection program. Local law enforcement agencies would have to submit Use-of-Force Data Collection program. Local law enforcement agencies would have to submit
somewhat different data to the state than what they send to the FBI, somewhat different data to the state than what they send to the FBI, potential y complicating potential y complicating
these data collection and reporting efforts. these data collection and reporting efforts.
Under Under ~~H.R. 7120~~JIPA, local law enforcement agencies would , local law enforcement agencies would also be required to submit to the state data be required to submit to the state data
that includes the following: whether an individual in an officer-involved shooting had a disability; that includes the following: whether an individual in an officer-involved shooting had a disability;
the individual’s English proficiency; and whether the shooting occurred in a jurisdiction that the individual’s English proficiency; and whether the shooting occurred in a jurisdiction that
al ows open or concealed carry of a firearm. Local law enforcement agencies currently are not al ows open or concealed carry of a firearm. Local law enforcement agencies currently are not
asked to submit these data to the FBI. However, local law enforcement agencies who participate asked to submit these data to the FBI. However, local law enforcement agencies who participate
in the FBI’s Use-of-Force Data Collection program are required to submit data to the FBI that in the FBI’s Use-of-Force Data Collection program are required to submit data to the FBI that
would not be included in would not be included in ~~any~~the use-of-force data use-of-force data ~~col ection~~collection program that would be created by program that would be created by ~~H.R.~~
~~7120~~the bil . For example, participating law enforcement agencies must submit data to the FBI . For example, participating law enforcement agencies must submit data to the FBI
indicating whether the shooting occurred during an ambush situation, whether the officer indicating whether the shooting occurred during an ambush situation, whether the officer
approached the approached the suspect, and the years of service for the officer(s) involved in the shooting. There might also be concern that the bil would require state and local governments to submit some of the same data to two different programs. For example, under JIPA~~suspect, and the years of service for the officer(s) involved in the shooting.~~

~~25 T he Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA; P.L. 109-248) provides a “comprehensive set of~~
~~minimum standards for sex offender registration and notification in the United States.” U.S. Department of Justice,~~
~~OJP, Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, and T racking, “ SORNA, Sex~~
~~Offender Registration and Notification Act ,” at https://smart.ojp.gov/sorna.~~
~~26 OIG’s report on DOJ’s implementation of the Death in Custody Reporting Act .~~
~~27 OIG’s report on DOJ’s implementation of the Death in Custody Reporting Act, p. 14.~~
~~Congressional Research Service~~
8

~~link to page 6 link to page 7 link to page 6~~ ~~Programs to Collect Data on Law Enforcement Activities: Overview and Issues~~

~~There might also be concern that in each of these two bil s, state and local governments would be~~
~~required to submit some of the same data to two different programs. For example, under H.R.~~
~~7120, the proposal for state,~~ , the proposal for state, tribal, and local law enforcement agencies to collect data on law tribal, and local law enforcement agencies to collect data on law
enforcement practices would require law enforcement agencies to submit data to DOJ on the race enforcement practices would require law enforcement agencies to submit data to DOJ on the race
and ethnicity of people stopped by law enforcement officers for traffic violations, pedestrian and ethnicity of people stopped by law enforcement officers for traffic violations, pedestrian
stops, and frisks and body searches, along with the race and ethnicity of the officers involved in stops, and frisks and body searches, along with the race and ethnicity of the officers involved in
the stops. These data could overlap with data that state and local governments would be required the stops. These data could overlap with data that state and local governments would be required
to submit to DOJ’s Civil to submit to DOJ’s Civil Rights Division and BJS under Rights Division and BJS under ~~H.R. 7120~~the bil ’s proposed racial profiling ’s proposed racial profiling
data collection program (see data collection program (see “Data on Racial Profiling,” above), which would also require state, ” above), which would also require state,
tribal, and local law enforcement agencies to submit data on traffic stops, pedestrian stops, and tribal, and local law enforcement agencies to submit data on traffic stops, pedestrian stops, and
frisks and body searches disaggregated by race and ethnicity. The bil ’s racial profiling data frisks and body searches disaggregated by race and ethnicity. The bil ’s racial profiling data
collection requirements, however, would require law enforcement agencies to collect data on a collection requirements, however, would require law enforcement agencies to collect data on a
wider variety wider variety of law enforcement actions (e.g., interviews). Scope of Racial Profiling Data JIPA~~of law enforcement actions (e.g., interviews).~~
~~Similarly, under S. 3985, the proposal for law enforcement agencies to submit data to DOJ on the~~
~~use of no-knock warrants (see “Data on No-Knock Warrants,” above) might also contain some~~
~~information that would be submitted to the FBI’s existing Use-of-Force Data Collection program,~~
~~particularly in instances where the use of no-knock warrants might involve serious bodily injury~~
~~or death. However, the FBI’s Use-of-Force Data Collection program does not collect specific~~
~~information on instances when no-knock warrants are involved, and S. 3985’s proposed data~~
~~collection efforts on no-knock warrants would not capture al cases involving law enforcement~~
~~use of force.~~
~~Scope of Racial Profiling Data in H.R. 7120~~
~~H.R. 7120~~ would require that DOJ issue regulations to collect data on potential racial profiling by would require that DOJ issue regulations to collect data on potential racial profiling by
law enforcement agencies around the country (seelaw enforcement agencies around the country (see “Data on Racial Profiling,” above).” above).2830 Racial Racial
profiling data may include race, ethnicity, national origin, gender, disability, and religion, as wel profiling data may include race, ethnicity, national origin, gender, disability, and religion, as wel
as as ~~sufficient~~other information information sufficient to determine if agencies are engaging in profiling. to determine if agencies are engaging in profiling.
Congress may consider debating which data should and should not be collected and submitted to Congress may consider debating which data should and should not be collected and submitted to
DOJ for this program. For instance, DOJ for this program. For instance, ~~H.R. 7120,~~ the bil would require submitted data to include the would require submitted data to include the
demographic information of individuals in police-involved incidents but would protect the demographic information of individuals in police-involved incidents but would protect the
identities of those individuals. Congress may also consider debating what might be accomplished identities of those individuals. Congress may also consider debating what might be accomplished
by collecting these racial profiling data. by collecting these racial profiling data.
30 S. 3985 does not address the collection of data on racial profiling. Congressional Research Service 8 link to page 9 Programs to Collect Data on Law Enforcement Activities: Overview and Issues   Understanding the Scope of Racial Profiling. If al law enforcement agencies If al law enforcement agencies
are consistent in submitting these data to DOJ, this could help provide insight are consistent in submitting these data to DOJ, this could help provide insight
into the scope of racial profiling around the country, indicate whether there are into the scope of racial profiling around the country, indicate whether there are
certain areas or agencies that appear to conduct more racial profiling than others, certain areas or agencies that appear to conduct more racial profiling than others,
and inform opportunities for change. At a local level, these data could help and inform opportunities for change. At a local level, these data could help
agencies understand if individual officers are engaging in profiling. agencies understand if individual officers are engaging in profiling.
  Collecting Racial Profiling Data as a Potential Deterrent. Some may question Some may question
whether the collection of racial profiling data could act as a deterrent for agencies whether the collection of racial profiling data could act as a deterrent for agencies
to engage in racial profiling. Under to engage in racial profiling. Under ~~H.R. 7120~~the legislation, DOJ’s report on racial profiling , DOJ’s report on racial profiling
would be submitted to Congress and be made availablewould be submitted to Congress and be made available the public. the public. Policymakers Policymakers
and researchers may question whether the availability of this information could and researchers may question whether the availability of this information could
~~influence state and local practices.~~

~~28 S. 3985 does not address the collection of data on racial profiling.~~
~~Congressional Research Service~~
9

~~link to page 9~~ ~~Programs to Collect Data on Law Enforcement Activities: Overview and Issues~~

~~Structures for Collecting Data in H.R. 7120 and S. 3985~~
~~Both H.R. 7120 and S. 3985 would establish methods~~influence state and local practices. Structures for Collecting Data JIPA would establish a method for state and local governments to submit for state and local governments to submit
required data to DOJ. In some cases, state and local governments would be required to report data required data to DOJ. In some cases, state and local governments would be required to report data
directly to DOJ. In other cases, states would be required to collect data from the law enforcement directly to DOJ. In other cases, states would be required to collect data from the law enforcement
agencies in the state and agencies in the state and submit them to DOJ. DOJ’s experience with submit them to DOJ. DOJ’s experience with ~~collecting~~col ecting data on ARDs data on ARDs
under its DCRP may il ustrate some of the potential issues DOJ might experience if states are under its DCRP may il ustrate some of the potential issues DOJ might experience if states are
required to collect data required to collect data from local governmentsfrom local governments before submitting them to DOJ. .
As discussed in the As discussed in the “Deaths in Custody Reporting Program” section, BJS collected data on ARDs ” section, BJS collected data on ARDs
pursuant to DCRA 2000 but eventual y stopped collecting these data because pursuant to DCRA 2000 but eventual y stopped collecting these data because ~~deaths were~~
variations in data collection methodology and coverage among States resulted in deaths being underreported. Under the DCRP, BJS relied on state criminal justice agencies to voluntarily report underreported. Under the DCRP, BJS relied on state criminal justice agencies to voluntarily report
these data on behalf of al law enforcement agencies in the state.these data on behalf of al law enforcement agencies in the state.2931 DOJ’s OIG noted that DOJ DOJ’s OIG noted that DOJ
found during its found during its implementation of DCRA 2013 that requiring states to collect data on and report implementation of DCRA 2013 that requiring states to collect data on and report
ARDs can be a chal enge because the effort requires states to report data they might not possess.ARDs can be a chal enge because the effort requires states to report data they might not possess.30
32 DOJ officials and state-level statistical analysis centers have noted that BJS’s experience with the DOJ officials and state-level statistical analysis centers have noted that BJS’s experience with the
ARD program suggests that state-level reporting might not produce complete data because (1) ARD program suggests that state-level reporting might not produce complete data because (1)
state-level agencies are general y less aware of and less knowledgeable about deaths that occurred state-level agencies are general y less aware of and less knowledgeable about deaths that occurred
in their states than are the local jurisdictions where the deaths occurred, and (2) many state in their states than are the local jurisdictions where the deaths occurred, and (2) many state
governments cannot compel subordinate levels of government to report crime data without state governments cannot compel subordinate levels of government to report crime data without state
laws requiring such reporting. laws requiring such reporting.3133
The issues with BJS’s ARD program might raise questions about how DOJ would determine The issues with BJS’s ARD program might raise questions about how DOJ would determine
whether a local or state government is submitting al required data. whether a local or state government is submitting al required data. ~~Under H.R. 7120 and S. 3985,~~
~~DOJ would be required to reduce a state or local government’s JAG al ocation if they were not in~~
~~compliance with the conditions of the proposed legislation. However, unless~~Unless DOJ or states DOJ or states
periodical y audit the data that local law enforcement agencies submit, it is difficult to knowperiodical y audit the data that local law enforcement agencies submit, it is difficult to know if if
participating law enforcement agencies are reporting al required data. Were participating law enforcement agencies are reporting al required data. Were ~~these bil s to become~~
JIPA to be enacted, DOJ might consider having a mechanism that would certify that state and local enacted, DOJ might consider having a mechanism that would certify that state and local
governments were complying with the conditions of the legislation. For example, if state and governments were complying with the conditions of the legislation. For example, if state and
local governments local governments were to demonstrate that they have a system in place to collect and report the were to demonstrate that they have a system in place to collect and report the
data required under the proposals, and then they were to either submit these data or affirm that data required under the proposals, and then they were to either submit these data or affirm that
they have no applicable incidents to report, DOJ might find such a mechanism useful. Some they have no applicable incidents to report, DOJ might find such a mechanism useful. Some
~~observers criticize~~ observers criticize 31 OIG’s report on DOJ’s implementation of the Death in Custody Reporting Act, p. 3. 32 OIG’s report on DOJ’s implementation of the Death in Custody Reporting Act, p. 17. 33 OIG’s report on DOJ’s implementation of the Death in Custody Reporting Act, p. 17. Congressional Research Service 9 Programs to Collect Data on Law Enforcement Activities: Overview and Issues the FBI’s Hate Crimes Statistics program for similar reasons regarding the FBI’s Hate Crimes Statistics program for similar reasons regarding
uncertainty around the completeness of data collected by DOJ—more than 80% of law uncertainty around the completeness of data collected by DOJ—more than 80% of law
enforcement agencies report to enforcement agencies report to this program that they have zero hate crimes in their jurisdictions this program that they have zero hate crimes in their jurisdictions
for the year.for the year.3234
Agency Responsible for Overseeing Data Collection ~~in H.R. 7120~~
~~and S. 3985~~
Both BJS and the FBI work with state and local entities to collect and report crime and policing Both BJS and the FBI work with state and local entities to collect and report crime and policing
data. BJS is DOJ’s statistical agency and one of 13 principal statistical agencies in the federal data. BJS is DOJ’s statistical agency and one of 13 principal statistical agencies in the federal

~~29 OIG’s report on DOJ’s implementation of the Death in Custody Reporting Act, p. 3.~~
~~30 OIG’s report on DOJ’s implementation of the Death in Custody Reporting Act, p. 17.~~
~~31 OIG’s report on DOJ’s implementation of the Death in Custody Reporting Act, p. 17.~~
~~32 For more information on the FBI’s Hate Crime Statistics program, including information on zero -reporting agencies,~~
~~see CRS Report R46318, Federal Data on Hate Crim es in the United States.~~
~~Congressional Research Service~~
10

~~Programs to Collect Data on Law Enforcement Activities: Overview and Issues~~

~~government.33~~government.35 BJS works with state and local agencies to collect criminal justice data, including BJS works with state and local agencies to collect criminal justice data, including
from state and local law enforcement agencies, through its Law Enforcement Management and from state and local law enforcement agencies, through its Law Enforcement Management and
Administrative Statistics program and its Census of State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies. Administrative Statistics program and its Census of State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies.
The FBI works with law enforcement agencies to collect crime data through its Uniform Crime The FBI works with law enforcement agencies to collect crime data through its Uniform Crime
Reporting Program. Both agencies would appear to be natural fits to manageReporting Program. Both agencies would appear to be natural fits to manage some of the data collection the data collection
programs that could be authorized by programs that could be authorized by ~~H.R. 7120 and S. 3985. Both proposals~~JIPA. The legislation, however, would , however, would
require state and local governments to submit the required data or face a penalty if they do not require state and local governments to submit the required data or face a penalty if they do not
comply comply with the requirements. Therefore, BJA, which administers the JAG program, might be with the requirements. Therefore, BJA, which administers the JAG program, might be
further considered for collecting these data because BJA would have to determine whether state further considered for collecting these data because BJA would have to determine whether state
and local and local governments are complying with the data submission requirements. governments are complying with the data submission requirements.
DOJ’s OIG reported that in 2016, BJS participated in an effort initiated by a task force of state DOJ’s OIG reported that in 2016, BJS participated in an effort initiated by a task force of state
and local law enforcement organizations to develop and implement what would eventual y and local law enforcement organizations to develop and implement what would eventual y
become the FBI’s Use-of-Force Data Collection program.become the FBI’s Use-of-Force Data Collection program.3436 BJS recognized that there were BJS recognized that there were
similarities and overlap between the DCRP and the FBI’s program, and BJS asked the FBI to similarities and overlap between the DCRP and the FBI’s program, and BJS asked the FBI to
manage a combined data collection effort. The task force ended up rejecting BJS’s proposal, in manage a combined data collection effort. The task force ended up rejecting BJS’s proposal, in
part because they did not want the FBI making decisions about whether states were meeting the part because they did not want the FBI making decisions about whether states were meeting the
requirements of DCRA 2013. Members of the task force told the OIG that requirements of DCRA 2013. Members of the task force told the OIG that
because state and local law enforcement believed that the [Justice] Department may use because state and local law enforcement believed that the [Justice] Department may use
DCRA data to punish law enforcement agencies, the task force decided that it should limit DCRA data to punish law enforcement agencies, the task force decided that it should limit
[the FBI’s] data collection to only those specific elements needed for researchers to better [the FBI’s] data collection to only those specific elements needed for researchers to better
understand events and behaviors that led to officer use of force.understand events and behaviors that led to officer use of force.3537
DOJ’s Office of Justice Programs (OJP) decided that BJS would not serve as the data collection DOJ’s Office of Justice Programs (OJP) decided that BJS would not serve as the data collection
agent for the DCRP because agent for the DCRP because ~~Office of Budget and Management~~OMB guidance requires statistical guidance requires statistical
agencies to operate separately from policymaking activities.agencies to operate separately from policymaking activities.3638 OJP considers administration of the OJP considers administration of the
DCRP to be a policymaking activity because of the authority under DCRA 2013 for DOJ to DCRP to be a policymaking activity because of the authority under DCRA 2013 for DOJ to
withhold up to 10% of a state’s JAG funds if they do not submit the required data.withhold up to 10% of a state’s JAG funds if they do not submit the required data.3739 OJP also OJP also
decided not to have BJS serve as decided not to have BJS serve as the data collection agent for the program because the data collection agent for the program because
it would be inadvisable for BJS to collect state DCRA data on it would be inadvisable for BJS to collect state DCRA data on behalf of another entity that behalf of another entity that
would perform the compliance assessment because even such limited involvement could would perform the compliance assessment because even such limited involvement could
undermine BJS’s position as an objective statistical collection agency and could cause undermine BJS’s position as an objective statistical collection agency and could cause
survey respondents to withhold future data.survey respondents to withhold future data.38
~~OJP made BJA the data collection agent because BJA administers the JAG program and can~~
~~engage in policymaking.~~
~~Congress could consider requiring DOJ to establish new programs to collect data on law~~
~~enforcement activities such as the use of force, traffic stops, and no-knock warrants, and not~~
~~condition JAG funding on submitting data to these programs. Removing the policymaking~~
~~consideration from data submission could al ow BJS or the FBI to manage these programs.~~
~~However, some are concerned that the data might not be reported unless state and local~~
~~governments are given a financial incentive to do so. The FBI’s experience with the Use-of-Force~~

3340 34 For more information on the FBI’s Hate Crime Statistics program, including information on zero -reporting agencies, see CRS Report R46318, Federal Data on Hate Crim es in the United States. 35 OIG’s report on DOJ’s implementation of the Death in Custody Reporting Act , p. 2. OIG’s report on DOJ’s implementation of the Death in Custody Reporting Act , p. 2.
3436 OIG’s report on DOJ’s implementation of the Death in Custody Reporting Act, p. 10. OIG’s report on DOJ’s implementation of the Death in Custody Reporting Act, p. 10.
35 37 OIG’s report on DOJ’s implementation of the Death in Custody Reporting Act, p. 10. OIG’s report on DOJ’s implementation of the Death in Custody Reporting Act, p. 10.
3638 OIG’s report on DOJ’s implementation of the Death in Custody Reporting Act, p. 11. OIG’s report on DOJ’s implementation of the Death in Custody Reporting Act, p. 11.
3739 OIG’s report on DOJ’s implementation of the Death in Custody Reporting Act, p. 11. OIG’s report on DOJ’s implementation of the Death in Custody Reporting Act, p. 11.
38 40 OIG’s report on DOJ’s implementation of the Death in Custody Reporting Act, p. 11. OIG’s report on DOJ’s implementation of the Death in Custody Reporting Act, p. 11.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service
1110

Programs to Collect Data on Law Enforcement Activities: Overview and Issues

OJP made BJA the data collection agent because BJA administers the JAG program and can engage in policymaking. Congress could consider requiring DOJ to establish new programs to collect data on law enforcement activities such as the use of force, traffic stops, and no-knock warrants, and not condition JAG funding on submitting data to these programs. Removing the policymaking consideration from data submission could al ow BJS or the FBI to manage these programs. However, some are concerned that the data might not be reported unless state and local governments are given a financial incentive to do so. The FBI’s experience with the Use-of-Force Data Collection program and the Uniform Crime Reporting Program provide two examples Data Collection program and the Uniform Crime Reporting Program provide two examples
relevant to this discussion. The FBI started accepting relevant to this discussion. The FBI started accepting voluntarily submitted data from law enforcement agencies for its data from law enforcement agencies for its
Use-of-Force Data Collection program at the beginning of 2019; thus far, 40% of the law Use-of-Force Data Collection program at the beginning of 2019; thus far, 40% of the law
enforcement agencies are submitting use-of-force data to the FBI. In contrast, the Uniform Crime enforcement agencies are submitting use-of-force data to the FBI. In contrast, the Uniform Crime
Reporting Summary Reporting System, which Reporting Summary Reporting System, which ~~collects~~col ects data on the number of homicides, rapes, data on the number of homicides, rapes,
robberies, aggravated assaults, burglaries, larcenies, motor vehicle robberies, aggravated assaults, burglaries, larcenies, motor vehicle thefts, and arsons reported to thefts, and arsons reported to
the police has wide participation even though law enforcement agencies are not required to the police has wide participation even though law enforcement agencies are not required to
submit these data to the FBI.submit these data to the FBI.~~39 The FBI has been trying to replace~~41 In 2021, the FBI replaced the Summary Reporting the Summary Reporting
System with the National Incident Based Reporting System (NIBRS), which has collected System with the National Incident Based Reporting System (NIBRS), which has collected
detailed data on a wider variety of crimes since 1988.detailed data on a wider variety of crimes since 1988.42 Participation in NIBRS is Participation in NIBRS is also voluntary; in voluntary; in
2018, 2018, 4446% of % of al law enforcement agencies reported NIBRS-compliant data to law enforcement agencies reported NIBRS-compliant data to the FBI.the FBI.4043
Conditions on JAG Funds ~~in H.R. 7120 and S. 3985~~
~~Both H.R. 7120 and S. 3985~~JIPA would require, in many cases, state and local governments to submit would require, in many cases, state and local governments to submit
data to DOJ. If states do not comply with the reporting condition, they could face a penalty under data to DOJ. If states do not comply with the reporting condition, they could face a penalty under
~~the program~~one of federal grant programs, such as a reduction in their annual al ocation, such as a reduction in their annual al ocation of JAG funds. Depending on the costs of compliance . Depending on the costs of compliance
(e.g., whether state and local governments would have to spend money to upgrade their (e.g., whether state and local governments would have to spend money to upgrade their
information technology infrastructure or would have to increase staff to process data), there information technology infrastructure or would have to increase staff to process data), there ~~might~~
might be a question about whether the JAG program provides enough funding to encourage be a question about whether the JAG program provides enough funding to encourage compliance. compliance.
The Urban Institute notes that “nearly al spending on both police and corrections was funded by The Urban Institute notes that “nearly al spending on both police and corrections was funded by
state and local governments because federal grants account for a very smal share of both state and local governments because federal grants account for a very smal share of both
expenditures.”expenditures.”4144 Data on state and local finances show that in 2017, state governments spent Data on state and local finances show that in 2017, state governments spent
$15.426 bil ion on police services, and local governments spent $99.078 bil ion.$15.426 bil ion on police services, and local governments spent $99.078 bil ion.4245 In comparison, In comparison,
for for ~~FY2019~~FY2020, BJA awarded a total of $, BJA awarded a total of $~~175~~163 mil ion to states and $ mil ion to states and $7872 mil ion to local governments mil ion to local governments
under the JAG program. In addition, although every state receives an al ocation under the JAG under the JAG program. In addition, although every state receives an al ocation under the JAG
program, not al units of local government receive a direct al ocation. In general, direct JAG 41 In 2018, 18,585 law enforcement agencies serving jurisdictions that included 327,167,434 people reported summary data to the FBI. FBI, Uniform Crime Reporting Program, Crime in the United States, 2018, “ About CIUS,” at https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2018/crime-in-the-u.s.-2018/topic-pages/about-cius (hereinafter FBI, Crime in the United States, 2018). 42 For more information on NIBRS, see CRS Report R46668, The National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS): Benefits and Issues. 43 U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, National Incident Based Reporting System, 2019, data tables, participation, https://ucr.fbi.gov/nibrs/2019/tables/data-tables. 44 Urban Institute, State and Local Finance Initiative, “ Police and Corrections Expenditures,” at https://www.urban.org/policy-centers/cross-center-initiatives/state-and-local-finance-initiative/state-and-local-backgrounders/police-and-corrections-expenditures. 45 Data taken from https://state-local-finance-data.taxpolicycenter.org/pages.cfm. Congressional Research Service 11 Programs to Collect Data on Law Enforcement Activities: Overview and Issues ~~program, not al units of local government receive a direct al ocation. In general, direct JAG~~
awards are made to a state’s largest jurisdictions. For awards are made to a state’s largest jurisdictions. For ~~FY2019~~FY2020, BJA awarded a total of , BJA awarded a total of ~~873~~903 grants grants
to units of local government. Many local governments’ al ocations are less than $10,000, which is to units of local government. Many local governments’ al ocations are less than $10,000, which is
the threshold below which funds are included in the state’s al ocation rather than al ocated the threshold below which funds are included in the state’s al ocation rather than al ocated
directly; and the state is required to award these funds to the units of local government or to a directly; and the state is required to award these funds to the units of local government or to a
state state ~~enforcement~~ agency that provides law enforcement services for these jurisdictions. agency that provides law enforcement services for these jurisdictions.
For these smal er jurisdictions, there might be a question about whether any of the proposed For these smal er jurisdictions, there might be a question about whether any of the proposed
penalties under the JAG program would provide enough of an incentive for them to adopt the penalties under the JAG program would provide enough of an incentive for them to adopt the
proposed data reporting requirements. For example, a local government whose JAG al ocation is proposed data reporting requirements. For example, a local government whose JAG al ocation is
$20,000 would lose $5,000 if the penalty is 25%, which may $20,000 would lose $5,000 if the penalty is 25%, which may ~~not be more~~be less than it costs than it costs the local government agency to comply ~~to comply~~
with the reporting requirements. Also, depending on the text of the legislation that Congress with the reporting requirements. Also, depending on the text of the legislation that Congress
considers, there might be a question about whether any potential penalties would apply to funds considers, there might be a question about whether any potential penalties would apply to funds
awarded to “less than $10,000 jurisdictions” because they would awarded to “less than $10,000 jurisdictions” because they would not apply directly to BJA for ~~not apply directly to BJA for~~

~~39 In 2018, 18,585 law enforcement agencies serving jurisdictions that included 327,167, 434 people reported summary~~
~~data to the FBI. FBI, Uniform Crime Reporting Program, Crime in the United States, 2018, “ About CIUS,” at~~
~~https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2018/crime-in-the-u.s.-2018/topic-pages/about-cius (hereinafter FBI, Crime in the~~
~~United States, 2018).~~
~~40 FBI, Crime in the United States, 2018.~~
~~41 Urban Institute, State and Local Finance Initiative, “ Police and Corrections Expendit ures,” at https://www.urban.org/~~
~~policy-centers/cross-center-initiatives/state-and-local-finance-initiative/state-and-local-backgrounders/police-and-~~
~~corrections-expenditures.~~
~~42 Data taken from https://state-local-finance-data.taxpolicycenter.org/pages.cfm.~~
~~Congressional Research Service~~
12

~~Programs to Collect Data on Law Enforcement Activities: Overview and Issues~~

funding—hence, they would not be considered applicants ~~and~~ funding—hence, they would not be considered applicants and instead may be considered instead may be considered
recipients of JAG funds. of JAG funds.
Policymakers may look to instances of states not complying with a condition Congress placed on Policymakers may look to instances of states not complying with a condition Congress placed on
the JAG program because states determined that the costs of complying were greater than what the JAG program because states determined that the costs of complying were greater than what
they would lose if they they would lose if they ~~took~~accepted the penalty. For example, SORNA mandated a 10% reduction in JAG the penalty. For example, SORNA mandated a 10% reduction in JAG
funding for any jurisdictions that failed to substantial y implement SORNA. The National funding for any jurisdictions that failed to substantial y implement SORNA. The National
Conference of State Legislatures found that many states did not comply with SORNA’s Conference of State Legislatures found that many states did not comply with SORNA’s
requirements because they “discovered it would be cheaper to take the financial hit than requirements because they “discovered it would be cheaper to take the financial hit than
implement the policy.”implement the policy.”4346 States noted that compliance was “labor intensive,” and it was “cheaper States noted that compliance was “labor intensive,” and it was “cheaper
not to comply.”not to comply.”4447 As of 2019, the Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, As of 2019, the Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending,
Registering, and Tracking reports that 18 states are fully in compliance with SORNA. Registering, and Tracking reports that 18 states are fully in compliance with SORNA.4548
The potential for many jurisdictions to face a relatively smal penalty under the JAG program The potential for many jurisdictions to face a relatively smal penalty under the JAG program
might raise a question about whether Congress could incentivize participation by offering these might raise a question about whether Congress could incentivize participation by offering these
jurisdictions grants to help them comply with data reporting requirements. It is possible that for jurisdictions grants to help them comply with data reporting requirements. It is possible that for
many of these smal er jurisdictions, the costs of compliance—which could include hiring new many of these smal er jurisdictions, the costs of compliance—which could include hiring new
staff to manage data, upgrading information technology infrastructure, and training officers on staff to manage data, upgrading information technology infrastructure, and training officers on
data collection requirements—could require a significant increase in their operating budgets. data collection requirements—could require a significant increase in their operating budgets.
Were the federal government to offset some of those expenses, it could have a positive effect on Were the federal government to offset some of those expenses, it could have a positive effect on
participation. participation. ~~The two policing reform bil s have provisions~~JIPA has a provision that could address this issue. that could address this issue. ~~H.R.~~
~~7120~~The legislation would authorize DOJ to make training and technical assistance grants to assist tribal and would authorize DOJ to make training and technical assistance grants to assist tribal and
local law enforcement agencies that employ fewer than 100 officers with meeting the use-of-force local law enforcement agencies that employ fewer than 100 officers with meeting the use-of-force
data reporting requirements that would be established by the bildata reporting requirements that would be established by the bil or to create a system that tracks or to create a system that tracks
use-of-force use-of-force complaints against officers. ~~complaints against officers. S. 3985 would create a grant program to assist state and~~
~~units local government with collecting data on the use of force and no-knock warrants.~~

~~Author Information~~

~~Nathan James~~
~~Kristin Finklea~~
~~Analyst in Crime Policy~~
~~Specialist in Domestic Security~~

4346 Dylan Scott, “ States Find SORNA Non-Compliance Cheaper,” Dylan Scott, “ States Find SORNA Non-Compliance Cheaper,” Governing, November 7, 2011. , November 7, 2011.
4447 Ibid. Ibid.
4548 U.S. Department of Justice, OJP, Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, and U.S. Department of Justice, OJP, Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, and
T racking, T racking, Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) State and Territory Im plem entation Progress
Check, June 10, 2019, at https://smart.ojp.gov/sites/g/files/xyckuh231/files/media/document/sorna-progress-check.pdf. , June 10, 2019, at https://smart.ojp.gov/sites/g/files/xyckuh231/files/media/document/sorna-progress-check.pdf.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service
1312

Programs to Collect Data on Law Enforcement Activities: Overview and Issues

Author Information Nathan James Kristin Finklea Analyst in Crime Policy Specialist in Domestic Security
Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan
shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and
under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should n ot be relied upon for purposes other under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should n ot be relied upon for purposes other
than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in
connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not
subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or
material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to
copy or otherwise use copyrighted material. copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service
R46443 R46443 · VERSION ~~1 · NEW~~
142 · UPDATED 13