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

July 6, 2020 – March 11, 2021 R46443

Programs to Collect Data on Law Enforcement
March 11, 2021
Activities: Overview and Issues
Nathan James
The death of George Floyd in May 2020, in Minneapolis, MN, while he was in the custody of
Analyst in Crime Policy
law enforcement, and several other recent high-profile deaths of African Americans at the hands

of police, have generated interest in legislation to reform policing practices. 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. The House passed JIPA on March 3, 2021. Similar
Security
legislation passed the House in the 116th 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 use of force, racial profiling, 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 instances,
states would be required to establish systems for collecting required data and reporting them to DOJ. The bill would provide
incentives for state and local governments to report data by attaching conditions to the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice
Assistance Grant (JAG) and 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
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
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
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).
The data collection programs proposed by JIPA might raise the following questions for consideration by policymakers :
 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
to “reporting fatigue”?
 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?
 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
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
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
Reporting Program).
 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)—
both of which have experience with managing large data collection programs —from collecting data for the
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
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
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,
most likely accounts for a relatively small portion of any local government’s policing budget.
Congressional Research Service

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

he death of George Floyd, in May 2020, in Minneapolis, MN, while in the custody of law
enforcement, along with several other high-profile deaths of African Americans at the
T hands of the police (including Michael Brown in Ferguson, MO, Eric Garner in Staten
Island, NY, Philando Castile in Falcon Heights, MN, Breonna Taylor in Louisvil e, KY, and
Daniel Prude in Rochester, NY), have served as catalysts for anti-police brutality protests in cities
across the country. These deaths and the resulting protests have spurred congressional interest in
policing reform legislation.
Law enforcement reform legislation has been introduced in the 117th Congress as the George
Floyd Justice in Policing Act of 2021 (JIPA, H.R. 1280). The House passed JIPA on March 3,
2021. The legislation would address a variety of topics—such as promoting better training for law
enforcement officers, seeking to ban the use of chokeholds and carotid holds, prohibiting racial
profiling, and changing how law enforcement officers use force. The bil would also require state
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
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
building public trust. In testimony before the task force, the members of the Division of Policing
of the American 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 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
“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
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
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
federal government.5
This report discusses the programs to col ect data on state and local law enforcement activities
that would be authorized by JIPA. It also provides an overview of existing Department of Justice
(DOJ) programs to collect data on the use of force by law enforcement officers and in-custody
deaths. The report concludes with a review of selected issues policymakers might consider when
debating policing reform.

1 Executive Order 13684, “Establishment of the President’s T ask Force on 21 st Century Policing,” 79 Federal Register
76865, December 23, 2014.
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 2015 , p. 19 (hereinafter
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.
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.
Congressional Research Service
1

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

Legislative Proposal to Collect Data on Law
Enforcement Activities
Since the death of Michael Brown and subsequent civil unrest in Ferguson, MO, and elsewhere,
there have been numerous legislative proposals that would have established programs to collect
data on law enforcement activities. Although DOJ currently 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 collection programs that would be created
by JIPA.6
The George Floyd Justice in Policing Act of 2021
The George Floyd Justice in Policing Act of 2021 (JIPA; H.R. 1280), would direct the Attorney
General to develop regulations to carry out data collection on a variety of policing practices,
including law enforcement use of force and racial profiling.
Data on Law Enforcement Practices
JIPA 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 force
by their law enforcement officers. 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
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
whether it resulted in death;
 a description of deadly force directed against an officer and whether it resulted in
injury or death; and
 the law enforcement agency’s justification for use of deadly force, if the agency
determines it was justified.
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
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
Oriented Policing Services (COPS) program,8 or any other DOJ law enforcement assistance
program.

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

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
against a civilian;
 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;
 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;
 deaths in custody; and
 use of force in arrests and bookings.
A report for each incident would be required to include the following information:
 the national origin, sex, race, ethnicity, age, disability, English language
proficiency, and housing status of each civilian against whom a local or tribal law
enforcement officer used force;
 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
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;
 the type of force used against the officer, the civilian, or both, including the types
of weapons used;
 the reason force was used;
 a description of any injuries sustained as a result of the incident;
 the number of officers and civilians involved in the incident; and
 a brief description of the circumstances surrounding the incident, including the
type of force used by al involved persons; the legitimate police objective
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
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.
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
required to submit reports under this program for incidents that are reportable under the Death in
Custody Reporting Act.9
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
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
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
required to publish an annual report using the data collected under this program.
Data on Racial Profiling
The bil 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
agencies. The regulations would need to provide for data collection on al routine or spontaneous
investigatory activities10 and for these data to
 be disaggregated by race, ethnicity, national origin, gender, disability, and
religion;
 include the date, time, and location of such investigatory activities; and
 include detail sufficient to permit an analysis of whether a law enforcement
agency is engaging in racial profiling.
These data would be submitted directly from law enforcement agencies to DOJ’s Civil Rights
Division and the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). Law enforcement 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 percentage of drivers or pedestrians stopped
relative to the proportion of the population passing through the neighborhood; hit rates (i.e., the
rate at which contraband was found during a search); and the frequency of searches performed on
drivers who are people of color relative to White drivers.
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
that they have policies that require data collection in accordance with the regulations issued by
DOJ.
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.

10 H.R. 1280 would define routine or spontaneous investigatory activities as interviews; traffic stops; pedestrian stops;
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
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
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).
Congressional Research Service
4

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

Use-of-Force Data Collection Program
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
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
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
organizations are working in collaboration with the FBI to develop the National Use-of-
Force Data Collection.11
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
involved.”12 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.
The FBI’s Use-of-Force Data Collection program includes use-of-force incidents that result in the
death or serious bodily injury13 of a person or any incident when a law enforcement officer
discharges a firearm at 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 for the initial 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 officer information (e.g., demographic information, whether the officer
discharged a firearm, and whether the officer was injured).14 Federal, state, tribal, and local law
enforcement agencies are 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 organizations and the FBI’s Criminal Justice Information Services’
Advisory Policy Board to develop support for participation.15
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.”16
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 T he FBI defines serious bodily injury 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
mental faculty.” FBI’s Use of Force Data website.
14 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.
15 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
agencies and national security agencies and organizations throughout the United States.
16 FBI’s Use of Force Data website.
17 U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, “FBI Releases 201 9 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
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
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
funding under the JAG program if they do not provide the data. The act extends the reporting
requirement to federal agencies.
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
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
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-
related deaths than the volume at which they occur.”21 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
time frame.22
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

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, Arrest-Related Deaths, 2003-2009―Statistical Tables, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of
Justice Programs (OJP), BJS, NCJ 235385, Nov ember 2011, p. 1 (hereinafter BJS, Arrest-Related Deaths, 2003-2009).
22 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/
2018/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 of data the federal government collects on certain law
enforcement activities. DOJ’s experiences with implementing the requirements of the Death in
Custody Reporting Act and the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA; P.L.
109-248)27 may provide insight into some of the issues policymakers might consider when
evaluating legislation for state and local governments to submit data to DOJ on law enforcement
activities.
Potential Overlap Between Data Collection Programs
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.28 Both the FBI’s Use-of-Force Data
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
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
“duplicative reporting requirements can confuse respondents and increase the risk of respondent
fatigue, which can diminish data quality.”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 duplicate existing DOJ
data collection programs. The legislation would, for example, require states to 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 existing, but voluntary, FBI Use-of-Force Data Collection
program. If the legislation 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
those data to DOJ, while also submitting similar data on officer-involved shootings directly to the
FBI for its existing 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,
potential y complicating these data collection and reporting efforts.
Under JIPA, local law enforcement agencies would also be required to submit to the state data
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
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
in the FBI’s Use-of-Force Data Collection program are required to submit data to the FBI that
would not be included in the use-of-force data collection program that would be created by the
bil . For example, participating law enforcement agencies must submit data to the FBI indicating
whether the shooting occurred during an ambush situation, whether the officer 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, the proposal for state,
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 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 the stops. These data could
overlap with data that state and local governments would be required to submit to DOJ’s Civil
Rights Division and BJS under the bill’s proposed racial profiling data collection program (see
“Data on Racial Profiling,” above), which would also require state, 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 collection
requirements, however, would require law enforcement agencies to collect data on a wider variety
of law enforcement actions (e.g., interviews).
Scope of Racial Profiling Data
JIPA would require that DOJ issue regulations to collect data on potential racial profiling by law
enforcement agencies around the country (see “Data on Racial Profiling,” above).30 Racial
profiling data may include race, ethnicity, national origin, gender, disability, and religion, as wel
as other information sufficient to determine if agencies are engaging in profiling.
Congress may consider debating which data should and should not be collected and submitted to
DOJ for this program. For instance, the bil would require submitted data to include 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
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
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
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
agencies understand if individual officers are engaging in profiling.
 Collecting Racial Profiling Data as a Potential Deterrent. Some may question
whether the collection of racial profiling data could act as a deterrent for agencies
to engage in racial profiling. Under the legislation, DOJ’s report on racial
profiling would be submitted to Congress and be made available the public.
Policymakers and researchers may question whether the availability of this
information could influence state and local practices.
Structures for Collecting Data
JIPA would establish a method for state and local governments to submit 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 agencies in the state and
submit them to DOJ. DOJ’s experience with col ecting data on ARDs under its DCRP may
il ustrate some of the potential issues DOJ might experience if states are required to collect data
from local governments before submitting them to DOJ.
As discussed in the “Deaths in Custody Reporting Program” section, BJS collected data on ARDs
pursuant to DCRA 2000 but eventual y stopped collecting these data because 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 these data on behalf
of al law enforcement agencies in the state.31 DOJ’s OIG noted that DOJ found during its
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.32 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) 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
governments cannot compel subordinate levels of government to report crime data without state
laws requiring such reporting.33
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. Unless DOJ or states
periodical y audit the data that local law enforcement agencies submit, it is difficult to know if
participating law enforcement agencies are reporting al required data. Were JIPA to be 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 local governments
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 they have no
applicable incidents to report, DOJ might find such a mechanism useful. Some 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 uncertainty around the
completeness of data collected by DOJ—more than 80% of law enforcement agencies report to
this program that they have zero hate crimes in their jurisdictions for the year.34
Agency Responsible for Overseeing Data Collection
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
government.35 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
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
Reporting Program. Both agencies would appear to be natural fits to manage some of the data
collection programs that could be authorized by JIPA. The legislation, however, would require
state and local governments to submit the required data or face a penalty if they do not comply
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 and local
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
and local law enforcement organizations to develop and implement what would eventual y
become the FBI’s Use-of-Force Data Collection program.36 BJS recognized that there were
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
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
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
[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.37
DOJ’s Office of Justice Programs (OJP) decided that BJS would not serve as the data collection
agent for the DCRP because OMB guidance requires statistical agencies to operate separately
from policymaking activities.38 OJP considers administration of the 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.39 OJP also decided not to have BJS serve as
the data collection agent for the program because
it would be inadvisable for BJS to collect state DCRA data on behalf of another entity that
would perform the compliance assessment because even such limited involvement could
undermine BJS’s position as an objective statistical collection agency and could cause
survey respondents to withhold future data.40

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.
36 OIG’s report on DOJ’s implementation of the Death in Custody Reporting Act, p. 10.
37 OIG’s report on DOJ’s implementation of the Death in Custody Reporting Act, p. 10.
38 OIG’s report on DOJ’s implementation of the Death in Custody Reporting Act, p. 11.
39 OIG’s report on DOJ’s implementation of the Death in Custody Reporting Act, p. 11.
40 OIG’s report on DOJ’s implementation of the Death in Custody Reporting Act, p. 11.
Congressional Research Service
10

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
relevant to this discussion. The FBI started accepting voluntarily submitted data from law
enforcement agencies for its 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 Reporting Summary Reporting System, which col ects data on the
number of homicides, rapes, robberies, aggravated assaults, burglaries, larcenies, motor vehicle
thefts, and arsons reported to the police has wide participation even though law enforcement
agencies are not required to submit these data to the FBI.41 In 2021, the FBI replaced the
Summary Reporting System with the National Incident Based Reporting System (NIBRS), which
has collected detailed data on a wider variety of crimes since 1988.42 Participation in NIBRS is
also voluntary; in 2018, 46% of al law enforcement agencies reported NIBRS-compliant data to
the FBI.43
Conditions on JAG Funds
JIPA 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 one of federal grant
programs, such as a reduction in their annual al ocation of JAG funds. Depending on the costs of
compliance (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
might be a question about whether the JAG program provides enough funding to encourage
compliance.
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
expenditures.”44 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 billion.45 In comparison,
for FY2020, BJA awarded a total of $163 mil ion to states and $72 mil ion to local governments
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

awards are made to a state’s largest jurisdictions. For FY2020, BJA awarded a total of 903 grants
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
directly; and the state is required to award these funds to the units of local government or to a
state 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
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
$20,000 would lose $5,000 if the penalty is 25%, which may be less than it costs the local
government agency to comply 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 awarded to “less than $10,000 jurisdictions” because they would
not apply directly to BJA for funding—hence, they would not be considered applicants and
instead may be considered recipients of JAG funds.
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
they would lose if they accepted the penalty. For example, SORNA mandated a 10% reduction in
JAG 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
requirements because they “discovered it would be cheaper to take the financial hit than
implement the policy.”46 States noted that compliance was “labor intensive,” and it was “cheaper
not to comply.”47 As of 2019, the Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending,
Registering, and Tracking reports that 18 states are fully in compliance with SORNA.48
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
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
staff to manage data, upgrading information technology infrastructure, and training officers on
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
participation. JIPA has a provision that could address this issue. The legislation 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 data reporting
requirements that would be established by the bil or to create a system that tracks use-of-force
complaints against officers.

46 Dylan Scott, “States Find SORNA Non-Compliance Cheaper,” Governing, November 7, 2011.
47 Ibid.
48 U.S. Department of Justice, OJP, Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, and
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.
Congressional Research Service
12

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
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
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
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
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.

Congressional Research Service
R46443 · VERSION 3 · UPDATED
13

Download PDF

Download EPUB

Revision History

Mar. 11, 2021

HTML · PDF

1% changed

Mar. 2, 2021

HTML · PDF

2% changed

Jul. 6, 2020

HTML · PDF

Metadata