FBI Will Publish Long-Delayed Police Use-of-Force Data

Lack of participation from police departments has stymied the FBI's national use-of-force database for the past three years, but FBI Director Christopher Wray said a required threshold has finally been met.


FBI Director Christopher Wray said in a speech last Friday that the Bureau will release long-delayed statistics this spring on police use of force, giving the public its first glimpse of the federal government's most comprehensive efforts to date to collect data on how, when, and where police use force around the country.

Launched three years ago, the FBI's National Use-of-Force Data Collection program was in danger of being scuttled because of insufficient participation from police departments, but Wray announced that it has finally reached a threshold to begin publishing data that requires participation from 60 percent of law enforcement agencies.

Speaking at a conference of black law enforcement executives in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, Wray said that hitting the threshold "means that in the very near future, we're going to be able to release our first statistics on the use-of-force, things like the top types of force used and resistance encountered, things like the overall percentages we're seeing for kinds of incidents and the reasons for initial contact."

The Justice Department vowed to overhaul its data collection programs regarding police use of force in 2015, following reporting from The Washington Post and other media outlets that showed the FBI's tally of fatal police shootings in the U.S., self-reported by police departments, vastly undercounted the true number of people killed by police. Despite the intense public attention surrounding police killings, there was simply no reliable federal government data on how, when, or where police officers employed by the roughly 18,000 departments across the country used deadly force.

However, the federal government can't force police departments to submit reports. Since the FBI launched the program in 2019, police department participation has steadily risen but never met the threshold set by the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to obtain data from 60 percent of law enforcement agencies before any statistics can be published.

A Government Accountability Office (GAO) report warned in December that, "due to insufficient participation from law enforcement agencies, the FBI faces risks that it may not meet the participation thresholds" established by the OMB, "and therefore may never publish use of force incident data."

"Further, the collection itself may be discontinued as soon as the end of 2022," the GAO report said.

The threshold is meant to ensure that the data reflects a majority of law enforcement officers, but it also means that the FBI has been sitting on a large but unpublished trove of data, frustrating civil liberties groups and researchers.

The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights has been trying to obtain raw reports from law enforcement agencies submitted to the FBI program. However, the FBI has rejected its Freedom of Information Act requests, and the Justice Department has denied the Leadership Conference's appeal.

"The FBI's use-of-force data collection has been shrouded in secrecy from the outset, which is why we were requesting greater access to the information," Sakira Cook, senior director of the Justice Reform Program at the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, told Reason earlier this month. "Regardless of the FBI's excuses for keeping these records private, let's be clear: This data should be publicly available."

It now appears that at least some summary statistics will be released. Wray said that more granular data will be released if an 80 percent threshold is met.

But that is up to the police departments.

NEXT: This Jail Won't Provide Drug Addicts With Essential Meds

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I'm not sure how useful the information will be being that it will be based upon police reports which are nothing but boilerplate and lies.

    1. I know you read a lot of reviews and news to earn jobs online. Some people don't know how to make money and say they're faking it. qgp. I have my FIRST check for a total of $10,000, quite interesting. Just click and open the page to click on the first statement and check....
      The jobs…. https://brilliantfuture01.blogspot.com/

  2. I'm sure it will confirm what I learned in college — American cops are racist psychopaths who put bullets in BLACK BODIES for no reason. Even when they're in the HANDS UP DON'T SHOOT pose.


  3. was unaware Flowers By Irene understood "insufficient participation" tactics

    1. I make 85 dollars each hour for working an online job at home. I never thought I could do it but my best friend makes 10000 bucks every month qwe05 working this job and she recommended me to learn more about it. The potential with this is endless.

      For more detail.......... http://currentjobs64.Cf

  4. The question you should be asking is: Does my local police department submit use-of-force data to the FBI? Why or why not? If you've got nothing to hide, right?

    1. Technically, the libertarian question is "why is the federal government involved at all?"

      1. Likewise, "why were the police involved at all?"

        Oh right, someone had a dog that the police needed to kill.

  5. " . . . no reliable federal government data . . . "

    There is the problem in a nutshell. I will not believe any data the FBI publishes.

    1. It does beg the question of whether government data can ever be reliable. People bitch about China and Putin but is the US really that different?

  6. Because the information will be based on police reports that are nothing more than boilerplate and falsehoods, I'm not sure how beneficial it will be.
    LONOVE |LONOVE BEAUTY PRODUCTS, Beauty, Cosmetics, Makeup, Hair Care, Skin Care Products

  7. I'm sure the information that magically got them over the threshold to keep the program will be fully fortified and as honest as anything on their FISA applications.

  8. Does anybody trust the FBI, DOJ, or any other organ of the federal government. They just spent the last four years in cahoots with the Democrats braying about Russian Collusion, now we have Democrats in control of the entire federal government.

    I am not claiming Republicans are much better, but at least they are hated by the media, hated enough by the media to forfeit any credibility and to become propagandists for Democrats. So, yeah, republicans are marginally better than Democrats and communists.

  9. At this point in time - everything, and I do mean everything, that the government's three letter agencies say - is HIGHLY suspect. You can almost COUNT on it being a lie...

  10. I have as much faith in the FBI doing the right thing as I do Trump apologizing.

  11. I read it as "FBI's use of farce" at first, for some reason.

  12. The FBI's been very busy masterminding crimes to entrap citizens to publish guidelines for the police.

  13. They can't force them, but they could refuse non compliant forces access to the steal sharing and discount military gear programs.
    Not that it matters, everyone above is right about fbi/doj credibility.

  14. Under Article I, Congress does have the duty “to enforce the U.S. Constitution” at the local, state and federal levels.

    The entire flawed premise of “Jim Crow” laws and practices, was that local governments perceived themselves as above their Oath of Office and above “the supreme law of the land” (U.S. Constitution). They wrongly cited the 10th Amendment (states’ rights) while ignoring the 9th Amendment - which basically says you can’t violate any rights while exercising other rights.

    Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court have an oath-sworn duty to intervene when local governments practice “unconstitutional-authoritarianism” like happened during the Jim Crow era.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.