CEOARE Response to Criminal Justice Statistics
March 30, 2023
The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP)
National Science and Technology Council (NSTC)
Attn: Karin Underwood
Sent via email to: equitabledata@ostp.eop.gov
Subject: Criminal Justice Statistics RFI
CEO Action for Racial Equity (CEOARE) commends the commitment of the Biden- Harris Administration to enhance public trust and public safety through the advancement of accountability and transparency in policing and the criminal justice system.
In October 2020, 100+ organizations came together and launched CEOARE, a Fellowship dedicated to advancing racial equity through public policy. At CEOARE, we focus our efforts on eight issues in four key areas where longstanding racial disparities are widening: education, healthcare, economic empowerment, and public safety – with the goal of improving well-being in the Black community and impacting society at large. By working with nonprofit organizations, academics, community leaders and decision makers, we’re able to share, co-create and improve policies that represent us all and can close deeply rooted gaps faced by Black Americans.
CEOARE recently published a report, Advancing Transparency and Accountability: A Framework for a Law Enforcement Officer Accountability Database (the Report).1 We proposed a seven-point framework for law enforcement accountability databases that would govern the collection and publication of data on complaints, officer termination and discipline, as well as commendations and awards. To illustrate the utility of the framework, we analyzed 15 government and independent databases through the lens of the seven design elements including the status of complaints collected, access to the records and the types of misconduct reported. A numerical level, described in the “Design Element Analysis” section of the Report, was assigned for each design element. The Report concludes with our recommendations on each design element for consideration by policy makers, law enforcement and other stakeholders for the purpose of creating a “Working Model” for accountability databases.
We believe the Report is responsive to the Office of Science and Technology Policy’s Request for Information (RFI), noticed in the Federal Register, Vol. 88, No. 32, February 16, 2023. Although our Report does not address all the questions in the RFI, it does cover questions numbered: 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 17. Below we have noted those select questions in the RFI (bolded), followed by our responses, incorporating references to the relevant sections of the Report for your review and consideration.
1. What existing reports or research should the Federal government review to better understand and assess the status of data collection, use, and transparency in STLT law enforcement agencies? What are the findings of researchers, groups, and organizations researching the status of law enforcement agencies’ data practices in general and disaggregated by sociodemographic and geographic variables in particular?
The Report aggregates publicly available information on the data collection practices of 15 government and independent databases on law enforcement misconduct. See, Appendix B: Database Analyses. In addition to the databases that were assessed, the Report also identifies an additional 40 plus databases that are currently in operation. See, Appendix A: Law Enforcement Officer Accountability Database Matrix. For an overview of the recommendations on database design, see the Executive Summary and Recommendations section.
We also developed a methodology to assess how the 15 databases handled each of the following seven design elements: Complaint Status, Misconduct Definition, Record Details, Access Rights, Audit and Compliance, Record Retention and Reporting Frequency. In the analysis of the individual databases (see Appendix B), we applied a scale, one to three, to assess how the database approached each of the design elements under the designated criteria. See, Analysis Methodology. Where information was not available or could not be clearly discerned from publicly available information, we documented the matter with a question mark (?). See the Design Element Analysis.
The Report provides an overview of collection practices of the selected databases that could inform the development of an effective model for collecting and reporting discipline records. For detailed write ups of the databases, see the following summaries including their assessments under the design framework. Note, all summaries are as of the Report publication date, November 17, 2022.
+
Additionally, the Report proposes a Working Model, which offers recommendations on each of the design elements. We regard the Working Model as the starting point for further discussion among stakeholders.
Lastly, since publishing the Report, the MA POST Commission finalized regulations 555 CMR 8.00 on Databases and Dissemination of Information. The regulations address requirements for the collection and publication of certain law enforcement data in the prescribed databases. One requirement involves how to handle discipline decisions that are being challenged. The regulations require including in the public database notice of decisions and actions that are being challenged “through a proceeding before the [MA POST] Commission, the Civil Service Commission, an arbitrator, or a court.” 555 CMR 8.06(3)(a)11. Additionally, there needs to be “prominently displayed advisories concerning the possibility that decisions and actions concerning officers have been or will be challenged and the benefit of independently seeking the most current information.” 555 CMR 8.06(3)(b).
3. What datasets are critical for law enforcement agencies to collect in order to ensure the comprehensive and disaggregated collection of operational data, incident-based datasets, and other data to produce more equitable outcomes? Why?
The Report recommends establishing a baseline of required information to be included for each record reported in the database to 1) standardize the types of background information available on each incident, and 2) eliminate the cost and burden of obtaining additional information through Freedom of Information Act requests.Datasets used in the accountability database are a key component of our recommended framework. Data in each record needs to be consistent, accurate, and complete to enable quality and efficient analytics in an equitable manner. Our Analysis Methodology identified that reporting on at least six fields provided more meaningful background on the incident. However, the Report recommends that certain information, such as matters pending investigation, should be made available on a tiered access basis. We propose offering law enforcement executives access to more sensitive data including allegations that have not been substantiated for the purpose of hiring, promotions, and training. See, Access Rights and recommendation on tiered access.The six fields are as follows:
- Officer name/unique ID: Prompting accountability and acts as a unique identifier across other jurisdictional data sources
- One or more dates (incident, outcome, case closure, etc.): Bringing specificity to the incident as a differentiator from other potentially similar incidents
- Incident category: For purposes of easily categorizing data
- Detailed description of incident: Bringing additional context to the incident that sheds light on the allegation
- Disciplinary outcome/ investigation status: Showing where in the investigative process a complaint may be as well as the final disposition of the complaint
- Complainant demographics (gender, race, age, etc.): Providing opportunity for analysis in determining whether there may be patterns of bias in the conduct of an officer.
4. What communities of practice or collaborations can law enforcement agencies participate in to improve how they collect comprehensive, quality, and disaggregated data to identify and address disparities? How can the Federal government encourage and support the development of collaborations to further promote the exchange of ideas and best practices?
The Report recommends working with local, non-profit, and independent organizations to advance transparency and accountability.One example discussed is the project between the Invisible Institute’s Citizens Police Data Project (CPDP), a collaborative effort between the Invisible Institute and the University of Chicago Law School’s Mandel Legal Aid Clinic. They acquired public records and created a database that includes records of misconduct allegations involving Chicago Police Department officers. In addition to attorneys, law enforcement investigators and the public, individual police officers expressed an interest in accessing the CPDP to find out the backgrounds of officers with whom they are getting partnered. See, Policy Landscape – State/Local/Independent.
5. What is and is not working regarding how the Federal government supports the collection, use, and transparency of disaggregated data on law enforcement activities, and why?
We urge the federal government to support mandatory reporting in order to advance the collection of credible and complete law enforcement data. For example, currently the FBI Use of Force database and the National Decertification Index (NDI) require voluntary reporting by law enforcement agencies regarding use-of-force incidents and officer license revocations. We believe voluntary submissions result in incomplete data sets. Voluntary reporting results in representation of select areas, only, and based on revocation standards for a given state. This causes gaps in data coverage and limits users of the database to gain insights and identify trends and misconduct patterns. See, the section on the need for a standardized definition of misconduct and mandatory reporting.
We also urge the federal government to incentivize states to compile and share law enforcement disciplinary information, as preparedness for a future, national law enforcement accountability database. While we acknowledge that individual state databases may not present a thorough dataset, it is progress towards building a larger, centralized database at the federal level. Stakeholders should continue to build out their own databases across jurisdictions, using common data structures and technology platforms where possible.Finally, the Report also urges a nationwide law enforcement accountability database that would require participation by federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies. A federalized approach could centralize misconduct records, allowing an efficient and reliable system for checking backgrounds on candidates for hire and promotion. Beyond providing access to the records of officers guilty of misconduct and identifying those who “wander” to other departments, it could bring added professionalism to law enforcement as a career. A nationwide database could also allow stakeholders to see patterns in misconduct that might act as an early warning system, identifying officers in need of reassignment or retraining before more serious misconduct occurs. See, Overview of Law Enforcement Officer Accountability Databases.
6. What specific challenges and opportunities do small and resource constrained STLT law enforcement agencies face in the collection, use, and transparency of disaggregated data to inform more equitable outcomes?
The Report acknowledges that STLT law enforcement agencies face non-compliance with data reporting requirements due to a lack of resources. These agencies often receive a small share of the allocated funding from the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant or other federal law enforcement grant programs. As a result, the smaller STLTs need increased funding in order to comply with data collection mandates. See, need for incentives to comply.
10. What standards must be implemented to reduce barriers to data collection from law enforcement? What organizations or models of data standards exist that could serve as a model to inform more standardized police and criminal justice data collection in the future?
The Report provides a framework which gives guidance on analyzing key elements of a law enforcement officer accountability database. Databases should collect and report data that would meaningfully inform future evidence-based policymaking on transparency and accountability in policing. The Report outlines a working model which provides data standards for providing consistency and accuracy in data collection. For additional details See, Law Enforcement Officer Accountability Database Design Framework, Design Elements, and A Working Model for Law Enforcement Officer Accountability Database.
17. To what extent do law enforcement agencies currently make data publicly available about their efforts to reduce disparities in policing outcomes? What are examples and opportunities for law enforcement agencies to use relevant and accessible approaches to data transparency?
The Report identifies various categories of complaint data that may be publicly available, and thus may provide insights on disparities in policing outcomes. Our research indicated that disclosure of complaint information was tied to the status of the proceedings. See, Complaint Status criteria. Allegations that were sustained—including officers who had been terminated or had their licenses revoked—were more likely to be published in public databases. Whereas matters that have not been completed and are pending further proceedings, were not made publicly available in some of the databases. For examples of public access treatment, see the National Decertification Index, USC Police Misconduct Registry, Chicago Citizen Police Data Project and Oregon Department of Public Safety Standards & Training Professional Standards Cases Database.
The issue of public access to misconduct records continues to be debated. The Report recommends adopting a tiered access approach. This approach could provide levels of access, allowing some law executives increased access to select and more sensitive information for hiring, promotion and discipline purposes. See, recommendation on tiered access.
We welcome an opportunity to further discuss the findings and recommendations of the Report. Please direct any questions or concerns regarding this comment to Roslyn Brooks, CEO Action for Racial Equity Policy Lead, via email at roslyn.g.brooks@ceoactionracialequity.com.
–
Thank you for your consideration.
CEO Action for Racial Equity
