Law Enforcement: DOJ Can Improve Publication of Use of Force Data and Oversight of Excessive Force Allegations
Fast Facts
The Department of Justice is responsible for collecting and publishing data on law enforcement's use of excessive force. It also may investigate cases and pursue penalties.
In FYs 2016-2020, DOJ didn't consistently publish an annual summary of excessive force data as required by law. This data is crucial to efforts to reduce excessive force, according to law enforcement and civil rights organization representatives, and others we interviewed. We also found that DOJ could do a better job of sharing information within the department on excessive force allegations and investigations. Our 11 recommendations address these issues and more.
Highlights
What GAO Found
Between fiscal years 2016 through 2020, the Department of Justice (DOJ) collected and published some data related to law enforcement's use of force. However, DOJ did not publish an annual summary of data on excessive force in each of these fiscal years, as required by the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, because officials did not assign roles and responsibilities for doing so. Stakeholders GAO interviewed, including law enforcement associations, civil rights organizations, and academic researchers, underscored the importance of these data to improve understanding of how to reduce excessive force. Assigning and communicating responsibility for publishing such data would help DOJ meet the law's requirements and develop useful data for the Congress and the public.
In 2016, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) initiated a new data collection effort on law enforcement use of force incidents. However, due to insufficient participation by law enforcement agencies, the FBI has not met thresholds set by the Office of Management and Budget for publishing use of force data or continuing the effort past December 2022. Further, as of February 2021, the FBI had not assessed alternative data collection strategies. Assessing alternative data collection strategies would position the FBI to more quickly publish use of force data if the program is discontinued.
In addition, stakeholders GAO interviewed identified some practices as promising or potentially promising in reducing the use of excessive force (see fig.).
Figure: Practices Stakeholders Most Often Identified as Promising or Potentially Promising in Reducing Excessive Force
DOJ does not have a specific grant program focused on reducing excessive force by law enforcement, but GAO identified six programs that awarded grants that covered practices that may reduce law enforcement's use of force. From fiscal year 2016 through fiscal year 2020, these six grant programs cumulatively provided $201.6 million for grant awards that included practices that may reduce law enforcement's excessive force.
In addition to grants, DOJ components provided training and technical assistance related to practices that may reduce excessive force. For example, DOJ's Community-Oriented Policing Services provided online courses on practices that may reduce excessive force (see fig.).
Figure: DOJ-Provided Online Training Courses Related to Practices That May Reduce Excessive Force
Five components within DOJ have the authority to act upon allegations of civil rights violations by law enforcement, including those arising from excessive force. These components include: (1) the Special Litigation Section within DOJ's Civil Rights Division, (2) the Criminal Section within DOJ's Civil Rights Division, (3) DOJ's 94 U.S. Attorneys' Offices, (4) the Civil Rights Unit within the FBI, and (5) the Office for Civil Rights within the Office of Justice Programs.
From fiscal year 2016 through fiscal year 2020, all five components opened investigations into civil rights violations. However, DOJ does not ensure that all allegations within its jurisdiction are shared across these components. In 2016, the Civil Rights Division and the Office for Civil Rights established a protocol, which directed the components periodically assess and, when appropriate, adopt available options for systematically sharing electronic information on misconduct allegations related to law enforcement agencies that may be receiving DOJ grants. As of March 2021, officials from the Office for Civil Rights stated that they had not done so, as they believed that the protocol was merely advisory. Rather, Civil Rights Division officials told us they share allegations of civil rights violations with the FBI, Office for Civil Rights, and U.S. Attorneys' Offices through monthly meetings, emails, and phone calls.
Members of the public who submit allegations to one DOJ's five components with jurisdiction over civil rights may not have complete information on the respective jurisdictions and priorities of each of these components. Therefore, systematic tracking and information sharing could provide members of the public with assurance that their allegations will be shared with all components with the power to take action.
The Civil Rights Division's Special Litigation Section is responsible for identifying patterns and practices of law enforcement misconduct. However, Special Litigation Section staff are not required to use DOJ's allegation information to identify potential problems at law enforcement agencies or analyze trends. Instead, staff review each allegation independently, and are not required to identify trends across individual allegations of police misconduct that cumulatively may indicate a pattern or practice of misconduct. Civil Rights Division officials stated that, though not required, staff could use the Civil Rights Division's allegation database to identify patterns and trends if they wanted to do so. Requiring staff to use allegation information to identify potential patterns of systemic law enforcement misconduct and analyze trends could improve the utility of DOJ's allegation information and provide greater assurance that the Division is optimizing its use of information assets to aid decision-making.
Why GAO Did This Study
Recent deaths of individuals during law enforcement encounters have generated interest in the federal government's efforts to better understand and reduce the use of excessive force and bias in law enforcement. Law enforcement officers may use force to mitigate an incident, make an arrest, or protect themselves or others from harm. However, if an officer uses more force than is reasonable under the circumstances, that use of force is excessive and may violate an individual's civil rights.
Generally, the regulation of the nation's estimated 18,000 state and municipal law enforcement agencies is entrusted to the states. However, within the federal government, DOJ performs some roles related to law enforcement's use of force, including collecting relevant data, providing grants and training to law enforcement agencies, and receiving and investigating allegations of excessive force.
GAO prepared this report under the authority of the Comptroller General in light of national and congressional interest in law enforcement's use of force. This report addresses (1) DOJ's collection and publication of data on use of force by law enforcement officers; (2) what is known about practices to reduce excessive force; (3) DOJ resources for such practices; and, (4) DOJ's investigations into allegations of excessive force by law enforcement.
To conduct this audit, GAO reviewed DOJ data and documentation and interviewed DOJ officials. GAO also analyzed data on DOJ grants and investigations and cases related to civil rights violations. In addition, GAO reviewed academic literature and interviewed stakeholders from law enforcement associations, civil rights organizations, academic researchers, and federal government agencies.
Recommendations
GAO is making 11 recommendations including the following:
- The Attorney General should assign responsibility for collecting and annually publishing data on the use of excessive force by law enforcement officers and communicate this responsibility to the designated DOJ components.
- The Director of the FBI should begin to assess potential alternative data collection strategies for the National Use of Force Data Collection.
- The Attorney General should ensure that the Office for Civil Rights, the Civil Rights Division, the FBI, and the U.S. Attorney's Offices jointly assess the feasibility of systematically tracking and sharing information on civil rights violation allegations within DOJ's jurisdiction.
- The Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights should require staff to use information from allegations within the department's jurisdiction received from across DOJ to identify potential patterns of systemic law enforcement misconduct and analyze trends.
DOJ concurred with nine recommendations, but did not concur with two recommendations related to its management of excessive force allegations. GAO continues to believe these recommendations would help DOJ better oversee such allegations.
Recommendations for Executive Action
| Agency Affected | Recommendation | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Office of the Attorney General | The Attorney General should assign responsibility for collecting and annually publishing data on the use of excessive force by law enforcement officers and communicate this responsibility to the designated DOJ components. (Recommendation 1) |
DOJ concurred with this recommendation. In September 2023, DOJ reported that it was working to assess what data it collects on the use of excessive force by law enforcement officers that is responsive to the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 and identify the resources needed to annually publish these data. We will continue to monitor DOJ's efforts to implement this recommendation.
|
| Federal Bureau of Investigation | The Director of the FBI should begin to assess potential alternative data collection strategies for the National Use-of-Force Data Collection. (Recommendation 2) |
DOJ concurred with this recommendation. In June 2022, DOJ reported that the FBI National Use-of-Force Data Collection had achieved the 60 percent participation threshold, which allows the collection to continue under the Office of Management and Budget's Terms of Clearance. As a result, the FBI began publishing data from the National Use-of-Force Data Collection and we closed this recommendation as implemented.
|
| Office of the Assistant Attorney General | The Assistant Attorney General of the Office of Justice Programs should direct BJS to assess the causes of delays in publishing reports related to law enforcement's use of force and identify corrective actions to address such delays. (Recommendation 3) |
DOJ concurred with this recommendation. In September 2023, DOJ stated that BJS was undertaking a comprehensive review of its efforts to collect, analyze, and publish data. The purpose of the review was to identify the sources of previous delays and potentially identify strategies to avoid these types of delays in the future. In May 2024, BJS provided a copy of new guidance for its report development and review processes. The guidance includes documented timelines for all authors, editors, designers, and reviewers. In July 2024, BJS officials stated that the new guidance was intended to address the causes of previous delays in publishing reports. Specifically, BJS determined that the primary cause of these delays was a lack of clear deadlines and accountability. Officials further stated that because the review process was not well-ordered, one problem with a report, such as an editorial change or data issue, could lead to major delays because it was difficult for BJS to track reports once they had fallen off of their scheduled review and release cycle. These efforts address the intent of our recommendation. As of result of these efforts, BJS is better positioned to ensure that future publications are made available to the public in a timely manner.
|
| Office of the Assistant Attorney General | The Assistant Attorney General of the Office of Justice Programs should direct BJS to assess, and adjust, as appropriate, its publicly reported performance measure on the timeliness of publishing its reports to help ensure that it accurately reflects BJS's performance. (Recommendation 4) |
DOJ concurred with this recommendation. In September 2023, DOJ stated that BJS had initiated a strategic planning process, with one of the expected results to be a revision of BJS's performance measures. In May 2024, DOJ provided an assessment of BJS's performance measures, in which DOJ determined that the existing measures did not adequately capture the breadth of BJS's work or its efforts to ensure timeliness. DOJ also provided a copy of two new BJS performance measures, which it will adopt beginning in fiscal year 2025-- the number of mandated reports issued by their required release date, and the number of reports on BJS's January 1 publication calendar that are released in the expected quarter. These changes address the intent of our recommendation. As a result of these efforts, BJS is better positioned to accurately communicate its performance to Congress and the public.
|
| Office of the Attorney General | The Attorney General should complete an analysis to understand the extent of potential overlap among its data collection efforts related to law enforcement's use of force, its positive or negative effects, validate these findings using relevant information and identify options for managing such overlap. (Recommendation 5) |
DOJ concurred with this recommendation. In March 2024, DOJ provided an analysis of overlap between the FBI's National Use-of-Force Data Collection, the Bureau of Justice Assistance's state Death in Custody Reporting Act of 2013 data collection, and the Bureau of Justice Statistics' federal Death in Custody Reporting Act of 2013 data collection. The analysis included the extent of the overlap, its positive and negative effects, and included relevant information and data. DOJ identified several benefits from completing this analysis, including identifying states and localities that could benefit from additional outreach, identifying opportunities to improve the accuracy and validity of arrest-related details, and identifying opportunities for the three agencies to collaborate on future training and technical assistance. This analysis fulfills the intent of our recommendation. As a result of these efforts, DOJ is better positioned to ensure that it is minimizing the burden on respondents and appropriately targeting efforts to increase participation in these data collections.
|
| Office of the Attorney General | The Attorney General should ensure that the Office for Civil Rights, the Civil Rights Division, the FBI, and the U.S. Attorneys' Offices jointly assess the feasibility of systematically tracking and sharing information on civil rights violation allegations within DOJ's jurisdiction. (Recommendation 6) |
DOJ concurred with this recommendation. In June 2022, DOJ reported that the Office for Civil Rights, the Civil Rights Division, the FBI, and the Executive Office for United States Attorneys had conferred to discuss the feasibility of systematically tracking and sharing information on civil rights violation allegations within DOJ's jurisdiction. Specifically, these entities determined that given the volume of information each of these entities receive, systematic tracking and sharing of information would not be feasible. For example, DOJ noted that the electronic system used by the FBI, which received 1.9 million reports from the public in 2021, does not have the functionality to readily develop reports that can be automatically sent to the Civil Rights Division and other DOJ components. DOJ's assessment also identified opportunities to improve its existing system for sharing civil rights violation allegations. For example, DOJ plans to review and update, as necessary, its training materials related to law enforcement misconduct for FBI agents and Assistant United States Attorneys. Based on these efforts, we consider this recommendation closed as implemented.
|
| Assistant Attorney General (Civil Rights) | The Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights should require staff to use information from allegations within the department's jurisdiction received across DOJ to identify potential patterns of systemic law enforcement misconduct and analyze trends. (Recommendation 7) |
In November 2022, DOJ provided information showing it had taken steps to address our recommendation. First, in April 2022, the Civil Rights Division developed two new analytical reports that use allegations the Civil Rights Division receives to identify patterns of police misconduct. The Civil Rights Division reported that it plans to produce these internal reports twice per year. Additionally, in August 2022 DOJ instructed staff to research past allegations against law enforcement agencies when reviewing new allegations of police misconduct. Specifically, when Special Litigation staff review an allegation of police misconduct, DOJ directed them to check the Civil Rights Division's database for other reports involving the same law enforcement agency and to document their findings. These actions meet the intent of our recommendation and we consider it closed as implemented.
|
| Assistant Attorney General (Civil Rights) | The Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights should establish a procedure to share information on potential patterns of systemic law enforcement misconduct and trends with the Case Selection Advisory Committee. (Recommendation 8) |
In November 2022, DOJ provided information showing it had taken steps to address our recommendation. Specifically, in April 2022, the Civil Rights Division developed two new analytical reports that use information from allegations the Civil Rights Division receives to identify patterns of police misconduct. The Case Selection Advisory Committee then reviewed the reports and evaluated whether further investigation is warranted. The Civil Rights Division reported to us that it plans to follow this process twice per year. These actions meet the intent of our recommendation and we consider it closed as implemented.
|
| Assistant Attorney General (Civil Rights) | The Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights should establish a timeliness goal for staff to initially review incoming allegations. (Recommendation 9) |
DOJ concurred with this recommendation. In June 2022, DOJ reported that the Civil Rights Division had set a goal to initially review incoming allegations within six weeks of receipt. As a result, the Civil Rights Division is better positioned to ensure that serious and viable allegations of excessive force are identified and investigated in a timely manner. Based on these actions, we consider this recommendation closed as implemented.
|
| Assistant Attorney General (Civil Rights) | The Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights should ensure that the division collects and monitors data on the extent to which staff meet the division's timeliness goal for reviewing incoming allegations. (Recommendation 10) |
DOJ concurred with this recommendation. In June 2022, DOJ reported to us that the Civil Rights Division had added a field in its case management system to capture the date each report is initially reviewed by an intake specialist. The Civil Rights Division plans to review the data on a monthly basis and work with sections who are not meeting the division's timeliness goal to take steps to ensure compliance. In November 2022, the Civil Rights Division provided copies of the monthly timeliness reports it had created using these data. Their analysis found that most Civil Rights Division sections were in compliance with the timeliness goal for initial review. Their analysis also found that one section was not consistently meeting the timeliness goal, and Civil Rights Division officials stated that they worked with that section to identify solutions and improve the section's ability to timely review incoming reports. Based on these efforts, we consider this recommendation closed as implemented.
|
| Office of the Attorney General | The Attorney General should ensure that components responsible for investigating and prosecuting civil rights abuses, including excessive force, collect and analyze key demographic information about victims in matters or cases that components initiate. (Recommendation 11) |
In its agency comment letter, DOJ concurred with this recommendation pending coordination with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), as necessary. In June 2022, DOJ reported to us that it believed coordinating with OMB and collecting these data would be overly burdensome and stated that it did not plan to implement this recommendation. As we reported, by collecting and analyzing key demographic information about individuals who are victims in color of law or police misconduct matters and cases, DOJ could better ensure that it is serving all racial and ethnic groups,-including those that may be disproportionately impacted by law enforcement's excessive force. We will continue to monitor DOJ's efforts to address our recommendation.
|