An Assessment of Officer-Involved Shooting Data Transparency in the United States

Abstract

Although researchers and the public intuitively know that the lack of available data on the topic of officer-involved shootings (OIS) is a problem, the scope of the problem has not been identified. A lack of transparency regarding OIS data contributes to the legitimacy crisis facing policing in the United States. Valid and reliable OIS data would create the ability to craft and assess informed public policy. In addition, police organizations’ roles could then be evaluated allowing for accountability and additional training based on OIS incidents. Employing content analysis of websites for police agencies, their municipal/county governments, and sheriffs’ offices servicing populations of 100,000 or more according to the 2010 U.S. Census, the availability of OIS data is identified and classified. It was found that 155 (of 277) police agencies and 96 (of 548) sheriffs’ offices made some form of data available related to OIS incidents across five categories (annual reports, OIS summary reports, individualized shooting reports, press releases, and spreadsheet reports). The current assessment is the first in the literature to systematically evaluate the transparency of law enforcement organizations servicing large jurisdictions regarding OIS incidents. Those reports and data available are described and placed within the context of the recommended national database proposed by Klinger and colleagues to begin to assess the extent of OIS data transparency issues facing policing. In addition, agencies providing data were compared utilizing one-way analysis of variance on a number of structural variables drawn from the 2008 Census of State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies to evaluate any patterns demonstrated by those organizations providing data. Findings suggest great variation in the type, classification, and quality of data presented by law enforcement organizations, which limits its utility for the purposes of research as well as policy creation and evaluation.