A publication in which the FBI provides data on law enforcement uses of force that result in the death of a person, serious bodily injury of a person, or when law enforcement discharges a firearm at or in the direction of a person. In addition, law enforcement agencies can indicate months where no incidents meeting the above criteria occurred.

The purpose of the study was to investigate how and why injuries occur to police and citizens during use of force events. The research team conducted a national survey (Part 1) of a stratified random sample of United States law enforcement agencies regarding the deployment of, policies for, and training with less lethal technologies. Finalized surveys were mailed in July 2006 to 950 law enforcement agencies, and a total of 518 law enforcement agencies provided information on less lethal force generally and on their deployment and policies regarding conducted energy devices (CEDs) in particular. A total of 292 variables are included in the National Use of Force Survey Data (Part 1) including items about weapons deployment, force policies, training, force reporting/review, force incidents and outcomes, and conducted energy devices (CEDs). Researchers also collected agency-supplied use of force data from law enforcement agencies in Richland County, South Carolina; Miami-Dade, Florida; and Seattle, Washington; to identify individual and situational predictors of injuries to officers and citizens during use of force events. The Richland County, South Carolina Data (Part 2) include 441 use-of-force reports from January 2005 through July 2006. Part 2 contains 17 variables including whether the officer or suspect was injured, 8 measures of officer force, 3 measures of suspect resistance, the number of witnesses and officers present at each incident, and the number of suspects that resisted or assaulted officers for each incident. The Miami-Dade County, Florida Data (Part 3) consist of 762 use-of-force incidents that occurred between January 2002 and May 2006. Part 3 contains 15 variables, including 4 measures of officer force, the most serious resistance on the part of the suspect, whether the officer or suspect was injured, whether the suspect was impaired by drugs or alcohol, the officer's length of service in years, and several demographic variables pertaining to the suspect and officer. The Seattle, Washington Data (Part 4) consist of 676 use-of-force incidents that occurred between December 1, 2005, as 15 variables, including 3 measures of officer force, whether the suspect or officer was injured, whether the suspect was impaired by drugs or alcohol, whether the suspect used, or threatened to use, physical force against the officer(s), and several demographic variables relating to the suspect and officer(s). The researchers obtained use of force survey data from several large departments representing different types of law enforcement agencies (municipal, county, sheriff's department) in different states. The research team combined use of force data from multiple agencies into a single dataset. This Multiagency Use of Force Data (Part 5) includes 24,928 use-of-force incidents obtained from 12 law enforcement agencies from 1998 through 2007. Part 5 consists a total of 21 variables, including the year the incident took place, demographic variables relating to the suspect, the type of force used by the officer, whether the suspect or officer was injured, and 5 measures of the department's policy regarding the use of CEDs and pepper spray. Lastly, longitudinal data were also collected for the Orlando, Florida and Austin, Texas police departments. The Orlando, Florida Longitudinal Data (Part 6) comprise 4,222 use-of-force incidents aggregated to 108 months -- a 9 year period from 1998 through 2006. Finally, the Austin, Texas Longitudinal Data (Part 7) include 6,596 force incidents aggregated over 60 months- a 5 year period from 2002 through 2006. Part 6 and Part 7 are comprised of seven variables documenting whether a Taser was implemented, the number of suspects and officers injured in a month, the number of force incidents per month, and the number of CEDs uses per month.

These data are part of the NACJD's Fast Track Release and are distributed as they were received from the data depositor. The files have been zipped by NACJD for release, but not checked or processed excepted as noted below. All direct identifiers have been removed and replaced with text enclosed in square brackets (e.g.[MASKED]). Due to the masking of select information, variables/content described in the data documentation may not actually be available as part of the collection. Users should consult the investigator(s) if further information is needed. This collection is one part of the Department of Justice's response to 42 USC 14142, a law which requires the U.S. Attorney General to 1) "acquire data about the use of excessive force by law enforcement officers" and 2) "publish an annual summary of the data." Researchers compared agency-level data reported in the 2003 (ICPSR 4411) and 2007 (ICPSR 31161) waves of the Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics (LEMAS) surveys with available external sources including publicly available reports and direct contact with agency personnel. The purpose of this study was to assess validity and reliability of the available agency-level reported data on citizen complaints about police use of force.

The Police-Public Contact Survey (PPCS) provides detailed information on the nature and characteristics of face-to-face contacts between police and the public, including the reason for and outcome of the contact and the respondent's satisfaction with the contact. The data can be used to estimate the likelihood of different types of contact for residents with different demographic characteristics, including contacts involving the use of nonfatal force by police. The PPCS is used to collect data from a nationally representative sample of U.S. residents age 16 or older as a supplement to the National Crime Victimization Survey. To date, the PPCS has been conducted eight times by BJS: 1. 1996. Described in the BJS publication Police Use of Force: Collection of National Data (NCJ 165040). 2. 1999. Described in Contacts between Police and the Public: Findings from the 1999 National Survey (NCJ 184957). These data are archived as POLICE-PUBLIC CONTACT SURVEY, 1999: UNITED STATES. 3. 2002. Described in Contacts between Police and the Public: Findings from the 2002 National Survey (NCJ 207845). These data are archived as POLICE-PUBLIC CONTACT SURVEY, 2002: UNITED STATES. 4. 2005. Described in the BJS publication Contacts between Police and the Public, 2005 (NCJ 215243). These data are archived as POLICE-PUBLIC CONTACT SURVEY, 2005: UNITED STATES. 5. 2008. Described in the BJS publication Contacts between Police and the Public, 2008 (NCJ 234599). These data are archived as POLICE-PUBLIC CONTACT SURVEY, 2008 (ICPSR 32022). 6. 2011. Split sample design due to instrument changes. New instrument findings described in two publications: Police Behavior During Traffic and Street Stops, 2011 (NCJ 242937) and Requests for Police Assistance, 2011 (NCJ 242938). These data are archived as POLICE-PUBLIC CONTACT SURVEY, 2011 (ICPSR 34276). 7. 2015. Described in the BJS publication Contacts between Police and Public, 2015 (NCJ 251145). These data are archived as POLICE-PUBLIC CONTACT SURVEY, 2015 (ICPSR 36653). 8. 2018.Described in the BJS publication Contacts between Police and Public, 2018. These data are archived as POLICE-PUBLIC CONTACT SURVEY, 2018 (ICPSR 37916).

The circumstances surrounding "justifiable homicides" by police are the focus of this data collection, which examines occurrences in 57 United States cities during the period 1970-1979. Homicides by on- and off-duty police officers serving communities of 250,000 or more were studied. Data were collected through a survey questionnaire sent to police executives of the 57 cities. The Federal Bureau of Investigation supplied data on justifiable homicides by police, including age, sex, and race data. The variables include number of sworn officers, number of supervisory officers, average years of education, department regulations about issues such as off-duty employment, uniforms, carrying firearms, and disciplinary actions, in-service training, pre-service training, firearms practice, assignments without firearms, on-duty deaths, and off-duty deaths. The study was funded by a grant from the National Institute of Justice to the International Association of Chiefs of Police.

The Police-Public Contact Survey (PPCS), was designed by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) to document contacts between police and the public that culminated in police using force. The 2005 survey was conducted as a supplement to the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS). To date, the PPCS has been conducted four times by BJS. The first survey -- described in the BJS publication, "Police Use of Force: Collection of National Data" (NCJ 165040) -- documented levels of contacts with police during 1996. The second survey -- described in "Contacts Between Police and the Public: Findings from the 1999 National Survey" (NCJ 184957) -- recorded police-citizen contacts in 1999. These data are archived in POLICE-PUBLIC CONTACT SURVEY, 1999 (ICPSR 3151). The third survey -- described in the BJS publication, "Contacts Between Police and the Public, Findings from the 2002 National Survey" (NCJ 207845) -- recorded police-citizen contacts in 2002. These data are archived in POLICE-PUBLIC CONTACT SURVEY, 2002: UNITED STATES. The fourth survey -- described in the BJS publication, "Contacts Between Police and the Public, 2005" (NCJ 215243) -- covered interactions between police and the public in 2005. The results of this survey are contained in this data collection.

The Police-Public Contact Survey (PPCS) provides detailed information on the nature and characteristics of face-to-face contacts between police and the public, including the reason for and outcome of the contact. The PPCS interviews a nationally representative sample of U.S. residents age 16 or older as a supplement to the National Crime Victimization Survey. To date, the PPCS has been conducted six times by BJS:

The first survey - described in the BJS publication Police Use of Force: Collection of National Data (NCJ 165040) - documented levels of contacts with police during 1996.

The second survey - described in Contacts between Police and the Public: Findings from the 1999 National Survey (NCJ 184957) - recorded police-citizen contacts in 1999. These data are archived as POLICE-PUBLIC CONTACT SURVEY, 1999: [UNITED STATES] (ICPSR 3151).

The third survey - described in Contacts between Police and the Public: Findings from the 2002 National Survey (NCJ 207845) - covered interactions between police and the public in 2002. These data are archived as POLICE-PUBLIC CONTACT SURVEY, 2002: [UNITED STATES] (ICPSR 4273).

The fourth survey - described in the BJS publication Contacts between Police and the Public, 2005 (NCJ 215243) - covered interactions between police and the public in 2005. These data are archived as POLICE-PUBLIC CONTACT SURVEY, 2005: [UNITED STATES] (ICPSR 020020).

The fifth survey - described in the BJS publication Contacts between Police and the Public, 2008 (NCJ 234599) - covered interactions between police and the public in 2008. These data are archived as POLICE-PUBLIC CONTACT SURVEY, 2008 (ICPSR 32022).

The sixth survey (split sample design due to instrument changes) - new instrument findings described in two publications: Police Behavior During Traffic and Street Stops, 2011 (NCJ 242937) and Requests for Police Assistance, 2011 (NCJ 242938) - covered interactions between police and publice and public perceptions of police in 2011. These data are archived as POLICE-PUBLIC CONTACT SURVEY, 2011 (ICPSR 34276).

This research sought to evaluate the implementation of body worn cameras (BWCs) in the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD). Researchers employed three strategies to evaluate the impact of BWCs in the department: 1) two-wave officer surveys about BWCs, 2) two-wave Systematic Social Observations (SSOs) of citizen interactions from officer ride-alongs, and 3) a time series analysis of existing LAPD data of use of force and complaint data. The officer surveys were conducted in the Mission and Newton divisions of the LAPD before and after BWCs were implemented. The survey instrument was designed to measure perceptions of BWCs across a variety of domains and took approximately 20 minutes to complete. Researchers attended roll calls for all shifts and units to request officer participation and administered the surveys on tablets using the Qualtrics software. The pre-deployment survey was administered in both divisions August and September 2015. The post-deployment surveys were conducted with a subset of officers who participated in the pre-deployment surveys during a two-week period in the summer of 2016, approximately nine months following the initial rollout of BWCs. The SSO data was collected in the Mission and Newton divisions prior to and following BWC implementation. The pre-administration SSOs were conducted in August and September 2015 and the post-administration SSOs were conducted in June and August, 2016. Trained observers spent 725 hours riding with and collecting observational data on the encounters between officers and citizens using tablets to perform field coding using Qualtrics software. A total of 124 rides (71 from Wave I and 53 from Wave II) were completed between both Newton and Mission Divisions. These observations included 514 encounters and involved coding the interactions of 1,022 citizens, 555 of which were deemed to be citizens who had full contact, which was defined as a minute or more of face-time or at least three verbal exchanges. Patrol officers (including special units) for ride-alongs were selected from a master list of officers scheduled to work each day and shift throughout the observation period. Up to five officers within each shift were randomly identified as potential participants for observation from this master list and observers would select the first available officer from this list. For each six-hour observation period, or approximately one-half of a shift, the research staff observed the interactions between the assigned officer, his or her partner, and any citizens he or she encountered. In Wave 2, SSOs were conducted with the same officers from Wave 1. The time series data were obtained from the LAPD use of force and complaint databases for each of the 21 separate patrol divisions, a metropolitan patrol division, and four traffic divisions of the LAPD. These data cover the time period where BWC were implemented throughout the LAPD on a staggered basis by division from 2015 to 2018. The LAPD operates using four-week deployment periods (DPs), and there are approximately 13 deployment periods per year. These data span the period of the beginning of 2012 through the 2017 DP 12. These data were aggregated to counts by deployment period based on the date of the originating incident. The LAPD collects detailed information about each application of force by an officer within an encounter. For this reason, separate use of force counts are based on incidents, officers, and use of force applications. Similarly, the LAPD also collects information on each allegation for each officer within a complaint and public complaint counts are based on incidents, officers, and allegations.

Abstract

The National Institute of Statistics of Rwanda (NISR) introduced the Labour Force Survey (LFS) program to avail statistics on employment and labour market in Rwanda on a continuous basis, providing bi-annual estimates of the main labour force aggregates. The main objective of the survey is to collect data on the size and characteristics of the labour force, employment, unemployment and other labour market characteristics of the population. The survey was also designed to measure different forms of work, in particular, own-use production work and other components of labour underutilization including time-related underemployment and potential labour force in line with the new international standards, adopted by the 19th International Conference of Labour Statisticians (ICLS) in 2013.

Geographic coverage

Labour force survey data are at the National level coverage but Employment and Labour force participation rate are represented at the District level as well as by residential area.

Analysis unit

Household and individual

Universe

The target population eligible for Labor force survey is 16 years old and above resident of selected households. However, the survey also collected data on certain particular labour-market related issues such as income from employment, migrant workers and workers with disabilities. The survey consider all persons living in private households. It excludes the institutional population permanently residing in houses such as hostels; health resorts; correctional establishments etc., as well as persons living in seasonal dwellings not covered in the survey. It also excludes workers living at their work-sites.

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

Sample size determination in most household-based surveys with multi-stage stratified design is based on the principle of first calculating the required sample size for a single «domain» assuming a simple random sample design and no non-response. A domain is a well-defined population group for which estimates with pre-determined accuracy are sought. The results are then extended to allow for non-response and deviation from simple random sampling.

The sample design of the LFS is a two-stage stratified design according to which at the first stage of sampling, a stratified sample of enumeration areas from the latest population census is drawn with probabilities proportional to size measured in terms of the census number of households or census number of household members, and at the second stage of sampling, a fixed number of sample of households is selected with equal probability within each sample enumeration areas. Finally, all household members in the sample households are selected for survey interviewing.

Mode of data collection

Computer Assisted Personal Interview [capi]

Research instrument

The questionnaire of the Rwanda Labour Force Survey 2018 in its present form contains a total of 149 questions organized into 9 sections and a cover page, dealing with following topics: A. Household roster (All Household member) B. Education (Person with 14 years and above) C. Identification of employed, time-related underemployed, unemployed and potential labour force (Person with 14 years and above) D. Characteristics of main job/activity (Person with 14 years and above) E. Characteristics of secondary job/activity (Person with 14 years and above) F. Past employment (Person with 14 years and above) G. Own-use production of goods and services (Person with 14 years and above) H. Subsistence foodstuff production (Person with 14 years and above & Household) I. Housing and household assets (Household)

Not all questions are addressed to every household member. For children below 14 years of age, a minimum number of questions are asked. For older youngsters and adults 14 years of age and above, the number of questions depends on the situation and activities of the person during the reference period. The basic reference period is the last 7 days prior to the date of the interview. For certain questions, however, other reference periods are used. In each case, the relevant reference period is indicated in the text of the question.

Cleaning operations

Since August 2017 an electronic data collection system has replaced paper based questionnaire and data were collected using computerized assisted interview (CAPI). Data was uploaded to NISR severs from the field via wireless network channel by synchronizing every day with the NISR server. It was carried every day to have a daily back up of data. All the activity of codification were also done to the field by interviewers who were trained. Several questions with textual responses were pre-coded in tabled in cascaded way. These concerned education (major field of study in highest qualification attained, and subject of training), occupation and branch of economic activity (at main and secondary job and past employment experience). They were coded into the corresponding national standard classifications using on-screen coding with corresponding dictionaries in Kinyarwanda. Coding of geographic areas and addresses was incorporated in the data entry program as look-up. Following coding, responses of each questionnaire were edited for blanks, missing values, duplicates, out-of-range values, and inconsistencies such as no head of household or age of child greater than age of head of household using developed batches of controlling inconsistence in CsPro and Stata. Edit rules were developed for consistency checks on questions related to the measurement of the main labour force variables, including employment, unemployment, multiple jobholding, total hours usually worked at all jobs, total hours actually worked at all jobs, status in employment at main job, etc. Corrections were made mostly with reference to the original physical questionnaire

Response rate

The response rate for labor force survey 2019 is 98.6%

Abstract

To take care of the limitations of the earlier Time Use Studies in India and to meet the new emerging data requirements, Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, Government of India, therefore, conducted a pilot Time Use Survey in 18620 households spread over six selected states , namely, Haryana, Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, Orissa, Tamil Nadu and Meghalaya during the period July, 1998 to June, 1999.

Following were the main objectives of this survey:

1. To develop a conceptual framework and a suitable methodology for designing and conducting time use studies in India on a regular basis. Also, to evolve a methodology to estimate labour force/work force in the country and to estimate the value of unpaid work in the economy in a satellite account.

2. To infer policy/programme implications from the analysis of the data on (a) distribution of paid and unpaid work among men and women in rural and urban areas, (b) nature of unpaid work of women including the drudgery of their work and (c) sharing of household work by men and women for gender equity.

3. To analyze the time use pattern of the individuals to understand the nature of their work so as to draw inference for employment and welfare programmes for them.

4. To analyze the data of the time use pattern of the specific section of the population such as children and women to draw inferences for welfare policies for them.

5. To collect and analyze the time use pattern of people in the selected states in India in order to have a comprehensive information about the time spent by people on marketed and non-marketed economic activities covered under the 1993-SNA, non marketed non-SNA activities covered under the General Production Boundary and on personal care and related activities that cannot be delegated to others.

6. To use the data in generating more reliable estimates on work force and national income as per 1993 SNA, and in computing the value of unpaid work through separate satellite account,

Keeping in view the importance of the survey for India and our specific socio-economic situation similar to other developing countries, this survey was conducted using own financial, technical and manpower resources. Moreover, to ensure capacity building for conducting such surveys on a regular basis, this survey was conducted by utilizing the official statistical system machinery.

Geographic coverage

Six States and their Urban and Rural area

Analysis unit

Households

Universe

All residential Households of Six States.

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

The sampling design adopted in the survey was three stage stratified design. The first, second and third stages were the district, villages/urban blocks and households. Proper stratification of the districts in the selected states were done using the population density and proportion of tribal population to ensure capturing of the variability in the population. In the villages/urban blocks also sub-stratification was adopted to ensure representation of all types of households in the Survey.

The total number of households covered in the sample was 18,628 planned. The total sample size of 18,628 households were first distributed in proportion to the total number of estimated households as per the 1993-94 survey of the National Sample Survey Organisation. No. of first stage units (villages and sample blocks) were determined using the initial sample size to be allocated to each state and by assuming that in each f.s.u. , 12 households will be surveyed. The number of f.s.u. so arrived at was adjusted to be multiple of 8 as atleast 2 f.s.u. each may be covered in 4 sub-rounds.

Selection of villages : All the villages in the selected district were grouped in 3 categories namely large (population above 1200), medium (population between 400 to 1200) and small(population less than 400) . The total rural sample was distributed in three stratum in proportion to the population in the three stratum. In case any stratum was not applicable in a particular district, the allocated sample was distributed in the remaining stratum only. If more than one village was to be selected in the particular stratum , then villages-were selected using circular systematic sampling with probability proportional to the population. If all the three strata were present then minimum sample size allotted in each stratum was 2.

Selection of urban sample blocks : All the towns in the selected district were grouped in 3 categories namely large(population more than 2 lakhs), medium(population between 50000 to 2 lakhs) and small (population less than 50000) . The total urban sample was distributed in three stratum in proportion to the population in the three stratum. In case any stratum was not applicable in a particular district, the allocated sample was distributed in the remaining stratum only. If more than one sample block was to be selected in the particular stratum, then ufs blocks in each of the towns were presented by investigator unit and ufs blocks no. The requisite number of ufs blocks were then selected by using circular systematic sampling with equal probability. If all the three strata were present then minimum sample size allocated in each stratum was 2 due to this, in some cases, overall urban sample size allotted in a particular district might have increased.

As no previous survey was conducted on this topic and methodologies to be used were not firmed up, it was decided to conduct this survey on a pilot basis. However, to ensure the use of data collected in the pilot survey also, a proper sampling procedure was followed.

Refer the attached document named 'Report' attached under external resource

Sampling deviation

There was no deviation from the original sample deviation.

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face [f2f]

Research instrument

The final questionnaire used in the survey was evolved after a number of discussion with the academic experts and the practising survey statisticians. The final questionnaire consisted of following three parts: i. Schedule 0.1: Listing Questionnaire for the Rural Areas ii. Schedule 0.2: Listing Questionnaire for the Urban Areas iii. Schedule 0.3: Household Questionnaire which consist of following Blocks

(a) Block 0: Identification of Sample Households (b) Block 1: Household Characteristics (c) Block 2: Particulars of Household Members (d) Block 3: Time Disposition of Persons on Selected Days of the Week

A copy of the questionnaire is attached as external resource

Cleaning operations

The date entry and validation work of the Survey was handled by the States for which data entry and validation packages were supplied by the Central Statistical Organization. A Workshop was also organized to sort out the various problems faced by the States in the use of these packages. For evolving the data entry and validation package, the help of Data Processing Division of the National Sample Survey Organization was taken. The validated data was sent by States to the CSO and the final processing of the data was done by the Computer Centre of the Department. In spite of severe problem faced ion the operation of main-frame computer at the Computer Center, data processing work of the Survey completed by the end of November, 99.

Response rate

The total number of households covered in the sample was 18.591 as against 18,620 originally planned. 68 % of the households was in rural areas. Therefore, the non-response at 0.1 % was negligible.

Sampling error estimates

The standard error estimates may be calculated on the basis of sub-sample wise estimates of stratum totals.

For Detail refere to Page no 18 of the Report of The Time Use Survey 1998.