U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics ***************************************************** This file is text only without graphics and many of the tables. A Zip archive of the tables in this report in spreadsheet format (.csv) and the full report includingtables and graphics in .pdf format are available on BJSwebsite at: http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=5456 ****************************************************** Special Report Police Use of Nonfatal Force, 2002–11 Shelley Hyland, Ph.D., Lynn Langton, Ph.D., and Elizabeth Davis, BJS Statisticians From 2002 to 2011, an annual average of 44 million persons age 16 or older had one or more face-to-face contacts with police. Of those who had contact, 1.6% experienced the threat or use of nonfatal force by the police during their most recent contact. ***Footnote 1 ?The experiences reported are from the Bureau of Justice Statistics’ Police–Public Contact Survey (PPCS), a sample survey of U.S. residents age 16 or older. They do not include data from police records ***. About 75% of those with force (1.2% of persons with police contact) perceived the force as excessive. A greater percentage of non-Hispanic blacks (2.8%) than non- Hispanic whites (1.0%) and Hispanics (1.4%) experienced excessive nonfatal force by police during their contact (figure 1) ***Footnote 2 The PPCS was not conducted in Spanish. See Methodology***. This report examines the prevalence, circumstance, and characteristics of incidents in which police threatened or used nonfatal force and whether these factors varied across resident race and Hispanic origin. The data presented were aggregated from four data collections of the Bureau of Justice Statistics’ Police–Public Contact Survey (PPCS). It was administered as a supplement to the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) every 3 years in 2002, 2005, 2008, and 2011 to collect information from persons age 16 or older about their most recent face-to-face contact with police and the outcomes of that contact. *********************************************************** ************** Highlights ************** The purpose of this report is to examine the prevalence of police threat or use of nonfatal force and whether it varies across race and Hispanic origin. Data are from the 2002, 2005, 2008 and 2011 Police-Public Contact Survey (PPCS) supplement to the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS). * Across the four PPCS data collections from 2002–11, blacks (3.5%) were more likely to experience nonfatal force during their most recent contact with police than whites (1.4%) and Hispanics (2.1%). * A greater percentage of persons who experienced the use of force (44%) had two or more contacts with police than those who did not experience force (28%). * Blacks (14%) were more likely than Hispanics (5.9%), and slightly more than whites (6.9%) to experience nonfatal force during street stops. * Of those who experienced force during their most recent contact, approximately three-quarters described the verbal (71%) or physical (75%) force as excessive. * Of those who experienced force during their most recent contact, 87% did not believe the police behaved properly. * Traffic stops involving an officer and driver of different races were more likely to involve force (2.0%) than traffic stops involving an officer and driver of the same race (0.8%). * Blacks (1.4%) were twice as likely as whites (0.7%) to experience force during contacts involving a personal search. *********************************************************** Resident surveys such as the PPCS provide a source of data on contacts with police and perceptions of police behavior that are independent from official police records. The PPCS is also the only national data collection that can provide information on the broad range of nonlethal police actions—from verbal threats to physical force—that are included in the continuum of police use of force. The Methodology further details the ability of the PPCS to capture nonlethal force. Unless otherwise noted, data on the police threat or use of nonfatal force were based on a person’s most recent contact with police during the prior 12 months. Police contact includes any face-to-face interaction between a resident and one or more law enforcement officers, including sworn officers serving in municipal police departments; sheriff’s departments; state police; and special jurisdiction agencies, such as transit, park, and university police agencies. The contact could be initiated by the police, as in a traffic stop, or initiated by the resident reporting a crime to police or requesting police assistance. The majority of PPCS respondents (72%) reported one face-to-face contact with police during the 12-month reference period. For those respondents, the most recent contact was the only contact experienced during the year. For the PPCS and this report, survey respondents defined what they considered to be the threat or use of force and whether it was excessive according to their perceptions of police behavior. Use of force and excessive were not defined for respondents. Residents who reported the threat or use of force were asked if the police did any of the following: shout, curse, threaten force, push or grab, hit or kick, use pepper spray (2005–11), use an electroshock weapon (2008–11), point a gun, or use other force. Throughout the report, “use of force” and “force” refer to the police threat or use of nonfatal force. This report examines the prevalence of force and excessive force during the most recent contact with police, focusing on race and Hispanic origin. It looks at the characteristics of incidents involving force, including the type of contact, type of force used, and whether the contact involved a personal search. The report also examines trends in the threat or use of force and the relationship between officer’s race and driver’s race in traffic stops involving force. ***************************************** Blacks were more likely than whites to experience nonfatal force in their most recent contact with police ***************************************** During the 2002–11 period, whites (20%) had a higher rate of police contact than blacks (17%) and Hispanics (16%) (table 1). However, during the most recent contact with police, blacks (3.5%) experienced force at higher rates than whites (1.4%) and Hispanics (2.1%). Whites were slightly less likely than Hispanics to experience force. In addition, males and younger persons ages 16 to 25 were more likely to experience police contact and the use of force during their most recent contact than females and persons age 26 or older. Persons with police contact in urban areas (2.1%) were more likely than those in suburban (1.5%) and rural (1.2%) areas to experience nonfatal force, although the overall rates of contact with police were similar across urban, suburban, and rural areas (about 19%). ***************************************** Residents who experienced multiple contacts with police were more likely to experience nonfatal force ***************************************** Most persons age 16 or older who had face-to-face contact with police during the prior 12 months experienced one police contact during the year (table 2). A greater percentage of persons who experienced the use of force (44%) had two or more contacts with police than those who did not experience force (28%). About a quarter of residents (27%) who experienced the use of force had three or more contacts during the year, compared to about a tenth (12%) of residents who did not experience the use of force. Among those who did not experience the use of force during their most recent police contact, whites (73%) were slightly more likely than blacks (70%) to report one contact during the prior 12 months. There were no significant differences between whites and Hispanics or blacks and Hispanics in the percentage of persons who had a single contact during the year and did not experience the threat or use of force. Among those who experienced force during the most recent contact, nearly double the percentage of whites (62%) experienced one contact during the year, compared to Hispanics (36%). Almost two- thirds (64%) of Hispanics who experienced force had multiple police contacts during the year. Among persons with multiple face-to-face police contacts during the prior 12 months, there were no significant differences in the rates at which whites and blacks experienced force. ***************************************** In police-initiated contacts more blacks than whites said they experienced the threat or use of force ***************************************** Across all races and Hispanic origin, police-initiated stops accounted for the majority (51%) of face-to-face police contacts (table 3). Among police-initiated contacts, nontraffic stops or street stops (7.6%) were more likely than traffic stops (1.1%) to involve force. The greatest percentage of contacts involving force occurred during stops in which a person was suspected of wrongdoing (11%). Of residents with any type of police-initiated contact during the 2002–11 period, a greater percentage of blacks (4.9%) experienced the use of force than whites (1.8%) and Hispanics (2.5%). Blacks (2.5%) were slightly more likely than whites (0.8%) to experience the use of force during traffic stops. During street stops, blacks (14%) were more likely than Hispanics (5.9%) and slightly more than whites (6.9%) to experience nonfatal force. Across all races or Hispanic origin, the use of force was greater during stops in which the police suspected the resident of wrongdoing compared to other types of contact. Blacks (11%) were slightly more likely than whites (5%) to experience the threat or use of force during stops that occurred because the police were investigating a crime. Among residents with voluntary contact with police, such as requesting assistance from police or reporting a crime, there were no significant racial differences in the percentage of persons who experienced the use of force (0.7%). *********************************************************** **************************** Trends in police threat or use of force **************************** Across all four Police–Public Contact Survey (PPCS) data collections, rates and patterns in the use of force by police did not change significantly. The lack of substantial change over time made it possible to aggregate data across the four collections without distorting relationships or associations between variables or characteristics. This larger sample permits the examination of subgroup differences in greater detail than would be possible with a single year of data. From 2002 to 2011, the overall rate of the threat or use of nonfatal force during the most recent contact with police remained flat at about 1.6% (figure 2). Likewise, among whites, blacks, and Hispanics, there was no significant change over time in the percentage of persons within those groups who experienced nonfatal force during the most recent contact (figure 3). The patterns in threat or use of force were also fairly consistent across racial groups over time. In some years, the differences between groups were not statistically significant, but the relationship of the estimates was generally consistent. For example, in 2002, 2005, and 2008, blacks experienced a higher prevalence of force by police than whites. In 2011, the estimated rate also appeared higher for blacks, but the difference between blacks (2.8%) and whites (1.9%) was not statistically significant due to small sample sizes. Similarly, across all 4 years, blacks appeared to experience a higher prevalence of force than Hispanics. The differences between the two groups were statistically significant in 2005 and 2008, but not in 2002 and 2011. The percentage of residents who said they experienced use of force during the most recent contact with police also did not vary over time by the reason for contact with police (figure 4). There was no statistically significant change over time in the percentage of traffic stops or voluntary contacts and accidents that resulted in the threat or use of force. Among residents with nontraffic-related stops, the percentage who experienced the threat or use of force was higher in 2005 than in 2002, but the rate dropped back down in 2008. No detectable differences were observed in the rates between any other years. *********************************************************** ***************************************** Blacks were more likely than whites and Hispanics to perceive nonfatal force by police as excessive ***************************************** During the 2002–11 period, 1.6% of residents who had contact with police experienced nonfatal force during their most recent contact (table 4). Of residents who experienced verbal force (0.7%), 71% described the force as excessive. Among residents who experienced physical force (0.8%), 75% described the force as excessive. Regardless of the type of force, blacks were more likely than whites and Hispanics to experience force and to describe the force as excessive. Blacks (1.6%) were more likely to experience verbal force than whites (0.6%). There were no significant differences between whites, blacks, and Hispanics in the perception of verbal force as excessive. A higher percentage of blacks (1.6%) experienced physical force than whites (0.7%) and Hispanics (0.9%). Blacks (1.3%) were more likely to perceive physical force as excessive than whites (0.5%) and Hispanics (0.7%). There were no detectable differences between whites and Hispanics regarding the perception of physical force as excessive. Across all races and Hispanic origin, the perception that the force used was excessive varied by the type of police action taken. ***Footnote 3 For residents who reported experiencing more than one type of nonfatal force in their most recent contact, the most severe form of force was counted. For the purposes of this report, the order of severity from least to most severe was shouting/cursing, threat, push/grab, hit/kick, pepper spray, and pointed gun***. A lower percentage of persons who were shouted or cursed at by police believed the force was excessive (49%) compared to those who were pushed or grabbed (79%), hit or kicked (97%), had a pepper spray used against them (81%), or had a gun pointed at them (81%) (figure 5). Verbal threats of force were also more likely to be seen as excessive (76%) than shouting or cursing. Persons who were hit or kicked were more likely to perceive the police action to be excessive than any other type of nonfatal force, except pepper spray. Regardless of the type of force, residents who experienced an injury were more likely to perceive the force as excessive (94%) than those who were not injured (74%) (not shown). ***************************************** The majority of residents who experienced force did not believe that the police behaved properly ***************************************** Across the four PPCS data collections, approximately 9 in 10 residents believed the police behaved properly during contacts that did not involve force (table 5). Blacks (84%) were less likely to believe the police behaved properly during contacts not involving force than whites (91%) and Hispanics (88%). Hispanics were also less likely than whites to believe the police behaved properly during contacts that did not involve force. Among residents who experienced force during their most recent contact with police (1.6% of all contacts), 13% believed the police behaved properly, while 87% did not. Apparent differences between whites, blacks, and Hispanics on whether the police behaved properly during contacts involving force were not statistically significant. *********************************************************** ***************************************** Police use of force during the prior 12 months ***************************************** This report focuses primarily on the police use of nonfatal force during a resident’s most recent contact with police. In 2005, 2008, and 2011, the PPCS also asked respondents who had multiple face-to-face contacts with police if they had experienced force during the prior 12 months. During the 2005–11 period, whites had a significantly higher prevalence of police threat or use of force based on the 12-month reference period (1.9%) than on the most recent contact (1.4%). Among blacks and Hispanics, the differences in the prevalence of force based on 12–month and most recent contact reference periods were not statistically significant (not shown). Persons who had three or more contacts with police were more likely to experience the use of force during the prior 12 months than persons with one or two contacts (table 6). Regardless of the number of contacts, a greater percentage of blacks (4.7%) experienced police use of force during the year than whites (1.9%) and Hispanics (2.7%). The difference between whites and Hispanics in the prevalence of force during the 12-month period was statistically significant among persons with one or two contacts, but not among those with three or more contacts. *********************************************************** ***************************************** Interracial traffic stops resulted in a higher percentage of nonfatal force by police ***************************************** In the PPCS, residents involved in a traffic stop for their most recent contact were asked about the race of the officer who conducted the stop. On average, 3.4 times more traffic stops involved officers and drivers of the same race than interracial stops (table 7). The majority of traffic stops involved a white officer and a white driver (not shown). Traffic stops involving an officer and driver of different races were significantly more likely to involve the threat or use of force (2.0%), compared to traffic stops involving an officer and driver of the same race (0.8%). *********************************************************** ***************************************** Search involving nonfatal force ***************************************** Contacts involving nonfatal force by police may vary by the outcome of the contact, particularly if the resident experienced a personal search (i.e., frisk or pat down). In 2005, this outcome was not asked of all types of contacts, so findings were based on the 2002, 2008, and 2011 surveys.*** Footnote 4 Prevalence estimates on total use of force by race and Hispanic origin will differ from table 1 as 2005 was not included***. Across all races and Hispanic origin, 3.5% of police contacts involved the resident being personally searched (table 8). In about 0.8% of all contacts, or 22% of contacts involving a search, the resident experienced both a personal search and use of force. Whether individuals experienced a personal search or not varied by the race or Hispanic origin of the resident. Blacks (9.4%) were more likely to experience a personal search than whites (2.8%) and Hispanics (3.6%). The percentage of persons who experienced force did not differ by whether a person was searched. Overall, about half of all use-of- force contacts (48%) involved a personal search (0.8% of all contacts). This finding held true for whites, blacks, and Hispanics. Blacks were more likely to experience force by police regardless of whether the contact also involved a personal search. Blacks (1.4%) were twice as likely as whites (0.7%) to experience force while also being personally searched. Blacks (1.8%) were also slightly more likely than whites (0.7%) to experience force during contacts that did not involve a personal search. *********************************************************** ***************************************** Understanding gaps in Police–Public Contact Survey (PPCS) coverage ***************************************** The PPCS is the only national source of data that captures resident perceptions of the use of nonfatal force and excessive force by police, but it has limitations. Some of its known limitations, such as populations that are out of scope or missed, can be quantified. Other limitations or sources of error are more difficult to measure. Certain groups that may experience use of force by police are excluded from the PPCS due to the survey’s design. The PPCS is administered to persons in households. Therefore, it is unable to capture residents who experienced deadly force or those who were incarcerated after experiencing nonfatal force by police. Two other BJS collections, the Survey of Inmates in Local Jails (SILJ) and the Arrest-Related Deaths (ARD) collection, can be used to understand how much higher the prevalence of force would be if estimates included persons who were incarcerated and who experienced the use of deadly force by police. The Survey of Inmates in Local Jails (SILJ) was last conducted in 2002. The SILJ was a nationally representative stratified two- stage sample of almost 7,000 inmates from 417 jails. Inmates were surveyed about various topics, including their current offenses and if they experienced use of force during their last contact with police. In 2002, 22% of inmates reported experiencing police use of force when they were arrested (not shown). Estimates on deadly force were obtained from the Arrest-Related Deaths (ARD) program, conducted yearly from 2003 to 2009 and in 2011.*** Footnote 5 Average proportions for race or Hispanic origin from 2005, 2008, and 2011 were applied to the average annual estimate of law enforcement homicides to be consistent with PPCS years***. ARD was an annual national census of persons who died during the process of arrest or while in custody of local, county, or state law enforcement personnel. The collection captured deaths related to police use of force, as well as deaths attributed to suicide, intoxication, accidental injury, or natural causes. From 2003–09 and 2011, the upper-bound annual average estimate of persons experiencing deadly force by police during arrest was 1,242. See Assessment of Coverage in the Arrest-Related Deaths Program (NCJ 249099, BJS web, October 2015). Based on estimates from the SILJ in 2002 and the ARD estimated number of persons who experienced deadly force, the PPCS captured approximately 88% of persons who experienced force (table 9). The PPCS captured approximately 94% of whites who experienced police use of force, compared to 78% of blacks and 84% of Hispanics. Caution should be used in interpreting these findings as these two datasets are not without their own limitations in capturing the prevalence of use of force. The SILJ captured use of force at the time of arrest but not for any prior contacts. This may result in an underestimation of the prevalence of force among those who were incarcerated in jail following police contact. Additionally, the SILJ captured the stock of inmates in the jail in a single year and may not have been representative of the total population of inmates who flow through jail. It was also not representative of those incarcerated in prisons. The ARD collection was suspended in 2014 due to concerns about coverage and estimates that the program captured approximately 50 to 70% of all arrest-related deaths. Beyond the coverage error, which can be quantified to some extent, the PPCS design also excluded persons age 15 or younger and persons who were homeless. However, there is no available estimate of the prevalence of police use of force for these groups that could be used to assess the potential PPCS undercoverage. There is also some evidence that the PPCS may undercount police contacts among subgroups that should be included in the sample. For example, during the 2002–11 period, the PPCS was not conducted in Spanish. A 2011 assessment of nonresponse bias suggested that there may be bias among Hispanics. Beginning in 2015, subsequent surveys will be administered in multiple languages. However, for the survey data examined in this report, it was difficult to assess the impact of this potential bias on rates of police contact and the prevalence of force. As with all resident surveys, the PPCS estimates may also be subject to measurement error. External sources of data suggest that the PPCS may not capture the full scope of police contacts. For example, in 2011, the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports showed 12.4 million arrests nationwide. Based on PPCS data from the same year, about 1.7 million persons were arrested during their most recent contact with police. A portion of the difference in the number of arrests was due persons who were incarcerated or outside of the scope of the survey (e.g., persons age 15 or younger or not living in households) at the time of the survey, but the remainder has to be attributed to persons with multiple arrests, PPCS undercoverage, or a combination of the two. The PPCS may not fully capture persons with the highest frequency of police contact and highest risk of police use of force. Because the PPCS is administered to a nationally representative sample of persons in households, it does not target specific subgroups or geographic areas in which contact with police might be highest. The PPCS is also based on residents’ perceptions and reports about police behavior. What one respondent interprets as police use of force or excessive force may not be interpreted the same way by another respondent. Additionally, certain types of force measured by the survey are not captured in official police records or other independent sources of data. Although this is a strength of the survey, some respondents may exaggerate details about their experiences, while others may suppress information. The potential PPCS coverage and measurement issues may impact estimates of the prevalence of police contact and use of force, perhaps differentially for non-whites compared to whites. However, there is no evidence to suggest that any racial differences in the prevalence and nature of police contact and use of force identified in this report would be eliminated with coverage improvements. *********************************************************** **************** METHODOLOGY *************** Data collection *********************** The Police–Public Contact Survey (PPCS) is a supplement to the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS). The NCVS annually collects data on crime reported and not reported to the police against persons age 12 or older from a nationally representative sample of U.S. residents. The sample includes persons living in group quarters (such as dormitories, rooming houses, and religious group dwellings) and excludes persons living in military barracks and institutional settings (such as correctional or hospital facilities), and homeless persons. For more information, see Survey Methodology in Criminal Victimization in the United States, 2008 (NCJ 231173, BJS web, May 2011). Since 1999, the PPCS was administered every 3 years—2002, 2005, 2008, and 2011—at the end of the NCVS interview with persons age 16 or older. Proxy responders and those who complete the NCVS interview in a language other than English were not eligible to receive the PPCS. The U.S. Census Bureau administered the PPCS questionnaire during a 6-month period, and respondents were asked if they had experienced any face-to-face contacts with police during the prior 12 months. For example, persons interviewed in July 2011 were asked about police contacts that occurred between August 2010 and July 2011. Persons who said they had a contact during the 12-month reference period were asked to describe the nature of the contact. Those who had more than one contact were asked about only their most recent contact during the period. PPCS nonrespondents fell into three categories: * persons whose household did not respond to the NCVS (NCVS household nonresponse) * persons within an interviewed NCVS household who did not respond to the NCVS (NCVS person nonresponse) * persons who responded to the NCVS but did not complete the PPCS (PPCS person nonresponse). The average response rate among persons eligible to complete the PPCS was about 80% across the four administrations of the survey. Non-interviews included respondents who were not available for the interview, those who refused to participate, non-English speaking respondents (unlike the NCVS interviews, PPCS interviews were conducted only in English), and proxy interviews representing household members who were unable to participate for physical, mental, or other reasons. To produce national estimates on police–public contacts, sample weights were applied to the survey data so that the respondents represented the entire population, including the nonrespondents. After adjustment for nonresponse, the sample cases were weighted to produce national population estimates of 243,158,236 persons age 16 or older in 2011; 236,511,832 in 2008; 228,085,344 in 2005; and 215,536,780 in 2002. Despite the nonresponse adjustments, low overall response rates and low response rates to particular survey items can still increase variance in these estimates and produce bias when the nonrespondents have characteristics that differ from the respondents. The Office of Management and Budget guidelines require a nonresponse bias study when the overall response rate is below 80%. The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) and the Census Bureau compared the distributions of respondents and nonrespondents and nonresponse estimates for various household and demographic characteristics. They also examined their impact on the national estimates produced for each iteration of the PPCS. The study looked at household-level and person-level response rates and found some evidence of bias in the rates among blacks and persons of Hispanic origin. For example, Hispanics accounted for 14% of the U.S. population but about 11% of the PPCS respondents after weighting adjustments. Item nonresponse statistics were also computed for key survey questions from the PPCS, and no evidence of bias was found during the analysis. Merging PPCS data files ************************* The PPCS questionnaires changed slightly across each iteration of the survey. The analyses presented in this report are based on variables that were consistently measured across all four surveys. Specified text boxes throughout the report focus on three years of data when it was not possible to combine data from the fourth year due to substantial measurement differences. In 2011, BJS redesigned the PPCS, which resulted in a significantly different survey instrument. To assess the impact of the redesign on trends in rates and types of police contact, BJS administered a split-sample design in which a subset of the sample was interviewed using the 2008 version of the questionnaire, and the remaining sample was interviewed using the 2011 version. About 85% of the 2011 sample was randomly assigned the revised questionnaire and the other 15% received the questionnaire designed for the 2008 survey. The 2011 data used in this report were based on the 15% of the sample that received the unrevised instrument. Standard error computations ***************************** When national estimates are derived from a sample, as they are with the PPCS, caution must be taken when comparing one estimate to another. Although one estimate may be larger than another, estimates based on a sample have some degree of sampling error. The sampling error of an estimate depends on several factors, including the amount of variation in the responses, the size of the sample, and the size of the subgroup for which the estimate is computed. When the sampling error around the estimates is taken into consideration, the estimates that appear different may not be statistically different. One measure of the sampling error associated with an estimate is the standard error, which can vary from one estimate to the next. In general, for a given metric, an estimate with a smaller standard error provides a more reliable approximation of the true value than an estimate with a larger standard error. Estimates with relatively large standard errors are associated with less precision and reliability and should be interpreted with caution. Standard errors around PPCS estimates were generated through the SPSS Complex Samples package, which accounts for the multistage, cluster sample design of the NCVS. The Complex Samples package uses the Taylor series linearization method for direct variance estimation. In this report, BJS conducted tests to determine whether differences in estimated numbers and percentages were statistically significant once sampling error was taken into account. Using statistical programs developed specifically for the NCVS, all comparisons in the text were tested for significance. The primary test procedure used was the Student’s t-statistic, which tests the difference between two sample estimates. Differences described as higher, lower, or different passed a test at the 0.05 level of statistical significance (95% confidence level). Differences described as somewhat or slightly different, passed a test at the 0.10 level of statistical significance (90% confidence level). Data users can use the estimates and the standard errors of the estimates provided in this report to generate a confidence interval around the estimate as a measure of the margin of error. The following example illustrates how standard errors can be used to generate confidence intervals: Across the four PPCS data collections, an estimated 3.5% of blacks experienced the threat or use of force in their most recent contact with police (see table 1). Using the SPSS Complex Samples package, BJS determined that the estimate has a standard error of 0.54 (see appendix table 2). A confidence interval around the estimate was generated by multiplying the standard errors by ±1.96 (the t-score of a normal, two-tailed distribution that excludes 2.5% at either end of the distribution). Therefore, the confidence interval around the estimate is 3.5 ± (0.54 X 1.96) or from 2.44 to 4.56. In other words, if different samples using the same procedures were taken from the U.S. population in data collections occurring between 2002 and 2011, 95% of the time the percentage of blacks experiencing the threat or use of force by police during their most recent contact would be between 2.4% and 4.6%. In this report, BJS also calculated a coefficient of variation (CV) for all estimates, representing the ratio of the standard error to the estimate. CVs provide a measure of reliability and a means for comparing the precision of estimates across measures with differing levels or metrics. When the CV was greater than 50%, or the unweighted sample had 10 or fewer cases, the estimate was noted with a “!” symbol (interpret data with caution; estimate is based on 10 or fewer sample cases, or the coefficient of variation exceeds 50%). Many of the variables examined in this report may be related to one another and to other variables not included in the analyses. Complex relationships among variables were not fully explored in this report and warrant more extensive analysis. Causal inferences should not be made based on the results presented. ***************************************** ************************************************* The Bureau of Justice Statistics of the U.S. Department of Justice is the principal federal agency responsible for measuring crime, criminal victimization, criminal offenders, victims of crime, correlates of crime, and the operation of criminal and civil justice systems at the federal, state, tribal, and local levels. BJS collects, analyzes, and disseminates reliable and valid statistics on crime and justice systems in the United States, supports improvements to state and local criminal justice information systems, and participates with national and international organizations to develop and recommend national standards for justice statistics. William J. Sabol is director. This report was written by Shelley Hyland, Lynn Langton, and Elizabeth Davis. Elizabeth Davis verified the report. Lynne McConnell and Jill Thomas edited the report. Barbara Quinn produced the report. November 2015, NCJ 249216 ************************************************* ************************************************* Office of Justice Programs Innovation * Partnerships * Safer Neighborhoods www.ojp.usdoj.gov ************************************************* *********************** 11/3/2015 10:00am JER ***********************