Can this tracking system help reduce police shootings?

Research suggests that the CDC's system for collecting information about police homicides in 32 states, soon expanding to more, offers a far more accurate picture than current national databases.

|
Jonathan Ernst/Reuters
A police officer takes part in a search for evidence in the shooting of a Prince George's County Police officer in Landover, Maryland March 13, 2016.

Homicides by law enforcement officers across the United States are recorded far more accurately in a nascent system of the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) than by current national systems, according to new research.

The paper, published Thursday in the American Journal of Public Health, compares the CDC’s system, which currently covers only 32 states, with two national ones – one of the FBI and another of the CDC itself – finding it provides not only more accurate numbers, but also a far richer picture of the circumstances surrounding each incident.

At a time of heightened public awareness of police shootings, it becomes particularly important to identify the system best able to paint an accurate picture, allowing policymakers to understand which programs help to reduce fatalities.

“What’s important is building public trust and showing what we can do to help reduce this problem,” says James Mercy of CDC, in a telephone interview with The Christian Science Monitor.

Dr. Mercy, who heads the Division of Violence Prevention in the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control at CDC, explains that NVDRS, the system lauded by the research paper, links data from law enforcement records, death certificates, and medical examinations and coroners.

As such, it is able to “create narratives” as to the events surrounding each incident, building a much richer picture of police homicides, and violent deaths in general.

Moreover, the system looks not only at killings by police, but also police killed in the line of duty, allowing CDC to look at “both sides of the equation.”

“The troubling reality is that we lack the ability right now to comprehensively track the number of incidents of either uses of force directed at police officers or uses of force by police,” said Attorney General Eric Holder in January 2015.

It is this very situation, and the controversy surrounding recent high-profile police killings, that led the researchers to undertake their study.

“How do we learn which policies best prevent these deaths and protect police if we can't even get an accurate count of them?” asked lead author Catherine Barber in a press release.

Ms. Barber and colleagues of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center (HICRC) at Harvard's T.H. Chan School of Public Health, considered three systems: CDC’s National Violent Death Reporting System (NVDRS), the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports System, and the CDC’s National Vital Statistics System.

Each of the latter two rely on single sources of information: death certificates for the CDC’s National Vital Statistics System, and voluntary police reporting for the FBI’s system.

The more diverse sourcing of the NVDRS pays substantial dividends, according to the report, which finds it captured 92 percent of law enforcement homicides in the study areas, more than twice as many as the FBI’s system, and 71 percent more than the CDC’s Vital Statistics System.

Yet there are those who remain skeptical, suggesting this research falls short of providing conclusive evidence of the efficacy of NVDRS.

“So they find that NVDRS provides richer estimates than other reporting systems, especially the 'official ones.'  It's not news, really,” says Jeffrey Fagan of Columbia Law School, in an email interview with the Monitor.

Dr. Fagan goes on to describe organizations – such as the Washington Post, the Guardian and Fatal Encounters – that look at non-official sources, such as newspaper accounts, to compile their own homicide counts.

“The right comparison is NVDRS with those sources, not with the SHR [the FBI’s system] (which everyone agrees seriously undercounts police killings),” says Fagan. “If the NVDRS produces estimates similar to those crowd-sourced estimates, that would be a stronger endorsement of NVDRS.”

Nonetheless, if the study is accurate, its findings would seem to support the proposed expansion of NVDRS, as an official system, instead of relying on the current ones.

And, in fact, expansion is happening: funding is already in place to expand to a coverage of 35-40 states, and the President’s budget, which is yet to be approved, sets aside money that would cover all 50.

“Moreover, police killings is just one example,” says Mercy of CDC. “NVDRS looks at a whole range of issues, not least suicide among veterans. We’re already working closely with the Veterans Administration.”

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to Can this tracking system help reduce police shootings?
Read this article in
https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2016/0317/Can-this-tracking-system-help-reduce-police-shootings
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
https://www.csmonitor.com/subscribe