The WADEPS Data Governance Advisory Committee includes regional and national experts in data analytics, criminal justice operations and research, public policy, and law. They meet bi-annually to review WADEPS progress, discuss industry data analytic standards, and offer insight on potential improvements or adjustments.
The committee’s charge is to advocate for the data—its accuracy, integrity, efficiency, expandability, completeness, useability, accessibility, accountability, and security. The group is committed to international standards for data governance.
The committee is comprised of two divisions:
Subject-Matter Experts
National criminal justice and public policy researchers and program directors
Stakeholder Representatives
Washington-based community members and law enforcement professionals
During development of WADEPS, the committee:
Provided feedback on the data elements set by the Attorney General’s advisory group.
Identified contextual data that will add valuable understanding to the basic use-of-force data.
Reviewed and approved the data dictionary, its definitions, and data element parameters.
As WADEPS moves into active data collection, the committee will be assessing and reviewing data presentation, interpretation, and quality.
Recommended Enhancements
During its review of the use-of-force incident data points established by the law and the AGO advisory group, the WADEPS Data Governance Advisory Committee identified additional data points that could add significant value and depth to the Washington State Data Exchange for Public Safety.
The decision whether to expand the use-of-force data elements required by Chapter 10.118 RCWrests with the state legislature.
Click on the arrows to learn about the committee’s recommendations:
De-escalation Tactics
The current required data does not capture whether law enforcement officers attempted to scale back or de-escalate a conflict before using force to control the situation.
Why it matters: Understanding when and why de-escalation was attempted can help identify training opportunities, indicate trends of lower force needed, and also provide opportunities to recognize positive police work.
Reason Force Initiated
The current required data collects information about subject behavior (such as flight, threats, and assaults), but does not ask officers to report what specifically prompted them to initiate the use of force. For example, subject would not comply or fled from officers.
Why it matters: Why an officer initiates the use of force adds context to the incident data.
Subject’s Highest Level of Resistance
While the current required data points encompass all types of force used by officers, only the subject’s initial level of resistance is quantified.
Why it matters:Capturing potentially increasing use of force by an officer without also capturing increased subject resistance introduces a bias in the data which could make officer force appear disproportionate to subject resistance.
Takedowns
Includes tackling and leg sweeps. This type of force was not included in the RCW or by the AGO advisory board.
Why it matters:Takedowns are a common use of force employed by law enforcement officers in a variety of situations.
Physical Control Tactics
Includes wrestling, pushing, joint manipulation, pain compliance, or use of body weight. This type of force was not included in the RCW or by the AGO advisory board.
Why it matters: Physical control tactics are common uses of force employed by law enforcement officers in a variety of situations.
Treatment for Injuries
The current required data does not collect information on the type of medical treatment provided to subjects or officers related to a use-of-force incident. Examples: treated on scene or at police facility; transported to hospital; admitted to hospital; refused; or no treatment.
Why it matters: Basic information about medical treatment can assist in understanding the severity of an injury.
Final Call Type
It is not uncommon for the final determination of a call for service to be different than the initial dispatch call type. For example, a dispatch for a general disturbance may actually be, or evolve into, an assault incident.
Why it matters: Collecting both the initial and the final call type will help agencies better understand when and why call types change, adds value to data about policing operations, and could impact rate of force calculations based on call types
Video Review
The current required data collects information about whether there is a police-generated video of the use-of-force incident, but does not collect information about whether the officer reviewed video footage prior to completing their use of force report.
Why it matters: The issue of whether officers should be allowed to review such material prior to writing a report is highly controversial, with competing arguments about memory, bias, accuracy, and other concerns. (See the U.S. Department of Justice recent review.) Collecting this information is necessary if members of the public, police executives, legislators, researchers and others wish to know whether incidents where officers reviewed video prior to reporting differ substantially from those where video was not reviewed.
Meet the Committee
Geoff Alpert
Professor University of South Carolina
Duren Banks
Sr. VP, Justice Practice Area Research Triangle Institute
Dominic Campese
Washington Coalition for Police Accountability
Shira Idris
Policy Analyst ACLU-WA
Deborah Jacobs
Police Oversight Professional
James Kim
Sergeant Seattle Police Department
Cynthia Lum
Professor & Director Center for Evidence-Based Crime Policy George Mason University
Joan Smith
State UCR Program Manager Washington Association of Sheriffs & Police Chiefs
Jared Strote
Professor, Department of Emergency Medicine University of Washington
Sema Taheri
Director, Research & Strategic Initiatives Measures for Justice
William Terrill
Professor & Associate Dean Arizona State University
Megan Yerxa
Crime Analyst Tacoma Police Department
Previous committee member
Edward Byrnes Professor (retired) Eastern Washington University
