The national conversation on police use of force is consistently hampered by outdated, non-standardized data. This crucial gap makes meaningful policing reforms difficult, leading to a bipartisan push for better data tracking. Washington State’s pioneering WADEPS initiative aims to standardize CAD data but faces significant challenges regarding privacy, accuracy, and interoperability, reflecting the broader complexities of achieving true transparency and accountability in law enforcement.
The tragic killing of George Floyd ignited a nationwide debate about police brutality and the urgent need for comprehensive policing reforms. While calls for change resonate across the political spectrum, the practical implementation of these reforms is often constrained by a fundamental problem: a severe lack of up-to-date, standardized data tracking on police interactions, particularly concerning the use of force.
Without reliable and uniform data from all levels of government, it’s nearly impossible to truly understand the scope of the problem, identify effective solutions, or measure the impact of new policies. This deficiency creates a significant hurdle for lawmakers, law enforcement agencies, and the public alike, hindering informed discussions and evidence-based decision-making.
The National Picture: A Patchwork of Incomplete Data
At the federal level, the situation is far from ideal. No single federal agency provides timely, comprehensive data on excessive force or officer-involved shootings annually. The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) offers datasets, but reports like the Arrest-Related Deaths program haven’t been updated since 2016. The BJS also surveys people about police contact, but this data is only updated every three years. For instance, 2015 data released in 2018 indicated that 60% of Black people, 53% of Hispanic people, and 43% of White people who experienced force during police contact considered it excessive.
The Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC) tracks deaths from police encounters through death certificates and its National Violent Death Reporting System, but these efforts are often limited in scope or participation. These federal efforts, while valuable, are often too dated or inadequate to inform current, rapidly evolving discussions on police reform.
The inconsistencies are even more pronounced at the local level. While some major cities provide more detailed reports on excessive force and deaths, the data varies widely, making national comparisons virtually impossible. For example, Minneapolis offers recent use of force data, while Seattle’s officer-involved shooting data is from 2016. Atlanta’s annual crime reports don’t even mention use of force, and New York City’s data lacks subject demographics, crucial for understanding disparities.
This fragmented data landscape means that core questions about whether police use of force is increasing, decreasing, or staying the same remain largely unanswerable, as noted by experts who acknowledge the critical deficiencies in current reporting systems.
Legislative Efforts to Bridge the Data Gap
Despite the current inconsistencies, the ongoing national debate has opened a window for bipartisan legislative action aimed at improving data collection. Democrats introduced the Justice in Policing Act, which would mandate state and local law enforcement agencies to report use of force data, disaggregated by race, sex, disability, religion, and age.
Republicans, led by Senator Tim Scott, have also drafted their own legislation, reportedly known as the Justice Act, which is expected to include provisions specifically designed to enhance and expand data collection on use of force incidents and officer-involved shootings.
While broader compromises on police practices remain to be seen, there appears to be significant overlap and consensus between both parties when it comes to the critical need for better, standardized data on police use of force. This shared understanding could pave the way for tangible improvements in transparency.
Washington State’s Data Journey: WADEPS and its Challenges
Washington State has taken a proactive step with the creation of the Washington Data Exchange for Public Safety (WADEPS), an incident-based tool designed to analyze and compare the use of force. A key strength of the WADEPS system is its focus on the standardization of both use-of-force incident data points and call type labels for all community-police interactions.
The WADEPS initiative stemmed from Senate Bill 5259, enacted in 2021, which tasked the State Attorney General’s Office with developing a public database. The contract was awarded to Washington State University (WSU), which was the sole bidder. The system aims to map disparate Computer-Aided Dispatch (CAD) data from the state’s 78 public safety answering points (PSAPs) to a uniform data dictionary, allowing for meaningful, “apples to apples” comparisons across hundreds of agencies.
However, the rollout of WADEPS has not been without its challenges. Concerns have been raised, particularly regarding the sharing of sensitive CAD data with WSU, a non-law enforcement organization. The FBI’s Criminal Justice Information System (CJIS) regulates how such restricted data can be shared, leading to worries that providing it to WSU could make it subject to public disclosure, violating CJIS rules.
As of late 2025, only 10 out of 252 agencies included in the database had provided CAD data, indicating widespread hesitations. During pilot focus groups, representatives from the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs (WASPC) expressed concerns over the narrative detail of requested CAD data, potential data skew (where initial call types don’t match outcomes), and the cost associated with data transfer. WASPC’s Executive Director, Steve Strachan, confirmed ongoing discussions between WASPC members and the WADEPS program to address these issues. The Washington Council of Police and Sheriffs (WACPS) has also cautioned against drawing hasty conclusions from the initial data release, advocating for expert analysis before policy solutions are crafted, according to Executive Director Teresa Taylor in The Center Square.
The Pursuit Law Debate: Data Accuracy Under Scrutiny
The challenges in data standardization extend to specific policy debates, as seen in Washington’s contentious discussion over its police pursuit law. A new bill proposing to loosen current restrictions on police pursuits is being debated, with lawmakers relying on research data that has come under scrutiny.
Dr. Martina Morris, who compiled a UW study on police pursuit deaths, testified that the current restrictions have been effective, citing a 70% drop in fatalities in the last year and a half. However, former King County deputy prosecutor Bob Scales challenged Morris’s data, claiming she “inflated the overall fatality numbers by 28%” and that her data, sourced from news reports and social platforms, was unreliable compared to official Washington Traffic Safety Commission (WTSC) statistics. Scales noted inconsistencies on Morris’s website, where fatality figures and underlying data records had recently changed.
This clash highlights a critical aspect of data-driven policy: the need for transparent, verifiable, and authoritative data sources. The debate underscores that even with a commitment to data, the methodology and integrity of that data can become a point of significant contention, impacting legislative decisions and public trust.
The Path Forward: Standardization as the Key to Trust
The ongoing efforts and challenges in Washington State reflect the national struggle to establish robust and trustworthy data systems for law enforcement. The core mission of WADEPS—to make agency-to-agency comparisons meaningful and data publicly digestible—hinges entirely on the success of its dispatch code mapping and data dictionary.
By transforming varied dispatch codes into standardized incident types (like offense against person, property offense, vehicle stop), WADEPS aims to overcome the “apples to oranges” comparison problem that has plagued policing data for years. This process, refined by the Office of the Attorney General, is crucial for improving the quality and accuracy of insights drawn from large volumes of data.
Ultimately, the promise of police reform and enhanced accountability rests heavily on the ability to collect, standardize, and transparently share accurate data. Whether through federal mandates or state-level initiatives like WADEPS, establishing a universal framework for tracking police use of force is not just a technical challenge—it’s a foundational step toward building greater trust between law enforcement and the communities they serve.
