Request for Information; Criminal Justice Statistics, 10150-10153 [2023-03260]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
10150
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 32 / Thursday, February 16, 2023 / Notices
4. How can the burden of the
information collection on respondents
be minimized, including the use of
automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology?
Dated: February 13, 2023.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
David C. Cullison,
NRC Clearance Officer, Office of the Chief
Information Officer.
[FR Doc. 2023–03286 Filed 2–15–23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
POSTAL SERVICE
Change in Rates and Classes of
General Applicability for Competitive
Products
Postal ServiceTM.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
This notice sets forth changes
in rates and classifications of general
applicability for competitive products,
namely, Parcel Select.
DATES: July 9, 2023.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Elizabeth Reed, 202–268–3179.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On
February 9, 2023, pursuant to their
authority under 39 U.S.C. 3632, the
Governors of the Postal Service
established prices and classification
changes for competitive products. The
Governors’ Decision and the record of
proceedings in connection with such
decision are reprinted below in
accordance with section 3632(b)(2).
Mail Classification Schedule language
containing the new prices and
classification changes can be found at
www.prc.gov.
SUMMARY:
Tram T. Pham,
Attorney, Ethics and Legal Compliance.
Decision of the Governors of the United
States Postal Service on Changes in
Rates and Classifications of General
Applicability for Competitive Products
(Governors’ Decision No. 23–2)
February 9, 2023
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Statement of Explanation and
Justification
Pursuant to authority under section
3632 of title 39, as amended by the
Postal Accountability and Enhancement
Act of 2006 (‘‘PAEA’’), we establish
changes in rates and classifications of
general applicability for Parcel Select,
one of the Postal Service’s competitive
products. The changes are described
generally below, with a detailed
description of the changes in the
attachment. The attachment includes
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Feb 15, 2023
Jkt 259001
the draft Mail Classification Schedule
sections with classification changes in
legislative format.
The changes we establish today will
simplify and streamline the Parcel
Select product in a number of ways. The
place of entry and zone options will be
aligned across the Parcel Select
Destination Entry and Parcel Select
Lightweight price tables. The separate
and distinct machinable and
nonmachinable price tables under
Parcel Select Destination Entry will be
eliminated, such that one set of prices
will remain. The Postal Service expects
that the Nonstandard Fees will be relied
upon to make up for any cost
differential for bulky items. Finally, a
new Destination Hub (DHub) price
category will be introduced, and new
DHub rates will be established. The
Postal Service expects these new rates
will encourage growth at new facilities.
As with the Postal Service’s other
recent product simplification efforts, the
Postal Service anticipates that its
customers will greatly benefit from
these changes to the Parcel Select
product. The consolidated price tables
will be easier to understand, and the
streamlined categories will help mailers
optimize entry points for their Parcel
Select packages. Negotiated Service
Agreements will continue to be utilized
for Parcel Select customers who seek to
take further advantage of package
sorting capabilities, entry points, and
network capacity.
Order
The changes in rates and classes set
forth herein shall be effective at 12:01
a.m. on July 9, 2023. We direct the
Secretary to have this decision
published in the Federal Register in
accordance with 39 U.S.C. 3632(b)(2)
and direct management to file with the
Postal Regulatory Commission
appropriate notice of these changes.
llllllllllllllllllll
Date: February 9, 2023
Michael J. Elston
Secretary of the Board of Governors
[FR Doc. 2023–03256 Filed 2–15–23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710–12–P
RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD
Sunshine Act Meetings
TIME AND DATE:
10:00 a.m., March 1,
2023.
Members of the public wishing
to attend the meeting must submit a
written request at least 24 hours prior to
the meeting to receive dial-in
information. All requests must be sent
to SecretarytotheBoard@rrb.gov.
STATUS: This meeting will be open to the
public.
MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:
1. Status of Board Appeals.
2. Highlights of IT Plan and
deliverables.
CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:
Stephanie Hillyard, Secretary to the
Board, (312) 751–4920.
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552b.
PLACE:
Dated: February 14, 2023.
Stephanie Hillyard,
Secretary to the Board.
[FR Doc. 2023–03414 Filed 2–14–23; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 7905–01–P
OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND
TECHNOLOGY POLICY
Request for Information; Criminal
Justice Statistics
Office of Science and
Technology Policy (OSTP).
ACTION: Notice of request for
information.
AGENCY:
Executive Order, Advancing
Effective, Accountable Policing and
/s/
Criminal Justice Practices to Enhance
llllllllllllllllllll Public Trust and Public Safety, states
Roman Martinez IV
that building trust in policing and
Chairman, Board of Governors
criminal justice requires ‘‘transparency
through data collection and public
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE
reporting.’’ The Executive Order calls
OFFICE OF THE BOARD OF
for issuing a report to the President on
GOVERNORS
the current data collection, use, and
CERTIFICATION OF GOVERNORS’
data transparency practices with respect
VOTE ON GOVERNORS’ DECISION
to law enforcement activities. This
NO. 23–2
includes data related to calls for service,
Consistent with 39 U.S.C. 3632(a), I
searches, stops, frisks, seizures, arrests,
hereby certify that, on February 9, 2023, complaints, law enforcement
the Governors voted on adopting
demographics, and civil asset forfeiture.
Governors’ Decision No. 23–2, and that
The White House Office of Science and
a majority of the Governors then holding Technology Policy (OSTP), on behalf of
office voted in favor of that Decision.
the National Science and Technology
Council (NSTC) and in coordination
/s/
By The Governors:
PO 00000
Frm 00076
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\16FEN1.SGM
16FEN1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 32 / Thursday, February 16, 2023 / Notices
with the Assistant to the President for
Domestic Policy, is requesting public
input to inform this report.
DATES: Interested persons and
organizations are invited to submit
comments on or before 5 p.m. ET March
30, 2023.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
by any of the following methods:
• Email: equitabledata@ostp.eop.gov,
include ‘‘Criminal Justice Statistics RFI’’
in the message subject line. Email
submissions should be machinereadable [PDF, Word], all attachments
must be 25MB or less, and responses
should not be copy-protected. Due to
time constraints, mailed paper
submissions will not be accepted, and
electronic submissions received after
the deadline cannot be ensured to be
incorporated or taken into
consideration.
Instructions: Response to this RFI is
voluntary. Each responding entity
(individual or organization) is requested
to submit only one response, in English.
Respondents may answer as many or as
few questions as they wish. Please
identify the question number(s)
associated with your answer.
Submissions must be at most 7 pages in
11-point or larger font (3,500 words).
Responses should include the name of
the person(s) or organization(s) filing
the comment, as well as the respondent
type (e.g., academic institution,
advocacy group, professional society,
community-based organization,
industry, member of the public,
government, or other).
We encourage all members of the
public interested in this initiative to
submit their comments. OSTP and the
Criminal Justice Statistics Working
Group will consider each comment,
whether it contains a personal narrative,
experiences with the Federal
government, or more technical legal,
research, or scientific content.
OSTP will not respond directly to
submissions. This RFI is not accepting
applications for financial assistance or
financial incentives. Comments
submitted in response to this notice are
subject to the Freedom of Information
Act (FOIA). Responses to this RFI may
be posted online without notice. OSTP
requests that no proprietary,
copyrighted, or personally identifiable
information be submitted in response to
this RFI.
In accordance with FAR 15–202(3),
responses to this notice are not offers
and cannot be accepted by the U.S.
Government to form a binding contract.
Additionally, the U.S. Government will
not pay for response preparation or the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Feb 15, 2023
Jkt 259001
use of any information contained in the
response.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Karin Underwood, at OSTP, by email at
equitabledata@ostp.eop.gov or by phone
at 202–456–6121. Individuals who use
telecommunication devices for the deaf
and hard of hearing (TDD) may call the
Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1–800–
877–8339, 24 hours a day, every day of
the year, including holidays.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May
25, 2022, President Biden signed an
Executive Order (E.O.) on Advancing
Effective, Accountable Policing and
Criminal Justice Practices to Enhance
Public Trust and Public Safety (E.O.
14074). This E.O. aimed to enhance
public trust and public safety by
promoting accountability, transparency,
equality, and dignity in policing and the
criminal justice system. The E.O.
recognized that better data practices are
a vital component of advancing these
objectives, noting that ‘‘Building trust
between law enforcement agencies and
the communities they are sworn to
protect and serve also requires
accountability for misconduct and
transparency through data collection
and public reporting.’’
Improving the collection, use, and
transparency of criminal justice data
enables a more rigorous assessment of
the extent to which law enforcement
agency procedures and policies yield
fair, just, and impartial treatment of all
individuals, including those in
underserved communities. To improve
outcomes for communities, we need to
identify effective and emerging practices
and opportunities to accelerate the
adoption and adaptation of those
practices across the nation’s
approximately 18,000 State, Tribal,
local, territorial (STLT) law enforcement
agencies. To help reach this goal, the
E.O. directed the Equitable Data
Working Group to work with the
National Science and Technology
Council (NSTC) to create an Interagency
Working Group on Criminal Justice
Statistics and tasked this group to
develop a report about how to collect
and publish data on police practices.
In this RFI, we are seeking the
following:
1. Information to understand the
current data collection, use, and
transparency practices across STLT law
enforcement activities.
2. Best practice examples and lessons
learned from STLT law enforcement
agencies and other entities in the
criminal justice system related to how
they have collected, used, and/or made
transparent data disaggregated by
demographic information, geographic
PO 00000
Frm 00077
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
10151
information, and other variables to
inform changes to policies, procedures,
and protocols to produce more equitable
outcomes.
3. Recommendations on how to build
the capacity and ability of STLT law
enforcement agencies to collect, use,
and make transparent, comprehensive,
high-quality, and disaggregated data on
law enforcement activities.
Law enforcement agencies can use
data to foster collaborations across all
levels of government, neighboring
jurisdictions, and a diverse community
of external organizations. Public-facing
tools and dashboards can allow civil
society organizations and communities
to visualize and use data about police
activities and chart their local law
enforcement agency’s progress toward
equitable outcomes. However, for these
efforts to increase police accountability
and legitimacy and to improve
community participation, they must
take into account the data analysis
capacity and resources of all
stakeholders.
The Equitable Data Working Group
noted in its recommendations that data
disaggregation and transparency need to
ensure that individual identities and
personally identifiable information (PII)
are protected. The stakes of data privacy
are exceptionally high in criminal
justice, where insufficient privacy and
confidentiality can have a chilling effect
on victim reporting—including for
domestic violence and for hate crimes
such as crimes targeted against
LGBTQI+ people, religious minorities,
and Asian American, Native Hawaiian,
and Pacific Islander populations—
which, in turn, reduces the ability of
law enforcement to respond to, solve,
and prevent crimes.1 2
We invite members of the public to
share perspectives on what could help
achieve comprehensive and transparent
criminal justice data and how the
Interagency Working Group on Criminal
Justice Statistics should address the
requirements in E.O. 14074.
Please consider the following when
responding to this RFI:
• Datasets: The Working Group is
tasked with issuing a report to the
President that assesses current data
collection, use, and data transparency
practices with respect to law
enforcement activities, including but
not limited to calls for service, searches,
stops, frisks, seizures, arrests,
complaints, law enforcement
1 National Science and Technology Council:
Federal Evidence Agenda on LGBTQI+ Equity.
2 DOJ Office of Violence Against Women:
Improving Law Enforcement Response to Sexual
Assault and Domestic Violence by Preventing
Gender.
E:\FR\FM\16FEN1.SGM
16FEN1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
10152
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 32 / Thursday, February 16, 2023 / Notices
demographics, and civil asset forfeiture.
Additional datasets about law
enforcement activities to consider
include, but are not limited to: use-offorce, officer-involved shootings, deescalation incidents, incidents
(including the federally-reported
National Incident-Based Reporting
System, NIBRS), hate/bias crimes;
solicitations, fees and fines, officer
training, community engagement,
vehicle pursuits, body-worn camera/
dashboard camera metadata, accidents/
crashes, patrol locations, and assaults
on officers. This RFI does not include
surveillance technologies or body-worn
camera imagery.
• Law enforcement agencies: This
Working Group focuses on policing and
criminal justice data from STLT law
enforcement agencies, not Federal law
enforcement, which is covered
elsewhere in the E.O.
• Equitable data: Equitable data refers
to data that allow for rigorous
assessment of the extent to which
government programs and policies yield
consistently fair, just, and impartial
treatment of all individuals, including
those who have been historically
underserved, marginalized, and
adversely affected by persistent poverty
and inequality. Equitable data can
illuminate opportunities for targeted
actions that will result in demonstrably
improved outcomes for underserved
communities.
• Disaggregated data: One key
characteristic of equitable data is that it
is disaggregated, or broken down into
detailed sub-categories that will differ
based on the context and desired policy
outcomes. For example, data might be
disaggregated by demographics (e.g.,
race, ethnicity, gender identity, sexual
orientation,3 language spoken, national
origin), geography (e.g., rural/urban,
police district, neighborhood), or other
variables (disability, veteran status,
housing status), enabling insights on
disparities in access to, and outcomes
from, government programs, policies,
and services.
Additional context: The Equitable
Data Working Group was established by
President Biden’s first Executive Order,
Advancing Racial Equity and Support
for Underserved Communities Through
the Federal Government (E.O. 13985), to
study Federal data collection policies,
programs, and infrastructure to identify
inadequacies and provide
recommendations that lay out a strategy
to ‘‘expand and refine the data available
3 The Federal Evidence Agenda on LGBTQI+
Equity includes guidelines for collecting sexual
orientation and gender identity (SOGI) data on
forms and in other administrative contexts such as
policing and criminal justice.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Feb 15, 2023
Jkt 259001
to the Federal Government to measure
equity and capture the diversity of the
American people.’’ The Criminal Justice
Statistics Working Group is now part of
the NSTC Subcommittee on Equitable
Data. It includes representatives of the
Domestic Policy Council, the Office of
the Counsel to the President, the
Department of Justice, the Office of
Management and Budget, the Office of
Science and Technology Policy, the
Gender Policy Council, the Office of
Drug Control Policy, the Centers for
Disease Control, the Department of
Homeland Security, the Department of
Education, and the General Services
Administration.
Request for Information
OSTP seeks responses to the
following questions about how STLT
law enforcement agencies collect, use,
and make data transparent to inform
policies, procedures, and protocols to
reduce disparities. Respondents may
provide information for one or more
topics below, as desired.
1. What existing reports or research
should the Federal government review
to better understand and assess the
status of data collection, use, and
transparency in STLT law enforcement
agencies? What are the findings of
researchers, groups, and organizations
researching the status of law
enforcement agencies’ data practices in
general and disaggregated by
sociodemographic and geographic
variables in particular?
2. What are promising and effective
models for, and what are lessons
learned from, how law enforcement
agencies collect, use, and share
disaggregated data to inform policies,
procedures, and training to reduce
disparities in policing? What are some
examples of law enforcement agencies
using these models? Note: We are
seeking models and examples that
collect, use, and share disaggregated
data while being intentional about when
data are collected and shared, as well as
how data are protected.
3. What datasets are critical for law
enforcement agencies to collect in order
to ensure the comprehensive and
disaggregated collection of operational
data, incident-based datasets, and other
data to produce more equitable
outcomes? Why?
4. What communities of practice or
collaborations can law enforcement
agencies participate in to improve how
they collect comprehensive, quality, and
disaggregated data to identify and
address disparities? How can the
Federal government encourage and
support the development of
PO 00000
Frm 00078
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
collaborations to further promote the
exchange of ideas and best practices?
5. What is and is not working
regarding how the Federal government
supports the collection, use, and
transparency of disaggregated data on
law enforcement activities, and why?
6. What specific challenges and
opportunities do small and resourceconstrained STLT law enforcement
agencies face in the collection, use, and
transparency of disaggregated data to
inform more equitable outcomes?
7. How can software vendors
(including those that build records
management systems (RMS) and other
systems) improve software design,
development, and deployment to reduce
barriers for law enforcement agencies to
collect, use, and share comprehensive,
quality, and disaggregated data and
further incentivize them to produce
more equitable outcomes?
8. How might professional, academic,
nonprofit, and philanthropic
organizations support and/or make
investments to help law enforcement
agencies advance equitable and
disaggregated data practices?
Data Collection
9. How might the Federal government
better understand and improve the
technologies and data systems that law
enforcement agencies use to collect
disaggregated data?
10. What standards must be
implemented to reduce barriers to data
collection from law enforcement? What
organizations or models of data
standards exist that could serve as a
model to inform more standardized
police and criminal justice data
collection in the future?
11. What are valuable models and
lessons learned from data collected by
organizations, groups, and researchers
other than law enforcement agencies
that are related to law enforcement
activities? How might these practices
lead to the valuable data collection that
law enforcement agencies are unable or
unwilling to collect on their own?
Use of Data
12. What are effective examples, and
what lessons have been learned from
how law enforcement agencies use data
policies, tools, and practices to improve
how police officers interact with
underserved populations?
13. What are examples of law
enforcement agencies using data
policies, tools, and practices that have
and have not improved how police
officers collect, maintain, review, and
act upon data regarding sexual assault,
domestic violence, and other forms of
gender-based violence?
E:\FR\FM\16FEN1.SGM
16FEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 32 / Thursday, February 16, 2023 / Notices
14. What investments in human
capital and data infrastructure can STLT
law enforcement agencies make to
disaggregate data and conduct equity
assessments to inform policies,
programs, and protocols to reduce
disparities?
15. How might philanthropic
organizations and academic researchers
work effectively with government
officials to evaluate and improve data
collection, use, and transparency
practices for small and resourceconstrained STLT law enforcement
agencies?
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Data Transparency
16. What are exemplary models of
police-community partnerships where
police actively work with the
community to share data findings and
discuss how these data can address
community needs? What lessons have
been learned?
17. To what extent do law
enforcement agencies currently make
data publicly available about their
efforts to reduce disparities in policing
outcomes? What are examples and
opportunities for law enforcement
agencies to use relevant and accessible
approaches to data transparency?
18. How might small and resourceconstrained jurisdictions participate in
public data sharing and use it to inform
decision-making and increase
accountability?
19. What relationship-building and
what resources would be effective for
expanding opportunities for historically
underrepresented scholars and research
institutions to access law enforcement
data while protecting privacy?
20. The E.O. intends to maximize
STLT participation in the National
Incident-Based Report System (NIBRS).
What are the barriers and opportunities
for improving agency participation in
NIBRS, including its hate crime
reporting section and the FBI’s National
Use-Of-Force Data Collection?
21. How might the Federal
government better share the criminal
justice data it collects through surveys
and programs like these in a manner
that assists and empowers STLT
government officials, researchers, and
civil society to make use of such data to
understand trends and inform policy
decisions?
Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE
American LLC; Notice of Filing and
Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed
Rule Change To Modify the NYSE
American Options Fee Schedule
February 10, 2023.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) 1 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(‘‘Act’’) 2 and Rule 19b–4 thereunder,3
notice is hereby given that, on February
9, 2023, NYSE American LLC (‘‘NYSE
American’’ or the ‘‘Exchange’’) filed
with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ‘‘Commission’’) the
proposed rule change as described in
Items I and II below, which Items have
been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change
from interested persons.
I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s
Statement of the Terms of Substance of
the Proposed Rule Change
The Exchange proposes to modify the
NYSE American Options Fee Schedule
(‘‘Fee Schedule’’) regarding the Firm
Monthly Fee Cap. The Exchange
proposes to implement the fee change
effective February 9, 2023.4 The
proposed rule change is available on the
Exchange’s website at www.nyse.com, at
the principal office of the Exchange, and
at the Commission’s Public Reference
Room.
II. Self-Regulatory Organization’s
Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule
Change
In its filing with the Commission, the
self-regulatory organization included
statements concerning the purpose of,
and basis for, the proposed rule change
and discussed any comments it received
on the proposed rule change. The text
of those statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below.
The Exchange has prepared summaries,
set forth in sections A, B, and C below,
of the most significant parts of such
statements.
U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
U.S.C. 78a.
3 17 CFR 240.19b–4.
4 The Exchange previously filed to amend the Fee
Schedule on January 31, 2023 (SR–NYSEAMER–
2023–10) and withdrew such filing on February 9,
2023.
2 15
[FR Doc. 2023–03260 Filed 2–15–23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3270–F1–P
16:51 Feb 15, 2023
[Release No. 34–96879; File No. SR–
NYSEAMER–2023–13]
1 15
Dated: February 10, 2023.
Rachel Wallace,
Deputy General Counsel.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Frm 00079
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
10153
A. Self-Regulatory Organization’s
Statement of the Purpose of, and the
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule
Change
1. Purpose
The purpose of this filing is to amend
the Fee Schedule to modify the Firm
Monthly Fee Cap. The Exchange
proposes to implement the rule change
on February 9, 2023.
The Firm Monthly Fee Cap is set forth
in Section I.I. of the Fee Schedule.5
Currently, a Firm’s fees associated with
Manual transactions are capped at
$150,000 per month per Firm.
The Exchange proposes to raise the
Firm Monthly Fee Cap to $200,000 per
month per Firm. To effect this change,
the Exchange proposes to modify
Section I.I. to replace references to a
$150,000 cap with references to a
$200,000 cap.6 The Exchange also
proposes to increase the incremental
service fee—which is charged for
Manual transactions once the Firm
Monthly Fee Cap has been reached—
from $0.01 to $0.02 and to extend the
proposed incremental service fee of
$0.02 per contract to also apply to QCC
transactions entered by Floor Brokers
from the Trading Floor (i.e., manual
QCC transactions). Royalty Fees and
fees or volumes associated with Strategy
Executions will continue to be excluded
from the calculation of fees towards the
Firm Monthly Fee Cap. Firm
Facilitation Manual trades will also
continue to be executed at the rate of
$0.00 per contract regardless of whether
a Firm has reached the Firm Monthly
Fee Cap.
The Exchange believes that the
proposed change, despite increasing the
amount of the Firm Monthly Fee Cap
and the incremental service fee for
Manual transactions and QCC
transactions, would continue to
incentivize Firms to direct order flow to
the Exchange to receive the benefits of
a cap on their Manual transaction fees.
2. Statutory Basis
The Exchange believes that the
proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 6(b) of the Act,7 in general, and
furthers the objectives of Sections
5 See Fee Schedule, Section I.I., Firm Monthly
Fee Cap, available at: https://www.nyse.com/
publicdocs/nyse/markets/american-options/NYSE_
American_Options_Fee_Schedule.pdf.
6 The Exchange also proposes a conforming
change to footnote 4 in Section I.A. (Rates for
Options transactions) of the Fee Schedule, which
cross-references the Firm Monthly Fee Cap as set
forth in Section I.I. The Exchange likewise proposes
to modify footnote 4 to replace the reference to a
$150,000 cap with a reference to a $200,000 cap.
7 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
E:\FR\FM\16FEN1.SGM
16FEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 32 (Thursday, February 16, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10150-10153]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-03260]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY
Request for Information; Criminal Justice Statistics
AGENCY: Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP).
ACTION: Notice of request for information.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Executive Order, Advancing Effective, Accountable Policing and
Criminal Justice Practices to Enhance Public Trust and Public Safety,
states that building trust in policing and criminal justice requires
``transparency through data collection and public reporting.'' The
Executive Order calls for issuing a report to the President on the
current data collection, use, and data transparency practices with
respect to law enforcement activities. This includes data related to
calls for service, searches, stops, frisks, seizures, arrests,
complaints, law enforcement demographics, and civil asset forfeiture.
The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), on
behalf of the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) and in
coordination
[[Page 10151]]
with the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy, is requesting
public input to inform this report.
DATES: Interested persons and organizations are invited to submit
comments on or before 5 p.m. ET March 30, 2023.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
Email: [email protected], include ``Criminal
Justice Statistics RFI'' in the message subject line. Email submissions
should be machine-readable [PDF, Word], all attachments must be 25MB or
less, and responses should not be copy-protected. Due to time
constraints, mailed paper submissions will not be accepted, and
electronic submissions received after the deadline cannot be ensured to
be incorporated or taken into consideration.
Instructions: Response to this RFI is voluntary. Each responding
entity (individual or organization) is requested to submit only one
response, in English. Respondents may answer as many or as few
questions as they wish. Please identify the question number(s)
associated with your answer. Submissions must be at most 7 pages in 11-
point or larger font (3,500 words). Responses should include the name
of the person(s) or organization(s) filing the comment, as well as the
respondent type (e.g., academic institution, advocacy group,
professional society, community-based organization, industry, member of
the public, government, or other).
We encourage all members of the public interested in this
initiative to submit their comments. OSTP and the Criminal Justice
Statistics Working Group will consider each comment, whether it
contains a personal narrative, experiences with the Federal government,
or more technical legal, research, or scientific content.
OSTP will not respond directly to submissions. This RFI is not
accepting applications for financial assistance or financial
incentives. Comments submitted in response to this notice are subject
to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Responses to this RFI may be
posted online without notice. OSTP requests that no proprietary,
copyrighted, or personally identifiable information be submitted in
response to this RFI.
In accordance with FAR 15-202(3), responses to this notice are not
offers and cannot be accepted by the U.S. Government to form a binding
contract. Additionally, the U.S. Government will not pay for response
preparation or the use of any information contained in the response.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karin Underwood, at OSTP, by email at
[email protected] or by phone at 202-456-6121. Individuals who
use telecommunication devices for the deaf and hard of hearing (TDD)
may call the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1-800-877-8339, 24 hours a
day, every day of the year, including holidays.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May 25, 2022, President Biden signed an
Executive Order (E.O.) on Advancing Effective, Accountable Policing and
Criminal Justice Practices to Enhance Public Trust and Public Safety
(E.O. 14074). This E.O. aimed to enhance public trust and public safety
by promoting accountability, transparency, equality, and dignity in
policing and the criminal justice system. The E.O. recognized that
better data practices are a vital component of advancing these
objectives, noting that ``Building trust between law enforcement
agencies and the communities they are sworn to protect and serve also
requires accountability for misconduct and transparency through data
collection and public reporting.''
Improving the collection, use, and transparency of criminal justice
data enables a more rigorous assessment of the extent to which law
enforcement agency procedures and policies yield fair, just, and
impartial treatment of all individuals, including those in underserved
communities. To improve outcomes for communities, we need to identify
effective and emerging practices and opportunities to accelerate the
adoption and adaptation of those practices across the nation's
approximately 18,000 State, Tribal, local, territorial (STLT) law
enforcement agencies. To help reach this goal, the E.O. directed the
Equitable Data Working Group to work with the National Science and
Technology Council (NSTC) to create an Interagency Working Group on
Criminal Justice Statistics and tasked this group to develop a report
about how to collect and publish data on police practices.
In this RFI, we are seeking the following:
1. Information to understand the current data collection, use, and
transparency practices across STLT law enforcement activities.
2. Best practice examples and lessons learned from STLT law
enforcement agencies and other entities in the criminal justice system
related to how they have collected, used, and/or made transparent data
disaggregated by demographic information, geographic information, and
other variables to inform changes to policies, procedures, and
protocols to produce more equitable outcomes.
3. Recommendations on how to build the capacity and ability of STLT
law enforcement agencies to collect, use, and make transparent,
comprehensive, high-quality, and disaggregated data on law enforcement
activities.
Law enforcement agencies can use data to foster collaborations
across all levels of government, neighboring jurisdictions, and a
diverse community of external organizations. Public-facing tools and
dashboards can allow civil society organizations and communities to
visualize and use data about police activities and chart their local
law enforcement agency's progress toward equitable outcomes. However,
for these efforts to increase police accountability and legitimacy and
to improve community participation, they must take into account the
data analysis capacity and resources of all stakeholders.
The Equitable Data Working Group noted in its recommendations that
data disaggregation and transparency need to ensure that individual
identities and personally identifiable information (PII) are protected.
The stakes of data privacy are exceptionally high in criminal justice,
where insufficient privacy and confidentiality can have a chilling
effect on victim reporting--including for domestic violence and for
hate crimes such as crimes targeted against LGBTQI+ people, religious
minorities, and Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander
populations--which, in turn, reduces the ability of law enforcement to
respond to, solve, and prevent crimes.1 2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ National Science and Technology Council: Federal Evidence
Agenda on LGBTQI+ Equity.
\2\ DOJ Office of Violence Against Women: Improving Law
Enforcement Response to Sexual Assault and Domestic Violence by
Preventing Gender.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We invite members of the public to share perspectives on what could
help achieve comprehensive and transparent criminal justice data and
how the Interagency Working Group on Criminal Justice Statistics should
address the requirements in E.O. 14074.
Please consider the following when responding to this RFI:
Datasets: The Working Group is tasked with issuing a
report to the President that assesses current data collection, use, and
data transparency practices with respect to law enforcement activities,
including but not limited to calls for service, searches, stops,
frisks, seizures, arrests, complaints, law enforcement
[[Page 10152]]
demographics, and civil asset forfeiture. Additional datasets about law
enforcement activities to consider include, but are not limited to:
use-of-force, officer-involved shootings, de-escalation incidents,
incidents (including the federally-reported National Incident-Based
Reporting System, NIBRS), hate/bias crimes; solicitations, fees and
fines, officer training, community engagement, vehicle pursuits, body-
worn camera/dashboard camera metadata, accidents/crashes, patrol
locations, and assaults on officers. This RFI does not include
surveillance technologies or body-worn camera imagery.
Law enforcement agencies: This Working Group focuses on
policing and criminal justice data from STLT law enforcement agencies,
not Federal law enforcement, which is covered elsewhere in the E.O.
Equitable data: Equitable data refers to data that allow
for rigorous assessment of the extent to which government programs and
policies yield consistently fair, just, and impartial treatment of all
individuals, including those who have been historically underserved,
marginalized, and adversely affected by persistent poverty and
inequality. Equitable data can illuminate opportunities for targeted
actions that will result in demonstrably improved outcomes for
underserved communities.
Disaggregated data: One key characteristic of equitable
data is that it is disaggregated, or broken down into detailed sub-
categories that will differ based on the context and desired policy
outcomes. For example, data might be disaggregated by demographics
(e.g., race, ethnicity, gender identity, sexual orientation,\3\
language spoken, national origin), geography (e.g., rural/urban, police
district, neighborhood), or other variables (disability, veteran
status, housing status), enabling insights on disparities in access to,
and outcomes from, government programs, policies, and services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The Federal Evidence Agenda on LGBTQI+ Equity includes
guidelines for collecting sexual orientation and gender identity
(SOGI) data on forms and in other administrative contexts such as
policing and criminal justice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional context: The Equitable Data Working Group was
established by President Biden's first Executive Order, Advancing
Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the
Federal Government (E.O. 13985), to study Federal data collection
policies, programs, and infrastructure to identify inadequacies and
provide recommendations that lay out a strategy to ``expand and refine
the data available to the Federal Government to measure equity and
capture the diversity of the American people.'' The Criminal Justice
Statistics Working Group is now part of the NSTC Subcommittee on
Equitable Data. It includes representatives of the Domestic Policy
Council, the Office of the Counsel to the President, the Department of
Justice, the Office of Management and Budget, the Office of Science and
Technology Policy, the Gender Policy Council, the Office of Drug
Control Policy, the Centers for Disease Control, the Department of
Homeland Security, the Department of Education, and the General
Services Administration.
Request for Information
OSTP seeks responses to the following questions about how STLT law
enforcement agencies collect, use, and make data transparent to inform
policies, procedures, and protocols to reduce disparities. Respondents
may provide information for one or more topics below, as desired.
1. What existing reports or research should the Federal government
review to better understand and assess the status of data collection,
use, and transparency in STLT law enforcement agencies? What are the
findings of researchers, groups, and organizations researching the
status of law enforcement agencies' data practices in general and
disaggregated by sociodemographic and geographic variables in
particular?
2. What are promising and effective models for, and what are
lessons learned from, how law enforcement agencies collect, use, and
share disaggregated data to inform policies, procedures, and training
to reduce disparities in policing? What are some examples of law
enforcement agencies using these models? Note: We are seeking models
and examples that collect, use, and share disaggregated data while
being intentional about when data are collected and shared, as well as
how data are protected.
3. What datasets are critical for law enforcement agencies to
collect in order to ensure the comprehensive and disaggregated
collection of operational data, incident-based datasets, and other data
to produce more equitable outcomes? Why?
4. What communities of practice or collaborations can law
enforcement agencies participate in to improve how they collect
comprehensive, quality, and disaggregated data to identify and address
disparities? How can the Federal government encourage and support the
development of collaborations to further promote the exchange of ideas
and best practices?
5. What is and is not working regarding how the Federal government
supports the collection, use, and transparency of disaggregated data on
law enforcement activities, and why?
6. What specific challenges and opportunities do small and
resource-constrained STLT law enforcement agencies face in the
collection, use, and transparency of disaggregated data to inform more
equitable outcomes?
7. How can software vendors (including those that build records
management systems (RMS) and other systems) improve software design,
development, and deployment to reduce barriers for law enforcement
agencies to collect, use, and share comprehensive, quality, and
disaggregated data and further incentivize them to produce more
equitable outcomes?
8. How might professional, academic, nonprofit, and philanthropic
organizations support and/or make investments to help law enforcement
agencies advance equitable and disaggregated data practices?
Data Collection
9. How might the Federal government better understand and improve
the technologies and data systems that law enforcement agencies use to
collect disaggregated data?
10. What standards must be implemented to reduce barriers to data
collection from law enforcement? What organizations or models of data
standards exist that could serve as a model to inform more standardized
police and criminal justice data collection in the future?
11. What are valuable models and lessons learned from data
collected by organizations, groups, and researchers other than law
enforcement agencies that are related to law enforcement activities?
How might these practices lead to the valuable data collection that law
enforcement agencies are unable or unwilling to collect on their own?
Use of Data
12. What are effective examples, and what lessons have been learned
from how law enforcement agencies use data policies, tools, and
practices to improve how police officers interact with underserved
populations?
13. What are examples of law enforcement agencies using data
policies, tools, and practices that have and have not improved how
police officers collect, maintain, review, and act upon data regarding
sexual assault, domestic violence, and other forms of gender-based
violence?
[[Page 10153]]
14. What investments in human capital and data infrastructure can
STLT law enforcement agencies make to disaggregate data and conduct
equity assessments to inform policies, programs, and protocols to
reduce disparities?
15. How might philanthropic organizations and academic researchers
work effectively with government officials to evaluate and improve data
collection, use, and transparency practices for small and resource-
constrained STLT law enforcement agencies?
Data Transparency
16. What are exemplary models of police-community partnerships
where police actively work with the community to share data findings
and discuss how these data can address community needs? What lessons
have been learned?
17. To what extent do law enforcement agencies currently make data
publicly available about their efforts to reduce disparities in
policing outcomes? What are examples and opportunities for law
enforcement agencies to use relevant and accessible approaches to data
transparency?
18. How might small and resource-constrained jurisdictions
participate in public data sharing and use it to inform decision-making
and increase accountability?
19. What relationship-building and what resources would be
effective for expanding opportunities for historically underrepresented
scholars and research institutions to access law enforcement data while
protecting privacy?
20. The E.O. intends to maximize STLT participation in the National
Incident-Based Report System (NIBRS). What are the barriers and
opportunities for improving agency participation in NIBRS, including
its hate crime reporting section and the FBI's National Use-Of-Force
Data Collection?
21. How might the Federal government better share the criminal
justice data it collects through surveys and programs like these in a
manner that assists and empowers STLT government officials,
researchers, and civil society to make use of such data to understand
trends and inform policy decisions?
Dated: February 10, 2023.
Rachel Wallace,
Deputy General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2023-03260 Filed 2-15-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3270-F1-P
