HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 03- SPD Use of Force Report{00019236:1}
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: 4/22/2024
Meeting Type: Work Session
Staff Contact/Dept.: Chief Andrew
Shearer/Police
Staff Phone No: 541-726-3722
Estimated Time: 45 Minutes
S P R I N G F I E L D
C I T Y C O U N C I L
Council Goals: Strengthen Public Safety
by Leveraging
Partnerships and
Resources
ITEM TITLE: ANNUAL USE OF FORCE REPORT 2023
ACTION
REQUESTED:
Provide feedback on Springfield Police Department 2023 Annual Use of Force Report
and Analysis
ISSUE
STATEMENT:
The Springfield Police Department’s 2023 Use of Force Analysis is an annual report
that provides a summary of the force used during the 2023 calendar year and
recommendations to consider to further improve process by reducing injuries and uses
of force.
ATTACHMENTS: 1: Use of Force Report
2: Slide Deck
3: Use of Force Infographic
DISCUSSION/
FINANCIAL
IMPACT:
In 2020, The Springfield Police Department implemented a yearly use of force
analysis report that provided a synopsis of the force used during the previous calendar
year. Use of force incidents analyzed are officer responses to calls that resulted in
either a display of force or actual use of force, requiring a police report and
supervisor’s review per the department’s Use of Force General Order, 1.5.1, which
can be located on the City website at https://springfield-or.gov/wp-
content/uploads/2023/10/1.5.1-Use-of-Force.pdf
The 2023 Use of Force Report was completed using the Springfield Police
Department’s use of force data retrieved from the IAPRO/Blue Team software. In
November 2021, the Springfield Police Department began implementation of an
enhanced data collection process for capturing information related to officer uses of
force and officer displays of force. During 2023, the Springfield Police Department
took 49,027 calls for service and 31,119 of those required a sworn officer’s response.
Those calls resulted in 3,478 persons arrested, with 153 events in which force was
used. The average number of uses of force per officer during the year was 5. The
median number of uses of force per officer, per year, was 3. It was determined when
comparing the volume of calls for service and actual arrests made by the Springfield
Police Department to the number of uses of force incidents, 4.40 percent of arrests
required a use of force and 0.49 percent of dispatched calls for service required use of
force.
Springfield Police Department
2023 Use of Force Report
Created by:
Professional Standards Division
Andrew Shearer
Chief of Police
Springfield Police Department 230 4th Street, Springfield, OR 97477
Attachment 1, Page 1 of 31
1
1. Purpose
This comprehensive use of force analysis is intended to identify trends and patterns that
indicate a need to modify existing training, equipment, and/or policy. Improvements
implemented as a result of this analysis are intended to produce safer interactions between
community members and Springfield Police Department (SPD) members. Sharing SPD force
data builds transparency, increases community trust, and adds an additional layer of internal
accountability. Collection and review of use of force reports (as required by GO 1.5.1) were
critical to this analysis.
2. Introduction
In November of 2021, SPD implemented an improved data collection process for capturing
information related to officer uses of force and officer displays of force. The information is
collected in a software platform called “Blue Team”, which is stored and managed by the Office
of Professional Standards using the paired software, “IAPro”.
The process for reviewing uses and shows of force remained the same in 2023. After the
involved member(s) inputs the data into Blue Team, the on-duty Watch Commander (Sergeant)
collects the police report(s), body/vehicle footage, photos, and any other related media for that
incident. The Watch Commander then reviews all materials to ensure completeness, identify
deficiencies that require correction, or pinpoint any incidents that may rise to the level of a
required notification to PSD. If the Watch Commander approves the use or show of force entry,
it is forwarded to the Division Commander (Lieutenant) for further review. If the Division
Commander approves the report, it is then forwarded to the Office of Professional Standards
where the data is retained for tracking and further reporting (figure 1).
Figure 1. Use and Show of Force Review Process
Attachment 1, Page 2 of 31
2
2023 was the second year Blue Team was utilized to capture an entire calendar years’
worth of force data. Data in this report is compared with the data from 2022 and 2021 (which
combined data from both Blue Team and hand-entered reports).
The use of force1 events analyzed in this report are SPD member-reported uses of force
that require police reports and supervisory review in accordance with the Use of Force General
Order 1.5.1, section VII. Shows of force were also accounted for to document methods that
supported achieving compliance without having to use force.
The Springfield Police Department used force in 153 events in 2023. Data was broken
down in the following categories:
• Comparison by gender, race, and age
• Types of force used
• Number of persons armed with a weapon, and type of weapon
• Injuries to persons (including officers)
The method for counting uses of force is described by figure 2.
Figure 2. Force Counting Method
1Use of force is generally defined as the means of compelling compliance or overcoming resistance to an officer’s
command(s) in order to protect life or property or take a person into custody.
State statute ORS 161.235, except as provided in ORS 161.239 (Use of deadly physical force in making an arrest or
preventing escape), a peace officer is justified in using physical force upon another person onl y when, and to the
extent that, the peace officer reasonably believes it necessary:
(1) To make an arrest or to prevent the escape from custody of an arrested person unless the peace officer
knows that the arrest is unlawful; or
(2) For self defense or to defend a third person from what the pea ce officer reasonably believes to be the
use or immanent use of physical force while making or attempting to make an arrest or while
preventing or attempting to prevent an escape [1971 c. 743 §27].
Attachment 1, Page 3 of 31
3
3. Professional Standards Division
The Springfield Police Department’s Professional Standards Division (PSD) reports
directly to the Chief of Police and consists of two sergeants and a crime analyst. The analyst
was hired in July 2022 and assists the Professional Standards Sergeant with managing IAPro
and Blue Team, collecting use of force data, and analyzing data collected through department
software. The Professional Standards Sergeant also serves as the litigation liaison between
the department and the City Attorney’s Office and oversees all internal affairs investigations.
In early 2023, there was a realignment of existing Sergeant positions. One sergeant was then
assigned to PSD to manage all department training and assist with recruiting/hiring efforts.
4. Synopsis
The Springfield Police Department received 49,027 calls for service in 2023. Sworn
officers were dispatched to 31,119 of these calls. These sworn officer responses resulted in
3,478 arrests (2,488 individuals), and 153 calls for service resulted in use of force on 139
individuals.
On average, each sworn SPD member used force four times in 2023. The median number
of uses of force per sworn member in 2023 was two. Each SPD sworn member assigned to
patrol (not including detectives and command personnel) used force approximately six times
in 2023. The median number of uses of force per patrol member in 2023 was approximately
four.
2023 2022 2021
Number of Sworn Personnel Employed 65 56 58
Average2 applications of force per sworn employee 4 6 6
Median2 applications of force per sworn employee 2 3 4
Table 1. All Sworn Personnel Force Applications
2An average (mean) is the central value in a data set and is calculated by dividing the sum of the set’s
values by the number of values in the set. The average is affected by outliers.
The median is the middle (midpoint) value in a data set. It is calculated by ordering the numbers in a set
from smallest to largest and finding the value in the middl e. The median is less affected by outliers.
The mode is the most common value in a data set.
Attachment 1, Page 4 of 31
4
2023 2022 2021
Number of Patrol Officers and Sergeants Employed 49 44 46
Average applications of force per patrol officer 6 7 8
Average use of force events per patrol officer 5 6 6
Median applications of force per patrol officer 4 5 7
Median use of force events per patrol officer 3 3 4
Mode2 applications of force per patrol officer 0 3 3
Number of patrol officers who used the mode number of
applications of force 8 7 5
Number of patrol officers who did not use force at all 8 5 4
Table 2. Patrol Officer Force Applications
Overall, force was used during 4.40% of arrests and during 0.49% of dispatched calls for
service. 4.00% of arrestees had force used on them.
Year
Number of
Arrests
Use of Force
Events
Individuals
Who Had
Force Used
on Them
Percentage of
Arrests that
Resulted in Use
of Force
Percentage of
Arrestees Who
Had Force
Used on Them
2020 3,894 229 204 5.88% 5.24%
2021 3,483 190 174 5.46% 5.00%
2022 3,303 174 168 5.27% 5.09%
2023 3,478 153 139 4.40% 4.00%
Table 3. Year-to-Year Arrests Comparison
Year
Number of Police
Dispatched Calls
for Service
Use of Force
Events
Percentage of Calls
that Resulted in Use
of Force
2020 32,301 229 0.71%
2021 28,779 190 0.66%
2022 29,431 174 0.59%
2023 31,119 153 0.49%
Table 4. Year-to-Year Calls for Service Comparison
Attachment 1, Page 5 of 31
5
5. Policy Review and Revisions
The department’s use of force policy (1.5.1) was reviewed by command staff in 2023 as
part of the accreditation process. Minor adaptations were made to comply with Oregon
Accreditation Alliance requirements.
The most significant change was the creation of two new policies:
1.5.2 – Use of Force Investigations and Review
1.6.2 – Control Devices and Techniques
Together these policies provide clear guidance on force tools and investigations into the
use of force while satisfying accreditation requirements.
6. Subject Demographics
Subject demographic information was calculated based on the number of unique
individuals contacted. Collecting data in this manner prevents repeat offenders from skewing
the data and accounts for the possibility of having more than one suspect during a use of
force event.
There were 139 individuals who had force used on them in 2023; 77% of these people
were male, while 23% were female. Officers have the ability to select “Non-Binary” and
“Unknown” in addition to “Male” and “Female” when marking the subject’s gender in Blue
Team. In 2023, only males and females were reported.
Female
23%
Male
77%
Figure 3. 2023 Use of Force and Gender of Subject
Attachment 1, Page 6 of 31
6
Out of the 139 subjects who had force used on them, 77.0% were white, 9.4% were
black, 10.1% were Hispanic, 0.7% were Native American, 0.7% were Asian, and 2.2% were an
unknown race.
Gender
Number of Subjects
in 2023
Percentage of
Subjects in 2023
Number, Percentage
of Subjects in 2022
Number, Percentage of
Subjects in 2021
Female 32 23.0% 47 28.0% 53 28.3%
Male 107 77.0% 121 72.0% 134 71.7%
Total 139 100% 168 100% 187 100%
Race Number of
Subjects in 2023
Percentage of
Subjects in 2023
Number, Percentage
of Subjects in 2022
Number, Percentage
of Subjects in 2021
Black 13 9.4% 13 7.7% 14 7.5%
Hispanic 14 10.1% 6 3.6% 7 3.7%
Native American 1 0.7% 2 1.2% 2 1.1%
White 107 77.0% 145 86.3% 163 87.2%
Asian 1 0.7% 1 0.6% 1 0.5%
Unknown 3 2.2% 1 0.6% 0 0%
Total 139 100% 168 100% 187 100%
Asian - 1
0.7%
Black - 13
9.4%
Hispanic - 14
10.1%
Native American - 1
0.7%
White - 107
77.0%
Unknown - 3
2.2%
Figure 4. 2023 Use of Force and Race of Subjects
Attachment 1, Page 7 of 31
7
Most of the subjects who had force used on them were between 31 and 40 years of age.
Age range
(years)
Number of
Subjects in 2023
Percentage of
Subjects in 2023
Number, Percentage
of Subjects in 2022
Number, Percentage of
Subjects in 2021
<=20 8 5.75% 20 11.9% 21 11.2%
21-30 35 25.2% 36 21.4% 55 29.4%
31-40 45 32.4% 52 31.0% 51 27.3%
41-50 36 25.9% 35 20.8% 40 21.4%
51-60 8 5.75% 19 11.3% 14 7.5%
61-70 6 4.3% 2 1.2% 6 3.2%
>70 1 0.7% 1 0.6% 0 0%
Unknown 0 0% 3 1.8% 0 0%
Total 139 100% 168 100% 187 100%
8
35
45
36
8 6
1 00
10
20
30
40
50
<=20 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61-70 >70 UnknownNumber of SubjectsYears of Age
Figure 5. 2023 Use of Force and Age of Subjects
Attachment 1, Page 8 of 31
8
7. Reasons for Show of Force or Actual Use of Force
In Blue Team, officers characterize the resistance level of their subject(s) in the “citizen
resistance” tab. These resistances provide reasons for why officers use or show force and are
broken down into the following 13 categories.
Figure 6. Actions Influencing Use and Show of Force
172
127
115
103
24
21
18
16
15
11
8
7
1
0 50 100 150 200
Physically Resistant
Fleeing
Assaultive/Combative
Passive Non-Compliance
Threat to Life
Confirmed Sharp Weapon
Confirmed Firearm
Perceived Firearm
Confirmed Other Weapon
Perceived Other Weapon
Perceived Sharp Weapon
Other
Prevent Driving/Escape
Number of IncidentsResistance Type18 21
15
16 8
11
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Firearm Sharp Weapon Other WeaponNumber of IncidentsFigure 7. Subject Weapons - Confirmed vs. Perceived
Confirmed Perceived
Attachment 1, Page 9 of 31
9
8. Use of Force Training
The following is an accounting of training hours related to use of force that SPD
members participated in during the 2023 calendar year. Training provided to all officers
unless otherwise indicated:
• Critical Incident Training (CIT):
o Forensic Intensive Treatment Team - .5 Hours
o Individuals with Disabilities - .5 Hours
o De-escalation & Escalation Prevention - 4 Hours
• De-Escalation Training - 2 Hours
• De-Escalation & APEX (VR) Training - 1 Hour
• Control Tactics & Emergency Vehicle Operations - 4 Hours
• Anti-Bias Training - 1 Hour
• Taser Training - 1.5 Hours
• Use of Force Policy Review - 4 Hours
• Presidia Gel Training - 1 Hour
• Firearms Training - 14 Hours
• Defensive Tactics: Restraint Chair - 6 Hours (Jail Staff Only)
• Officer Involved Shooting Investigation - 40 Hours (Detectives Only)
• Gracie Instructor Training - 11 Hours (Control Tactics Team Only)
Attachment 1, Page 10 of 31
10
9. Types of Force Used by Officers
The types of force used and shown by officers were broken down into the following 15
categories. The display of a weapon (show of force) is defined as the pointing of or otherwise
plain-view display of that weapon at a person in order to gain compliance or in reasonable
anticipation of use of force.
Figure 8. Use and Show of Force Type Counts
142
69
54
51
29
28
21
7
6
5
3
2
2
2
1
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Control Hold
Takedown
Firearm Display
K9 Display
Leg/Hand Strike
Taser Display
Taser Discharge
K9 Bite
Push/Shove
40mm Less-Lethal Discharge
Hobble
Pepperball Discharge
Presidia Gel Discharge
40mm Less-Lethal Display
Presidia Gel Display
Number of ApplicationsForce Type
Attachment 1, Page 11 of 31
11
10. Force Type Effectiveness
Overall, uses and shows of force were 91.5% effective (as reported by officers).
Table 5. Force Type Effectiveness
Force Type Uses
Effective
Uses
Ineffective
Uses
2023
Effectiveness
(%)
2022
Effectiveness
(%)
2021
Effectiveness
(%)
K9-Display 51 51 0 100% 98.7% 100%
K9 Bite 7 7 0 100% 100% 100%
40mm Less-Lethal
Discharge 5 5 0 100% 0% 100%
Hobble 3 3 0 100% 75% 100%
40mm Less-Lethal
Display 2 2 0 100% 100% Not Used
Pepperball Discharge 2 2 0 100% Not Used Not Used
Presidia Gel Discharge 2 2 0 100% 25% Not Used
Presidia Gel Display 1 1 0 100% Not Used Not Used
Takedown 69 67 2 97.1% 98.8% 85.7%
Control Hold 142 135 7 95.1% 96.6% 93.6%
Firearm Display 54 51 3 94.4.% 91.0% 97.1%
Push/Shove 6 5 1 83.3% Not Counted Not Counted
Taser Display 28 22 6 78.6% 90.3% 83.3%
Leg/Hand Strike 29 20 9 69.0% 74.2% 79.5%
Taser Discharge 21 13 8 61.9% 52.9% 77.8%
Bean Bag Display 0 0 0 - 0% Not Used
Pepperball Display 0 0 0 - 100% Not Used
Total 422 386 36 91.5% 92.1% 90.9%
Attachment 1, Page 12 of 31
12
Incident
Heavy or
Loose
Clothing
Taser Probes
Penetrated
Follow-Up Drive
Stun/Deployment
Attempted
Reason for
Ineffectiveness Step(s) Taken
1 Yes One No Heavy/loose
clothing
Foot pursuit, control
holds, and strikes
2 Yes None No
Running and
heavy/loose
clothing
Foot pursuit and control
holds
3 No One Drive Stun Running Drive stun and strikes
4 No Yes Deployment
Suspect
continued
resisting after
deployments
Prolonged physical
altercation with multiple
force options used
5 No N/A (Drive
Stun) No
Suspect
continued
resisting
Prolonged physical
altercation with multiple
force options used
6 Yes No No Heavy/loose
clothing
K9 Bite, strikes and
control holds
7a No Yes Deployment No effect on
suspect
Prolonged physical
altercation with multiple
force options used
7b No Yes Drive Stun (x3) No effect on
suspect
Prolonged physical
altercation with multiple
force options used
Table 6. Ineffective Taser Deployments
Attachment 1, Page 13 of 31
13
11. General Overview
During 2023, officers responded to 31,119 calls for service. 153 of these calls for service
(less than 1% of the dispatched calls) resulted in a use of force. 139 unique individuals had
force used on them.
2023 2022 2021
Total Calls for Service 49,027 49,921 50,157
Police dispatched calls for service 31,119 29,431 28,779
Calls resulting in use of force 153 174 190
Calls resulting in show of force 112 139 93
Percentage of calls resulting in use of force 0.5% 0.6% 0.66%
Percentage of calls resulting in show of force 0.4% 0.5% 0.32%
Incidents Involving Arrest 3,478 3,303 3,483
Percentage of arrests involving use of force 4.4% 5.3% 5.46%
Percentage of arrests involving show of force 3.2% 4.2% 2.67%
Individuals Arrested 2,488 2,219 2,244
Arrested individuals involved in a use of force 139 168 187
Arrested individuals involved in a show of force 115 146 -
Percentage of arrested individuals involved in a use of force 5.6% 7.6% 8.3%
Percentage of arrested individuals involved in a show of force 4.6% 6.6% -
SPD police officer holds 114 127 141
Police officer holds involving use of force 8 15 18
Percentage of police officer holds that resulted in a use of force 7% 12% 13%
Table 7. Calls for Service Breakdown
There were 114 police officer holds in 2023. Eight of these incidents (7%) resulted in use
of force. Officers are more likely to be involved in a use of force situation during a police officer
hold than during other police encounters.
Figure 9. Uses of Force During Arrests and Police Officer Holds
Arrests Involving Use of Force -
153 (4%)
Arrests Not Involving Force -
3325 (96%)
Arrests Involving Use of Force
Police Officer Holds Involving
Use of Force - 8 (7%)
Police Officer Holds Not
Involving Force - 106 (93%)
Police Officer Holds Involving Use of Force
Attachment 1, Page 14 of 31
14
12. Use of Force – Geographically
SPD members patrol the city in two districts – “East” and “West”. East covers all property
east of 28th Street, while West covers all property west of 28th Street. The West generated 65.1%
of all calls for service in 2023 and accounted for 73.4% of use of force events. The East
generated 30.0% of all calls for service in 2022 and accounted for 22.1% of use of force events.
All other calls for service (outside city limits) accounted for 4.8% all calls for service and 4.5%
of use of force events.
Figure 10. Heat Map Representing Use of Force Events Across the City West East
Attachment 1, Page 15 of 31
15
13. Injuries
Out of 153 incidents involving use of force, 52 resulted in injury to the suspects(s)
(34.0%). 48 unique suspects were injured, and all injuries were minor. Multiple types of
force can contribute to one injury or injury type.
Injury Type Occurrences Percentage of Total Injuries
Minor Injury (No Treatment/Treatment Declined) 28 54%
Minor Injury (Treatment Required) 24 46%
Hospital Admittance 0 0%
Death 0 0%
Incidents Involving Injury 52 100%
Number of Suspects Injured 48 -
Table 8. Suspect Injuries
Injury Type Force Used to Cause Injury Contributions
Minor Injury
(Treatment
Required)
Control Hold 5
Takedown 5
Taser-Discharge 10
Strike 7
K9 Bite 7
40mm Less Lethal Discharge 2
Presidia Gel Discharges 2
Pepperball Discharge 1
Minor Injury (No
Treatment Required
or Treatment
Declined)
Control Hold 14
Takedown 13
Taser – Discharge 3
Strike 7
40mm Less Lethal Discharge 1
Push/Shove 1
Table 9. Suspect Injuries and Types of Force Use
Out of 153 events involving use of force, 21 resulted in injury to the officer(s)
(13.7%). 14 unique officers received 25 injuries. Multiple types of force can contribute to
one injury or injury type.
Injury Type Occurrences
Percentage of
Total Injuries
Abrasion / Laceration 11 44.0%
Complaint of Pain 6 24.0%
Bruise 6 24.0%
Internal Injury 2 8.0%
Total Number of Injuries 25 100%
Number of Officers Injured 14 -
Attachment 1, Page 16 of 31
16
Table 10. Officer Injuries
Injury Type
Force Officer Used when
Injury Sustained Contributions
Abrasion/Laceration
Control Hold 7
Takedown 6
Strike 4
Taser – Discharge 2
Complaint of Pain
Takedown 5
Control Hold 4
Strike 3
Bruise
Control Hold 5
Takedown 5
Taser – Discharge 2
Strike 2
Push/Shove 1
Internal Injury Control Hold 1
Takedown 1
Table 11. Officer Injuries and Type of Force Used
14. Year-to-Year Comparison
Blue Team and IAPro were implemented by the Springfield Police Department in
November 2021. Consequently, use of force reports were entered into the system months
after the incidents occurred. The Professional Standards Division manually processed all the
police reports and supplemental reports for 2021. This process was less precise; however, for
2022 and beyond, the data is more complete.
Figure 11. Year-by-Year Force Type Comparison
156
70
18
45 39
18
176
81
17
76
31 31
142
69
21
51
29 28
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
Control Holds Takedowns Taser Discharges K9 Displays Strikes Taser DisplaysApplications
Force Types
2021 2022 2023
Attachment 1, Page 17 of 31
17
15. Springfield Municipal Jail
In 2023, the Springfield Municipal Jail booked in 1,743 inmates from the following agencies:
Springfield Police Department, US Marshal Service, Eugene Police Department, Coburg Police
Department, And Junction City Police Department. SPD is also prohibited from participating in
any immigration enforcement according to Springfield Municipal Jail Policy Manual Section 6
(Adults in Custody: Intake and Release) and Oregon House Bill 3265. Fifty three of these inmate
bookings (3% of all bookings) resulted in use of force.
0 0
3
4
0
2
4
0
1
7
0
4
2
1
5
7
2 2
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
OC/Presidia Gel
Discharge
OC/Presidia Gel
Display
40mm/Other
Impact Projectile
Discharge
K9 Bite Pepperball
Discharge
40mm/Other
Impact Projectile
DisplayApplications
Force Types
2021 2022 2023
Force Required - 53
3%
Force Not Required - 1690
97%
Figure 12. Bookings Requiring Force
Attachment 1, Page 18 of 31
18
Table 12. Force Type Effectiveness
Force Type Uses
Effective
Uses
Ineffective
Uses
2023
Effectiveness
(%)
2022
Effectiveness
(%)
2021
Effectiveness
(%)
Takedown 16 16 0 100% 100% 92.3%
Restraint Chair 6 6 0 100% 100% Not Counted
Taser-Display 1 1 0 100% 100% Not Used
Taser-Discharge 0 0 0 - 100% 0%
Escort Hold 18 18 0 100% 93.5% 94.7%
Control Hold 77 77 0 100% 93.4% 88.6%
Leg Sweep 6 5 1 83.3% Not Counted Not Counted
Knee Strike 5 4 1 80% 87.5% 70.0%
Push/Shove 3 3 0 100% Not Counted Not Counted
Pepperball Display 1 1 0 100% Not Used Not Used
Hand Strike 4 4 0 100% 87.5% 70.0%
Presidia Gel Display 1 1 0 100% Not Used Not Used
Presidia Gel
Discharge 1 1 0 100% Not Used Not Used
Total 139 137 2 98.6% 94.0% 87.9%
77
18
16
6
6
5
4
3
1
1
1
1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Control Hold
Escort Hold
Takedown
Leg Sweep
Restraint Chair
Knee Strike
Leg/Hand Strike
Push/Shove
Pepperball Display
Presidia Gel Display
Presidia Gel Discharge
Taser - Display
ApplicationsForce TypeFigure 13. Jail Force Type Applications
Attachment 1, Page 19 of 31
19
16. Reporting
In accordance with G.O. 1.5.1, any use of force by a member of the department shall be
documented promptly, completely, and accurately in an appropriate report. The involved
member shall articulate the level of resistance, weapons used (if any), types of force used,
injuries, medical treatments, and any other reasonably relevant information that explains or
justifies the use of force. The involved member should also articulate the factors perceived and
why he/she believes the use of force was objectively reasonable under the totality of the
circumstances. SPD collects data related to use of force (and show of force) to allow for analysis
to improve outcomes. Outcomes may include enhancement of officer and community member
safety, development of future training, and determining resource needs.
17. Recommendations
Recommendation 1
In 2024, Blue Team added a new de-escalation data entry option in use of force modules.
Officers are able to select multiple options from a drop-down menu and/or submit custom
options to describe their attempts at de-escalation. At the end of 2024, this data will be
compared with the other quantifiable data (amount of time spent on calls, use of CAHOOTS,
and the increase/decrease of show of force events in comparison to use of force events) to
monitor the success of de-escalation methods.
Recommendation 2
Until 2024, all use and show of force events were reviewed at both the Watch Commander
and Lieutenant levels. Moving forward, shows of force and low-level uses of force (such as
non-injury control holds) will be evaluated at the Sergeant level and then forwarded directly
to the IAPro database. Since over half of the force types used in 2023 were either “displays”
or low level uses of force (control holds), this will allow Lieutenants to focus on higher level
uses of force and force events that result in complaint or injury.
Recommendation 3
In previous years, uses of force and shows of force were tracked in separate Blue Team
modules. This complicated the analysis process and often doubled the amount of work
required for officers to accurately track their force data. Starting in 2024, uses and shows of
force will be tracked in one module. Officer workload will be streamlined, and additional
analysis will be conducted regarding the escalation/transition between shows of force and
uses of force.
Attachment 1, Page 20 of 31
20
18. Force Review Committee
Springfield Police General Order 1.5.2 (Use of Force Investigations and Review) section 5
(Force Review Committee) requires a Force Review Committee (FRC) to be convened when
certain criteria are met. Two such committees completed their work in 2023. In each case, the
FRC generated several recommendations. These recommendations were reviewed by command
staff and the Chief of Police. Action items were created and assigned for implementation.
One of the FRCs was formed as a result of an officer involved shooting that occurred in May
of 2021. The other was the result of supervisor review of an incident that occurred in September
of 2021. There were no incidents in 2022 or 2023 that were reviewed by a Force Review
Committee.
Recommendations and Action Items included the following:
• Work to identify additional de-escalation techniques and options for officers. Increase
training on those techniques and options and include dispatch and call takers.
• Update training manuals to reflect current policy and best practices.
• Modify who is a member of the Force Review Committee – Department CIT Coordinator
added as a standing member and removed involved member’s direct supervisor.
• Update policy to more clearly define force review roles (Sergeant, Division Lieutenant,
Professional Standards). Addressed by creation of G.O. 1.5.2 Force Investigations and
Review.
*Force investigation and review was previously governed by General Order 1.5.1 but was separated in 2023 during
the accreditation process.
Attachment 1, Page 21 of 31
1
Appendix 1
2022 Use of Force Recommendation 1 – Police Officer Holds
The 2022 annual use of force analysis revealed that the percentage of police officer holds
resulting in use of force was nearly double the percentage of criminal arrests resulting in use of
force. To identify factors associated with uses of force during police officer holds, SPD analyzed
300 police officer holds between 2020 and 2023. Force was used in 50 of these holds, while
force was not used in 250 of these holds. These 300 holds were compared with the criminal
arrests that occurred during the same time frame.
Significant differences were observed in the demographic information between the non-
POH subjects and POH subjects during incidents when force was used. While individuals under
20 years of age only made up 6% of the non-POH group, individuals under 20 years of age made
up 50% of the POH group.
Professionalism - Integrity - Courage - Honor
Springfield Police Department
– Office of Professional Standards –
<=20
6%
21-30
33%
31-40
31%
41-50
23%
51-60
6%
61-70
1%
>70
0%
Subject Ages for Non-POH, Use of Force Arrests
<=20
50%
21-30
12%
31-40
20%
41-50
6%
51-60
12%
61-70
0%
>70
0%
Subject Ages for POH, Use of Force Custodies
Figure 1. Ages for POH/non-POH Use of Force Subjects
Attachment 1, Page 22 of 31
2
20% of non-POH use of force arrests involved female subjects, while 52% of POH use of
force custodies involved female subjects.
No significant differences were found between the races of non-POH use of force
subjects and the races of POH use of force subjects.
Male
80%
Female
20%
Subject Genders for Non-POH, Use of Force Arrests
Male
48%Female
52%
Subject Genders for POH, Use of Force Custodies
White
91%
Black
7%
Asian
0%Hispanic
2%
Native American
0%
Unknown
0%
Subject Races for Non-POH, Use of Force Arrests
White
90%
Black
4%
Asian
2%Hispanic
2%
Native American
0%
Unknown
2%
Subject Races for Non-POH, Use of Force Custodies
Figure 2. Genders for POH/non-POH, Use of Force Subjects
Figure 3. Races for POH/non-POH, Use of Force Subjects
Attachment 1, Page 23 of 31
3
In 114 of the POH cases, witnesses, victims, or callers told officers that the POH subject
had a known, diagnosed mental disorder. Out of these 114 cases, only 19 (17%) resulted in a use
of force. Of the remaining 186 cases where officers were not notified that the subject had a
known, diagnosed mental disorder, 31 (also 17%) resulted in a use of force.
In 64 of the POH cases, an active physical dispute occurred before officer arrival and/or
was occurring upon officer arrival. 22 of these cases (34%) resulted in a use of force. Of the 236
cases where there was no active physical dispute before or during officer arrival, 28 (12%)
resulted in a use of force.
Further comparison between the 50 use of force POHs and the 250 non-use of force
POHs revealed the following factors were not associated with POH uses of force for this study:
• The number of prior arrests or POHs for the subject
• Whether or not the subject was observed to be under the influence of some
intoxicant
This comparison revealed the following factors may be associated with POH uses of force:
• If there was an active physical dispute happening before or during police arrival
• If the subject expressed a desire to hurt others or was actively trying to hurt others
• If the subject was combative during his/her most recent police contact (if he/she
has been contacted by police before)
Out of the 50 POH
use of force
incidents:
Out of the 250 POH
non-use of force
incidents:
Subject’s average number of previous POHs 1 1
Subject’s average number of previous arrests 3 3
Subject’s median number of previous POHs 0 0
Subject’s median number of previous arrests 0 1
% of subjects with a reported mental health
disorder 38% 37%
% of incidents where an active physical dispute
occurred before/during police arrival 42% 17%
% of subjects who were combative during their
most recent police contact
41%
(out of the 27 who
had prior police
contacts)
22%
(out of the 140 who
had prior police
contacts)
% of incidents where CAHOOTs attempted to
de-escalate the subject first 34% 15%
% of subjects who were suspected to be under
the influence 24% 18%
Attachment 1, Page 24 of 31
4
% of subjects who expressed a desire to hurt
others or were actively trying to hurt others 50% 30%
% of subjects who expressed a desire to hurt
themselves or were actively trying to hurt
themselves
44% 69%
% of incidents where officers expressed
concern over the subject’s access to a weapon 14% 20%
% of incidents where officers observed pre-
assault indicators from the subject 44% 7%
Table 1. Comparative Factors Between Non-Use of Force and Use of Force POHs
Only four out of the 50 use of force POHs resulted in injury to the subject (8%). All
injuries were minor and comprised of lacerations and complaints of pain. Since SPD started
tracking uses of force in Blue Team in 2021, we were not able to make an accurate injury
comparison with non-POH use of force arrests during the same time period (2020-2023).
Nonetheless, out of the all the use of force incidents logged in Blue Team since 2021, 30%
resulted in injury to the subject.
No Injuries
92%
Injuries
8%
% of Incidents Resulting in Injury from Use of
Force POHs
No Injuries
70%
Injuries
30%
% of Incidents Resulting in Injury from all Use of
Force Arrests
Figure 4. Injuries for Use of Force Incidents
Attachment 1, Page 25 of 31
5
Control holds and takedowns were used more often for use of force POHs than for use of
force non-POHs. K9s, Less-lethal impact weapons, Pepperball, Firearms, and Presidia Gel/OC
were not used at all for POH custodies.
Conclusion
Officers are twice as likely to use force during a police officer hold (POH) than a
criminal (non-POH) arrest. 300 POHs (50 use of force POHs, 250 non-use of force POHs)
between 2020 and 2023 were compared with all non-POH arrests during the same time frame
and analyzed to identify factors associated with uses of force during police officer holds.
While adult males were the most common subjects for non-POH use of force arrests
during the 2020 to 2023 timeframe, females and juveniles made up a significant portion of the
use of force POH population. Juveniles (<18 years old) were the subjects for 44% of the use of
force POHs, and females were the subjects for 52% of the use of force POHs (versus 6% and
20% respectively for non-POH arrests). While the number of prior arrests and/or prior number of
POHs for a subject were not indicative of whether or not force would be used during the POH in
question, 41% of the subjects who had force used on them were combative during their most
recent police contact. Similarly, subjects who were involved in an active physical dispute before
or during police arrival, expressed a desire to hurt others, and/or were observed expressing “pre-
assault” indicators were more likely to have force used on them. 58% of subjects who met at
least one of these criteria had force used on them.
Strikes
5%
Control Holds
64%
Takedowns
28%
Hobble
1%
Taser Discharge
1%
Force Types Used for Use of Force POHs
Control Holds
53%
Takedowns
24%
Strikes
11%
Taser
Discharge
6%
Hobble
1%
All Other
5%
Force Types Used for Use of Force Arrests
Figure 5. Types of Force Used for Use of Force Incidents
Attachment 1, Page 26 of 31
6
While subjects were injured in 30% of the non-POH use of force arrests between 2021
and 2023, only 8% of the use of force POH subjects were injured. None of these injuries were
serious. Officers primarily used control holds and takedowns to take POH candidates into
custody.
Only two individuals (both juveniles) were involved in more than one use of force POH
incident between 2020 and 2023. One juvenile female was involved in five use of force POHs
during this time frame, and both individuals have each been placed in police custody at least ten
times over the course of their lives in Springfield.
Attachment 1, Page 27 of 31
1
Appendix 2
2022 Use of Force Recommendation 2 – “Other” Options
Several officers noted “other” resistance types for use of force subjects in 2022. In 2023,
if an officer selected “other” for the resistance type or type of force used, they were asked to
elaborate in the Summary section of the Blue Team module. Based on these summaries, “prevent
driving/escape” and “prevent injury” were added to the resistance type drop down menu.
“Push/shove” was added to the force type drop down menu.
Additionally, some force types were broken down into more specific options in order to
provide better statistics for defensive tactics training. Officers are now able to select the
following options, which will be categorized as “Leg/Hand Strike” in the annual report:
• Kick
• Knee Strike
• Punch
• Elbow Strike
• Leg/Hand Strike
The following options will be categorized as a “Control Hold” in the annual report:
• Pinch
• Hair Hold
• Digital Control/Manipulation
• Control Hold
Professionalism - Integrity - Courage - Honor
Springfield Police Department
– Office of Professional Standards –
Attachment 1, Page 28 of 31
1
Appendix 3
2022 Use of Force Recommendation 3 – De-Escalation
While the circumstances of a police call for service may not always allow for the
employment of de-escalation tactics, officers may avoid potential use of force situations by
successfully using these de-escalation techniques. These use of force “misses” are difficult to
count, and SPD currently does not have an objective way of tracking them.
In this report, SPD analyzed CAHOOTS calls for service, time spent on calls, critical
keywords mentioned in reports (such as “de-escalation tactics”), and the overall counts for use of
force and show of force events to determine if any of these data elements can point to the
successful use of de-escalation tactics.
1. CAHOOTS calls for Service
In 2023, CAHOOTS had an approximate 7% decrease in service hours compared with the
expected 24/7 service. In 2023, CAHOOTS only had a 3.6% decrease in primary calls (as the
first dispatched unit) and a 22% decrease in support calls. Overall (accounting for both primary
and support calls), CAHOOTS was dispatched to 6% fewer calls for service. While there were
fewer CAHOOTS calls for service, this decrease, as pictured by figure 1, may correspond to the
decrease in service hours.
Professionalism - Integrity - Courage - Honor
Springfield Police Department
– Office of Professional Standards –
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023Calls for ServiceFigure 1. CAHOOTS Calls for Service by Year
First Dispatched Unit Called in for Support
Attachment 1, Page 29 of 31
2
2. Time Spent on Calls
In 2023, calls for service that ended in a use/show of force arrest took two to six minutes
(10%-30%) longer than calls for service that did not end in a use/show of force arrest (time
between police arrival and custody time). The time taken on these use/show of force arrests
increased by three to four minutes (13%-22%) from previous years. Calls for service that ended
in a use/show of force arrest took 84-96% longer that non-use/show of force arrests with respect
to the total time taken on the call (time between police arrival and call cleared).
Time Between Police Arrival and Custody Time
Average Times in
2021 (minutes)
Average Time in
2022 (minutes)
Average Time in
2023 (minutes)
All calls for service ending in
arrest 20 19 21
All calls for service ending in
a non-use/show of force arrest 21 19 20
All calls for service ending in
a use of force arrest 18 18 22
All calls for service ending in
a show of force only arrest - 23 26
Table 1. Yearly Averages for Time Between Police Arrival and Custody Time
Time Between Police Arrival and Call Cleared
Average Times in
2021 (minutes)
Average Time in
2022 (minutes)
Average Time in
2023 (minutes)
All calls for service ending in
arrest 97 88 86
All calls for service ending in
a non-use/show of force arrest 92 83 81
All calls for service ending in
a use of force arrest 148 142 149
All calls for service ending in
a show of force only arrest 141 142 159
Table 2. Yearly Averages for Time Between Police Arrival and Call Cleared
Attachment 1, Page 30 of 31
3
3. Keywords
The following phrases were searched in police report bodies in order to determine if
keywords could be used to track successful de-escalation methods:
• “Deescalation”, “De-escalation”, “Deescalating”, “De-escalating”, “Deescalated”, “De-
escalated”, “Deescalate”, “De-escalate”
• “Build Rapport”, “Building Rapport”, “Built Rapport”
• “Establish Dialogue”, “Established Dialogue”, “Establishing Dialogue”
• “Offered CAHOOTS”, “Offering CAHOOTS”
• “Prevent Use of Force”, “Avoid Use of Force”, “Prevent Using Force”, “Avoid Using
Force”, “Did Not Want to Use Force”, “Prevent a Use of Force”, “Avoid a Use of Force”
• “No Force Was Used”, “Force Wasn’t Used”, “No Force was Required”, “Force Wasn’t
Required”
The number of reports found using this method did not provide enough data to conduct a
thorough analysis.
4. Use and Show of Force Events
In 2021 and 2022, approximately 90% of show of force events did not result in an additional
use of force. In 2023, 83% of show of force events did not result in an additional use of force,
indicating a slight increase in the number of events where officers used force after ineffective
shows of force.
90%89%
83%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2021 2022 2023Percentage of Show of Force EventsFigure 2. Percentage of Show of Force Events with no Use of Force
Attachment 1, Page 31 of 31
2023 USE OF
FORCE
REPORT
Springfield Police Department
PRESENTED BY
THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD POLICE DEPARTMENT
Attachment 2, Page 1 of 13
12023 USE OF FORCE REPORT
SPRINGFIELD POLICE DEPARTMENT
2023 USE OF FORCE REPORT
Routing
Force Counting Method
Training
Force Types Used and Displayed
Force Type Effectiveness
Uses of Force and Calls for Service
Subject Injuries
Officer Injuries
Year-to-Year Force Type Comparison
Recommendations
Attachment 2, Page 2 of 13
22023 USE OF FORCE REPORT
SPRINGFIELD POLICE DEPARTMENT
Routing
Officer opens Blue Team Officer inputs use of force details
Officer submits use of force entry. Watch
commander attaches body cam footage, photos,
and reports. Watch commander reviews entry and
forwards to the division lieutenant for additional
review.
Division lieutenant reviews all
submitted materials for approval or
additional follow up.
Force entry is submitted to
the Professional Standards
Division where it is given a
final review and tracked in
IAPro.
Attachment 2, Page 3 of 13
32023 USE OF FORCE REPORT
SPRINGFIELD POLICE DEPARTMENT
FORCE COUNTING METHOD
23-XXXXX
(case number)
Takedown
Hand Strike
Hand Strike x2
x1
x1
Per force option used
Per Officer
Per
event/incident
Per number of
applications
1 use of force incident
2 officers
1 subject
2 force options used
4 applications of force
Per subject
Attachment 2, Page 4 of 13
42023 USE OF FORCE REPORT
SPRINGFIELD POLICE DEPARTMENT
TRAININGS
Critical Incident Training (CIT):
Forensic Intensive Treatment Team - .5 Hours
Individuals with Disabilities - .5 Hours
De-escalation & Escalation Prevention - 4 Hours
De-Escalation Training - 2 Hours
De-Escalation & APEX Training - 1 Hour
Control Tactics & Emergency Vehicle Operations - 4 Hours
Anti-Bias Training - 1 Hour
Taser Training - 1.5 Hours
Use of Force Policy Review - 4 Hours
Presidia Gel Training - 1 Hour
Firearms Training - 14 Hours
Defensive Tactics: Restraint Chair - 6 Hours
Officer Involved Shooting Investigation - 40 Hours (Detectives Only)
Gracie Instructor Training - 11 Hours (Control Tactics Team Only)
Attachment 2, Page 5 of 13
52023 USE OF FORCE REPORT
SPRINGFIELD POLICE DEPARTMENT
FORCE TYPES USED AND DISPLAYED
0
50
100
150
200
Control HoldFirearm DisplayTakedownK9 DisplayLeg/Hand StrikeTaser DisplayTaser DischargeK9 BitePresidia Gel DisplayPresidia Gel DischargeHobble40mm Discharge40mm DisplayPepper Ball DischargePush/ShoveAttachment 2, Page 6 of 13
62023 USE OF FORCE REPORT
SPRINGFIELD POLICE DEPARTMENT
Force Type Effectiveness
Attachment 2, Page 7 of 13
72023 USE OF FORCE REPORT
SPRINGFIELD POLICE DEPARTMENT
USES OF FORCE AND CALLS FOR SERVICE
Attachment 2, Page 8 of 13
82023 USE OF FORCE REPORT
SPRINGFIELD POLICE DEPARTMENT
Injury Type Number of
Injuries Contributing Force Types
Minor Injury (Treatment
Required)24
Control Holds, Takedowns, Taser
Discharges, Strikes, K9 Bites, 40mm
Less-Lethal Discharges, Presidia Gel
Discharges, Pepperball Discharges
Minor Injury (No Treatment
Required/Treatment Declined)28
Control Holds, Takedowns, Taser
Discharges, Strikes, 40mm Less Lethal
Discharges, Pushes/Shoves
Hospital Admittance 0 N/A
Death 0 N/A
Incidents Involving Injury 52 --
Number of Subjects Injured 48 --
SUBJECT INJURIES
Attachment 2, Page 9 of 13
92023 USE OF FORCE REPORT
SPRINGFIELD POLICE DEPARTMENT
Injury Type Number of
Injuries
Force Types Officers Used when
Injuries Sustained
Abrasion/Laceration 11 Control Holds, Takedowns, Strikes,
Taser Discharges
Complaint of Pain 6 Takedowns, Control Holds, Strikes
Bruise 6 Control Holds, Takedowns, Taser
Discharges, Strikes, Pushes/Shoves
Internal Injury 2 Control Holds, Takedowns
Total Number of Injuries 25 --
Number of Officers Injured 14 --
OFFICER INJURIES
Attachment 2, Page 10 of 13
102023 USE OF FORCE REPORT
SPRINGFIELD POLICE DEPARTMENT
0
50
100
150
200
Control HoldFirearm DisplayTakedownK9 DisplayLeg/Hand StrikeTaser DisplayTaser DischargeK9 BitePresidia Gel DischargeHobbleImprovised/Unspecified40mm DisplayBean Bag DisplayPepperbal Display40mm DischargeFirearm DischargeYear-to-Year Force Type Comparison
2021 2022 2023
Attachment 2, Page 11 of 13
2022 RECOMMENDATIONS
112023 USE OF FORCE REPORT
SPRINGFIELD POLICE DEPARTMENT
Recommendation 1 Recommendation 3Recommendation 2 Recommendation 4
Police Officer Holds “Other” Options in
Blue Team
De-Escalation
Tracking
Taser and Presidia
Gel EffectivenessStatus: Completed
Comprehensive analysis
completed on POH data
(see Appendix 1)
Status: Completed
Additional options
added for Blue Team
drop-downs
(see Appendix 2)
Status: Completed
De-escalation data
analyzed
(see Appendix 3)
Status: Completed
Presidia Gel - adopted and
trained department wide
Tasers - Continual
monitoring for trends and
training
Attachment 2, Page 12 of 13
2023 RECOMMENDATIONS
122023 USE OF FORCE REPORT
SPRINGFIELD POLICE DEPARTMENT
Recommendation 1 Recommendation 3Recommendation 2
De-Escalation
Tracking in Blue
Team
Use and Show of
Force Review
Process
Streamlined Entry
Process
Status: In Progress Status: In ProgressStatus: In Progress
Attachment 2, Page 13 of 13
SHOWS OF FORCE
Firearm
Display:
54
K9
Display:
51
Presidia Gel
Display:
1
40mm
Display:
2
Taser
Display:
28
ARRESTS AND POLICE OFFICER HOLDS
USES OF FORCE
Control
Hold:
142
Presidia
Gel*
Discharge:
2
Hobble
Restraint:
3
Takedown:
69
Leg/Hand
Strike:
29
Taser
Discharge:
21
K9 Bite:
7
40mm
Discharge:
5
Push/
Shove:
6
Pepperball
Discharge:
2
3,364 Arrests
+
114 Police Officer Holds*
286 Applications of
Force
48 subjects injured
from use of force
0 fatalities
0 hospitalizations
14 officers injured
from use of force
0 fatalities
0 hospitalizations
4.4%% OF ARRESTS AND POLICE OFFICER HOLDS RESULTED IN USE OF FORCE
USE OF FORCE EVENTS:
153
COUNTER/PHONE *:
9,351
CALLS FOR SERVICE:
49,027
CAHOOTS *:
5,417
CSO & ACO * RESPONSE:
3,112
POLICE:
31,119
ARRESTS:
3,478
OTHER * SERVICE:
28
2023 CALLS FOR SERVICE
CAHOOTS RESPONSE
11.0%
CSO/ACO RESPONSE
6.4%
SWORN OFFICER RESPONSE
63.5%
COUNTER/PHONE SERVICE
19.1%
OF POLICE OFFICER CALLS FOR SERVICE RESULTED IN USE OF FORCE
SPRINGFIELD OREGON POLICE DEPARTMENT
2023 USE OF FORCE SUMMARY2023 USE OF FORCE SUMMARY
49,027
CALLS FOR
SERVICE
TOOLS, METHODS, AND TYPES OF FORCE
springfield-or.gov/city/police-department/541.726.3714
OF TOTAL CALLS RESULTED IN USE OF FORCE
Counter/Phone : reports and calls for
service taken by records and other
staff via telephone or front counter
contact.
CAHOOTS: mobile mental health
intervention team comprised of a medic
and a crisis worker.
CSO/ACO: Community Service and
Animal Control Officers are non-sworn,
un-armed staff who respond to various
public service calls.
Other: Calls for service involving other
SPD personnel or calls originating from
another agency.
TERMINOLOGY*
Police Officer Holds: Custodies that are
transported to a hospital because they
are in need of immediate care and are a
danger to themselves or others
(ORS 426.228).
0.5%
0.3%
286 Applications of Force
Presidia Gel : a CS-based restraint that
projects in a stream instead of an
aerosol spray.
136 Shows of Force
Attachment 3, Page 1 of 1