Biden Admin Launches Federal Police Misconduct Database

The White House

White House announces new analysis of the strength and impact of NLEAD

President Biden and Vice President Harris are committed to doing everything we can to make our communities safer, including by advancing effective and accountable policing. That's why the President issued Executive Order 14074, Advancing Effective, Accountable Policing and Criminal Justice Practices To Enhance Public Trust and Public Safety, which, in part, requires the Department of Justice (DOJ) to establish a national database documenting misconduct by federal law enforcement officers. The National Law Enforcement Accountability Database (NLEAD) is operational and searchable by federal law enforcement agencies, so that agencies are able to hire or promote the best personnel, and avoid hiring candidates with disqualifying histories.

Today, the Biden-Harris Administration is releasing a new analysis on the size and scope of NLEAD, which has the participation of every federal agency that employs law enforcement officers:

NLEAD is comprehensive. As of last month, every one of the 90 federal agencies that employs law enforcement officers, consistent with relevant collective bargaining agreements, has reported into NLEAD as required by the Executive Order. The database contains 5,300 records covering misconduct for more than 4,300 past and present federal officers over the last 7 years. There are currently more than 150,000 law enforcement officers across the federal government.

NLEAD is being used regularly. This year, federal agencies already have conducted thousands of NLEAD checks to identify potential misconduct before making critical decisions about hiring, promotions, and officer work assignments.

NLEAD is making a difference. During these checks, NLEAD revealed dozens of positive hits - meaning instances of the types of misconduct identified in the Executive Order. When there is a positive hit, agencies can get more details about these incidents from the entity that reported the misconduct. This process has impacted holistic employment and officer assignment decisions, ensuring that officers who may undermine public trust do not end up in positions of authority. After conducting NLEAD checks, agencies repeatedly have made adverse employment decisions.

The Biden-Harris Administration has improved transparency around state and local policing. Most policing and most public interactions with police happen at the local level. That's why President Biden and Vice President Harris have continued to urge Congress to pass the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act to implement policing reforms at the state and local level. But we are not waiting for Congress to act, the Biden-Harris Administration has encouraged state and local agencies to expand their use of the National De-Certification Index (NDI), a registry containing state and local police misconduct that is currently in place in all 50 states and DC. Specifically:

  1. DOJ structured $471 million in discretionary grants to give priority consideration to law enforcement agencies that use the NDI.
  1. Law enforcement agencies can obtain accreditation through accreditation bodies if they adopt certain standards. Pursuant to the Executive Order, DOJ created standards for these accreditation bodies that includes reviewing NDI as part of background investigations for officers. Moreover, DOJ's Community Policing Development program has been giving grant funding to agencies for them to obtain accreditation.
  1. DOJ provided $3 million in grant funding to expand the NDI so that it includes information about the same misconduct types as NLEAD.

Since May 2023, the number of NDI users has increased almost 75%, and the number of records in the database has increased almost 85%. The average number of monthly queries has increased about 85%.

/Public Release. This material from the originating organization/author(s) might be of the point-in-time nature, and edited for clarity, style and length. Mirage.News does not take institutional positions or sides, and all views, positions, and conclusions expressed herein are solely those of the author(s).View in full here.