MyData:What Is MyData? | Login/Account Info | Download Saved Files | Logout
Description & Citation--Study No. 2878 | |
Bibliographic Description | |
| ICPSR Study No.: | 2878 |
|---|---|
| Title: | Use of Computerized Crime Mapping by Law Enforcement in the United States, 1997-1998 |
| Principal Investigator(s): | Cynthia A. Mamalian, United States Department of Justice. National Institute of Justice. Crime Mapping Research Center |
| Nancy G. LaVigne, United States Department of Justice. National Institute of Justice. Crime Mapping Research Center | |
| Elizabeth Groff, United States Department of Justice. National Institute of Justice. Crime Mapping Research Center | |
| Funding Agency: | United States Department of Justice. National Institute of Justice |
| Bibliographic Citation: | Mamalian, Cynthia A., Nancy G. LaVigne, and Elizabeth Groff. USE OF COMPUTERIZED CRIME MAPPING BY LAW ENFORCEMENT IN THE UNITED STATES, 1997-1998 [Computer file]. Conducted by U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, Crime Mapping Research Center. ICPSR02878-v3. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [producer and distributor], 2008-04-18. |
Scope of Study | |
| Summary: | As a first step in understanding law enforcement agencies' use and knowledge of crime mapping, the Crime Mapping Research Center (CMRC) of the National Institute of Justice conducted a nationwide survey to determine which agencies were using geographic information systems (GIS), how they were using them, and, among agencies that were not using GIS, the reasons for that choice. Data were gathered using a survey instrument developed by National Institute of Justice staff, reviewed by practitioners and researchers with crime mapping knowledge, and approved by the Office of Management and Budget. The survey was mailed in March 1997 to a sample of law enforcement agencies in the United States. Surveys were accepted until May 1, 1998. Questions asked of all respondents included type of agency, population of community, number of personnel, types of crimes for which the agency kept incident-based records, types of crime analyses conducted, and whether the agency performed computerized crime mapping. Those agencies that reported using computerized crime mapping were asked which staff conducted the mapping, types of training their staff received in mapping, types of software and computers used, whether the agency used a global positioning system, types of data geocoded and mapped, types of spatial analyses performed and how often, use of hot spot analyses, how mapping results were used, how maps were maintained, whether the department kept an archive of geocoded data, what external data sources were used, whether the agency collaborated with other departments, what types of Department of Justice training would benefit the agency, what problems the agency had encountered in implementing mapping, and which external sources had funded crime mapping at the agency. Departments that reported no use of computerized crime mapping were asked why that was the case, whether they used electronic crime data, what types of software they used, and what types of Department of Justice training would benefit their agencies. |
| Subject Term(s): | crime mapping, geographic information systems, information use, law enforcement agencies |
| Geographic Coverage: | United States |
| Time Period: | 1997 - 1998 |
| Date(s) of Collection: | March 1997 - May 1998 |
| Unit of Observation: | Law enforcement agencies. |
| Universe: | All law enforcement agencies in the United States. |
| Data Type: | survey data |
Methodology | |
| Purpose of the Study: | Computerized crime mapping technology enables law enforcement agencies to analyze and correlate data sources to create a detailed snapshot of crime incidents and related factors within a community or other geographic area. In particular, it enables agencies to target resources for more effective crime control strategies, identify likely suspects, evaluate the results of interventions, and more efficiently and effectively allocate officers to geographic areas in which they are needed. While interest in this technology within the law enforcement community appears to be growing, until recently little data existed on how widely computerized crime mapping was used, in what capacity, and what influenced an agency's implementation of a geographic information system (GIS). As a first step in understanding law enforcement agencies' use and knowledge of crime mapping, the Crime Mapping Research Center of the National Institute of Justice conducted a nationwide crime mapping survey to determine which agencies were using GIS, how they were using it, and, among agencies that were not using GIS, the reasons for that choice. |
| Study Design: | The survey instrument was developed by National Institute of Justice staff, reviewed by practitioners and researchers with crime mapping knowledge, and cleared by the Office of Management and Budget. All agencies with 50 or more sworn officers were contacted by telephone to obtain the name of the crime analyst or other appropriate person to whom the survey should be addressed. All other surveys were sent to the attention of the agency chief. The survey was mailed in March 1997 to a sample of law enforcement agencies in the United States. Agencies that did not respond to the first mailing were sent a second survey. Surveys were accepted until May 1, 1998. It took responding agencies an estimated average of 33 minutes to answer the survey, including time to review instructions, gather needed data, and complete and review the collection of information. |
| Sample: | The sample was selected using the Law Enforcement Sector of the Justice Agency List, United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census (1994) database. Sample agencies were differentiated based on whether they employed more than 100 sworn officers (N = 871), of which all were sampled, or fewer than 100 sworn officers (N = 16,486). Agencies with fewer than 100 sworn officers were grouped by type (municipal police departments, sheriff's departments, special police, county police departments, state police departments, and combined agency types) and sampled disproportionately by agency type to capture a significant number of respondents from groups often underrepresented in national surveys, such as sheriff's departments (20 percent selected) and county, municipal, and special law enforcement agencies (10 percent selected). Local law enforcement agencies were defined as agencies operated by a municipal or county government. Special police agencies included campus/university police, alcohol enforcement units, marine units, parks and wildlife/conservation units, public safety units, railroad, airport, or harbor patrol units, border patrol, and metro transit authorities. The total sample included 2,768 agencies. |
| Data Source: | mailback questionnaires |
| Mode of Data Collection: | Data were collected with mailback questionnaires. |
| Description of Variables: | Questions asked of all respondents included type of agency, population of community, number of personnel, types of crimes for which the agency kept incident-based records, types of crime analyses conducted, and whether the agency performed computerized crime mapping. Those agencies that reported using computerized crime mapping were asked which staff conducted the mapping, types of training their staff received in mapping, types of software and computers used, whether the agency used a global positioning system, types of data geocoded and mapped, types of spatial analyses performed and how often, use of hot spot analyses, how mapping results were used, how maps were maintained, whether the department kept an archive of geocoded data, what external data sources were used, whether the agency collaborated with other departments, what types of Department of Justice training would benefit the agency, what problems the agency had encountered in implementing mapping, and which external sources had funded crime mapping at the agency. Departments that reported no use of computerized crime mapping were asked why that was the case, whether they used electronic crime data, what types of software they used, and what types of Department of Justice training would benefit their agencies. |
| Response Rates: | The response rate after two mailings was 72 percent. |
| Presence of Common Scales: | Several Likert-type scales were used. |
| Extent of Processing: | The hardcopy data collection instrument was converted to Portable Document Format (PDF), and the data were reformatted by ICPSR. ICPSR performed consistency checks and checks for undocumented codes, standardized missing data codes, and created some new variables. ICPSR also produced a codebook and user guide and generated SAS, SPSS and Stata setup files for this collection. |
Access and Availability | |
| Note: | A list of the data formats available for this study can be found in the summary of holdings. Detailed file-level information (such as record length, case count, and variable count) is listed in the file manifest. |
| Restrictions: | To protect respondent privacy, certain identifying information is restricted from general dissemination. Specifically, the variable ORI is restricted from general dissemination. Users interested in obtaining these data must complete a Restricted Data Use Agreement form and specify the reasons for the request. A copy of the Restricted Data Use Agreement form can be requested by calling 800-999-0960. Researchers can also download this form as a Portable Document Format (PDF) file from the download page associated with this dataset. Completed forms should be returned to: Director, National Archive of Criminal Justice Data, Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research, Institute for Social Research, P.O. Box 1248, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1248, or by fax: 734-647-8200. |
| Original ICPSR Release: | 2001-02-16 |
| Version History: | The last update of this study occurred on 2008-04-18. |
| 2008-04-18 - The variable ORI was updated with data that had previously been labeled as missing. These updated data were obtained from hard copies of the original survey forms. | |
| 2006-09-21 - A restricted version of the data was created to include the variable ORI. The public release version was updated with the new LRECL, with the variable ORI included, but masked. | |
| 2005-11-04 - On 2005-03-14 new files were added to one or more datasets. These files included additional setup files as well as one or more of the following: SAS program, SAS transport, SPSS portable, and Stata system files. The metadata record was revised 2005-11-04 to reflect these additions. | |
