Metadata record for National Survey of Community Policing Strategies, 1992-1993 Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research ICPSR metadata records are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 United States License . 2013-06-18 National Survey of Community Policing Strategies, 1992-1993 6485 10.3886/ICPSR06485.v1 Annan, Sampson O. United States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. National Institute of Justice 91-U-CX-K008 Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research 1995-10-12 2006-01-12 2006-01-12 All files were removed from dataset 3 and flagged as study-level files, so that they will accompany all downloads. Annan, Sampson O. NATIONAL SURVEY OF COMMUNITY POLICING STRATEGIES, 1992-1993. ICPSR version. Washington, DC: The Police Foundation [producer], 1994. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 1995. doi:10.3886/ICPSR06485.v1 community policing law enforcement agencies program evaluation ICPSR.XVII.E NACJD.IX The primary objective of this national study was to gather reliable information on the extent to which the concept of community policing had been adopted by law enforcement agencies across the country. As a program evaluation, the survey also sought to provide information on what was happening and what needed to happen within the law enforcement community with respect to the development and implementation of community policing. Following a pretest of the questionnaire, a survey package was mailed to the chief executive of each selected agency in May 1993. To minimize the number of unresolved cases and reduce the potential nonresponse bias, four follow-up contacts were made with agencies that had not responded by various stages of the data collection process. Part 1 examines the chief executive's views about community policing. Part 2 contains data on the agency's current situation, resources used, and types of police training needed in the implementation of community policing. Agencies that had implemented or planned to implement community policing identified various written policies or legislation that had been developed. Agencies that had been implementing community policing for more than one year assessed the effects of community policing. All respondents indicated programs and organizational arrangements that their agencies had in place or planned to develop, identified who in their agencies performed various community policing activities, and examined their agencies' current or planned community involvement with various activities and programs. Demographic data include the agency's sworn and civilian personnel size, number assigned to patrol and investigative divisions, size of jurisdiction served, and whether the agency provided 24-hour patrol service. The unit of analysis for the chief executive data is the individual chief executive of the agency. The unit of analysis for the agency data is the agency. Community policing is a general concept that stresses a closer working relationship between police and the citizens they serve. This evolving concept involves reforming decision-making processes and creating new cultures within law enforcement agencies. The primary objective of this national study was to gather reliable information on the extent to which the concept of community policing had been adopted by law enforcement agencies across the country. As a program evaluation, the survey also sought to provide information on what was happening and what needed to happen within the law enforcement community with respect to the development and implementation of community policing. Following a pretest of the questionnaire, a survey package containing a questionnaire, a cover letter, a postcard, and a self-addressed, stamped envelope was mailed to the chief executive of each of the 2,314 selected agencies in May 1993. The first follow-up was conducted in June 1993, about three weeks after the initial mailing. A follow-up letter, designed as a "thank you" to agencies that had already mailed the questionnaire and a reminder to the other agencies that had not, was faxed to most of the approximately 2,000 agencies that had not yet responded. The letter was mailed to agencies that could not receive a fax. About nine weeks after the initial mailing, a second survey package, including a new cover letter, a questionnaire, and a self-addressed, stamped envelope, was mailed to 1,217 agencies that had not responded to the initial mailing or the subsequent follow-up letter. About six weeks after the second follow-up mailing, a third follow-up was conducted that consisted of a short letter emphasizing the importance of the study and encouraging participation. In addition to the letter, a response form was designed to allow the nonresponding agencies to respond to the survey without necessarily completing the questionnaire. Respondents were requested to check one of five response status categories on the form. The letter and response form were faxed to the nonresponding agencies in September 1993, and mailed to agencies that could not receive a fax. Agencies were requested to fax back the response form after checking the appropriate box. To further minimize the number of unresolved cases and reduce the potential nonresponse bias, a fourth and final follow-up was conducted about six weeks after the third follow-up. The same letter and response form used in the third follow-up were sent to approximately 580 agencies from whom no final response had been received. Section One of the survey examined the chief executive's views about community policing. It consisted of twenty-one questions statements about community policing with which the chief executive could agree or disagree. Through eleven more questions, the respondent assessed the impact or potential impact of implementing community policing. The respondent was also asked who should be responsible for implementing community policing within the agency. Sections Two through Nine could be completed by someone other than the chief executive. Respondents were asked about the agency's current situation, resources used, and types of police training needed in the implementation of community policing. For agencies that had implemented or planned to implement community policing, questions were asked regarding whether various written policies or legislation had been developed. For agencies that had been implementing community policing for more than one year, the respondent assessed the effects of community policing. Respondents indicated which programs or practices their agencies had implemented or planned to implement and identified various organizational arrangements or structures that their agencies had in place or planned to develop. Respondents also indicated who in the agency performed various community policing activities. Data were also collected on the authority and responsibility of mid-level field operation managers for various activities. Fifteen items examined in detail the agency's current or planned community involvement with various activities and programs. Demographic information includes the agency's sworn and civilian personnel size, number of people assigned to patrol and investigative divisions, size of jurisdiction served, and whether the agency provided 24-hour patrol service. 1992 1993 1993-05 1993-11 United States The unit of analysis for the chief executive data is the individual chief executive of the agency. The unit of analysis for the agency data is the agency. All law enforcement agencies that perform patrol duties in the United States as listed in the 1990 Justice Agency List, excluding state police agencies, special police agencies, and agencies with less than five sworn personnel. survey data A stratified random sample of 2,337 law enforcement agencies was selected from the universe of 11,824 agencies, designed to select larger agencies at higher rates than smaller agencies. self-enumerated questionnaires

ICPSR data undergo a confidentiality review and are altered when necessary to limit the risk of disclosure. ICPSR also routinely creates ready-to-go data files along with setups in the major statistical software formats as well as standard codebooks to accompany the data. In addition to these procedures, ICPSR performed the following processing steps for this data collection:

Performed consistency checks.Checked for undocumented or out-of-range codes. A list of law enforcement agencies that participated in this survey can be obtained from the National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS). Response rates for this survey were calculated by dividing the number of completed questionnaires by the sample size minus the 23 ineligible units. These figures were considered conservative, since some nonresponding agencies might also have been out-of-scope but their status could not be determined before the end of the data collection period. The response rates by type of agency were: municipal police - 75.6 percent, county police - 81.2 percent, county sheriff - 60.7 percent. The overall response rate was 71.3 percent. Several Likert-like scales were used. Ann Arbor, Mi.: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research Additional special permissions, where applicable, are described in the restrictions field.

Please read the terms of use below. If you agree to them, click on the "I Agree" button to proceed. If you do not agree, you can click on the "I Do Not Agree" button to return to the home page.

ICPSR adheres to the principles of the Data Seal of Approval , which, in part, require the data consumer to comply with access regulations imposed both by law and by the data repository, and to conform to codes of conduct that are generally accepted in higher education and scientific research for the exchange of knowledge and information.

These data are distributed under the following terms of use, which are governed by ICPSR. By continuing past this point to the data retrieval process, you signify your agreement to comply with the requirements stated below:

Privacy of RESEARCH SUBJECTS

Any intentional identification of a RESEARCH SUBJECT (whether an individual or an organization) or unauthorized disclosure of his or her confidential information violates the PROMISE OF CONFIDENTIALITY given to the providers of the information. Therefore, users of data agree:

To use these datasets solely for research or statistical purposes and not for investigation of specific RESEARCH SUBJECTS, except when identification is authorized in writing by ICPSR (netmail@icpsr.umich.edu )

To make no use of the identity of any RESEARCH SUBJECT discovered inadvertently, and to advise ICPSR of any such discovery (netmail@icpsr.umich.edu )

Redistribution of Data

You agree not to redistribute data or other materials without the written agreement of ICPSR, unless:

You serve as the OFFICIAL or DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE at an ICPSR MEMBER INSTITUTION and are assisting AUTHORIZED USERS with obtaining data, or

You are collaborating with other AUTHORIZED USERS to analyze the data for research or instructional purposes.

When sharing data or other materials in these approved ways, you must include all accompanying files with the data, including terms of use. More information on permission to redistribute data can be found on the ICPSR Web site.

Citing Data

You agree to reference the recommended bibliographic citation in any publication that employs resources provided by ICPSR. Authors of publications based on ICPSR data are required to send citations of their published works to ICPSR for inclusion in a database of related publications (bibliography@icpsr.umich.edu ) .

Disclaimer

You acknowledge that the original collector of the data, ICPSR, and the relevant funding agency bear no responsibility for use of the data or for interpretations or inferences based upon such uses.

Violations

If ICPSR determines that the terms of this agreement have been violated, ICPSR will act according to our policy on terms of use violations . Sanctions can include:

ICPSR may revoke the existing agreement, demand the return of the data in question, and deny all future access to ICPSR data.

The violation may be reported to the Research Integrity Officer, Institutional Review Board, or Human Subjects Review Committee of the user's institution. A range of sanctions are available to institutions including revocation of tenure and termination.

If the confidentiality of human subjects has been violated, the case may be reported to the Federal Office for Human Research Protections. This may result in an investigation of the user's institution, which can result in institution-wide sanctions including the suspension of all research grants.

A court may award the payment of damages to any individual(s)/organization(s) harmed by the breach of the agreement.

Definitions authorized user - A faculty member, staff member, or student at a member institutionICPSR - Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Researchmember institution - An institutional member of ICPSROfficial/Designated Representative - An individual appointed to represent a university's interests in ICPSR. This individual is also charged with providing user support to campus users. promise of confidentiality - A promise to a respondent or research participant that the information the respondent provides will not be disseminated without the permission of the respondent; that the fact that the respondent participated in the study will not be disclosed; and that disseminated information will include no linkages to the identity of the respondent. Such a promise encompasses traditional notions of both confidentiality and anonymity. Names and other identifying information regarding respondents, proxies, or other persons on whom the respondent or proxy provides information, are presumed to be confidential.research subject - A person or organization observed for purposes of research. Also called a respondent. A respondent is generally a survey respondent or informant, experimental or observational subject, focus group participant, or any other person providing information to a study or on whose behalf a proxy provides information.

In addition, the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data stipulates the following conditions:

Federal law and regulations require that research data collected by the U.S. Department of Justice or by its grantees and contractors may only be used for research or statistical purposes. The applicable laws and regulations may be found in the United States Code, 42 USC Section 3789g(a), the Code of Federal Regulations, 28 CFR 22, and 62 F.R. 35044 (June 27, 1997) (The Federal Confidentiality Order). Accordingly, any intentional identification or disclosure of a person or establishment may violate federal law as well as the assurances of confidentiality given to the providers of the information. Therefore, users of data collected by or with the support from the U.S. Department of Justice and distributed by NACJD or other ICPSR archives must agree to abide by these regulations and understand that ICPSR may report any potential violation to the U.S. Department of Justice.

UNAVAILABLE. This study is temporarily unavailable.

The original collector of the data, ICPSR, and the relevant funding agency bear no responsibility for use of the data or for interpretations or inferences based upon such uses. Chief Executive Data Agency Data SAS Data Definition Statements for Chief Executive Data SAS Data Definition Statements for Agency Data Diskette D00197