nmm 22 4500 ICPSR06481 MiAaI m f a u cr mn mmmmuuuu 130619s1997 miu f a eng d (MiAaI)ICPSR06481 MiAaI MiAaI National Assessment Program Survey of Criminal Justice Agencies in the United States, 1992-1994 [electronic resource] J. Thomas McEwen 2005-11-04 Ann Arbor, Mich. Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor] 1997 ICPSR 6481 Numeric Title from ICPSR DDI metadata of 2013-06-19. AVAILABLE. This study is freely available to the general public. Also available as downloadable files. The National Assessment Program (NAP) Survey was conducted to determine the needs and problems of state and local criminal justice agencies. At the local level in each sampled county, survey questionnaires were distributed to police chiefs of the largest city, sheriffs, jail administrators, prosecutors, public defenders, chief trial court judges, trial court administrators (where applicable), and probation and parole agency heads. Data were collected at the state level through surveys sent to attorneys general, commissioners of corrections, prison wardens, state court administrators, and directors of probation and parole. For the 1992-1994 survey, 13 separate questionnaires were used. Police chiefs and sheriffs received the same survey instruments, with a screening procedure employed to identify sheriffs who handled law enforcement responsibilities. Of the 411 counties selected, 264 counties also employed trial court administrators. Judges and trial court administrators received identical survey instruments. A total of 546 surveys were mailed to probation and parole agencies, with the same questions asked of state and local officers. Counties that had separate agencies for probation and parole were sent two surveys. All survey instruments were divided into sections on workload (except that the wardens, jail administrators, and corrections commissioners were sent a section on jail use and crowding instead), staffing, operations and procedures, and background. The staffing section of each survey queried respondents on recruitment, retention, training, and number of staff. The other sections varied from instrument to instrument, with questions tailored to the responsibilities of the particular agency. Most of the questionnaires asked about use of automated information systems, programs, policies, or aspects of the facility or security needing improvement, agency responsibilities and jurisdictions, factors contributing to workload increases, budget, number of fulltime employees and other staff, and contracted services. Questions specific to police chiefs and sheriffs included activities aimed at drug problems and whether they anticipated increases in authorized strength in officers. Jail administrators, corrections commissioners, and wardens were asked about factors contributing to jail crowding, alternatives to jail, medical services offered, drug testing and drug-related admissions, and inmate classification. Topics covered by the surveys for prosecutors, public defenders, judges, and state and trial court administrators included types of cases handled, case timeliness, diversion and sentencing alternatives, and court and jury management. State and local probation and parole agency directors were asked about diagnostic tools, contracted services, and drug testing. Attorneys general were queried about operational issues, statutory authority, and legal services and support provided to state and local criminal justice agencies. Cf.: http://dx.doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR06481.v1 case processing icpsr corrections management icpsr courts icpsr criminal justice system icpsr information systems icpsr law enforcement agencies icpsr needs assessment icpsr police recruits icpsr police training icpsr policies and procedures icpsr prisons icpsr sentencing icpsr NACJD VI. Criminal Justice System ICPSR XVII.E. Social Institutions and Behavior, Crime and the Criminal Justice System McEwen, J. Thomas Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research. ICPSR (Series) 6481 Access restricted ; authentication may be required: http://dx.doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR06481.v1 nmm 22 4500 ICPSR09923 MiAaI m f a u cr mn mmmmuuuu 130619s1993 miu f a eng d (MiAaI)ICPSR09923 MiAaI MiAaI National Assessment Program Survey of Criminal Justice Personnel in the United States, 1986 [electronic resource] J. Thomas McEwen , Barbara Webster , Edward Connors 2006-01-12 Ann Arbor, Mich. Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor] 1993 ICPSR 9923 Numeric Title from ICPSR DDI metadata of 2013-06-19. AVAILABLE. This study is freely available to the general public. Also available as downloadable files. This survey probed the needs and problems facing local criminal justice practitioners. Within each sampled county, survey questionnaires were distributed to the police chief of the largest city, the sheriff, the jail administrator, the prosecutor, the chief trial court judge, the trial court administrator (where applicable), and probation and parole agency heads. Although the general topics covered in the questionnaires are similar, specific items are not repeated across the questionnaires, except for those given to the sheriffs and the police chiefs. The sheriffs surveyed were those with law enforcement responsibilities, so the questions asked of the police chiefs and the sheriffs were identical. The questionnaires were tailored to each group of respondents, and dealt with five general areas: (1) background characteristics, including staff size, budget totals, and facility age, (2) criminal justice system problems, (3) prison crowding, (4) personnel issues such as training needs and programs, and (5) operations and procedures including management, management information, and the specific operations in which the respondents were involved. In some cases, sets of question items were grouped into question batteries that dealt with specific topic areas (e.g., staff recruitment, judicial training, and number of personnel). For example, the Staff Recruitment battery items in the Probation and Parole Questionnaire asked respondents to use a 4 point scale to indicate the seriousness of each of the following problems: low salaries, poor image of corrections work, high entrance requirements, location of qualified staff, shortage of qualified minority applicants, and hiring freezes. Cf.: http://dx.doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR09923.v1 law enforcement agencies icpsr personnel icpsr personnel management icpsr police departments icpsr prison administration icpsr prison overcrowding icpsr training icpsr budgets icpsr criminal justice system icpsr correctional facilities icpsr courts icpsr ICPSR XVII.E. Social Institutions and Behavior, Crime and the Criminal Justice System NACJD VI. Criminal Justice System McEwen, J. Thomas Webster, Barbara Connors, Edward Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research. ICPSR (Series) 9923 Access restricted ; authentication may be required: http://dx.doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR09923.v1 nmm 22 4500 ICPSR03931 MiAaI m f a u cr mn mmmmuuuu 130619s2004 miu f a eng d (MiAaI)ICPSR03931 MiAaI MiAaI National Survey of Police Call Management Strategies and Community Policing Activities, 2000 [electronic resource] J. Thomas McEwen 2006-01-31 Ann Arbor, Mich. Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor] 2004 ICPSR 3931 Numeric Title from ICPSR DDI metadata of 2013-06-19. AVAILABLE. This study is freely available to the general public. Also available as downloadable files. For this study, two different projects with an overlap of purpose made use of the same data, which were based on a national sample of 695 police departments. One project conducted background research for a guidebook on call management for community policing. The other focused on the use of computer-aided dispatch (CAD) systems in community policing. Survey questions focused on the types of CAD systems, call management strategies, and community policing activities employed by each of the departments. Variables include types of CAD data used, use of different call management strategies, problem solving measures used, resource allocation measures used, community involvement/satisfaction measures used, support for special units, methods used for management accountability, and involvement in community policing activities. Cf.: http://dx.doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR03931.v2 community policing icpsr police departments icpsr police records icpsr police response icpsr NACJD IX. Police ICPSR XVII.E. Social Institutions and Behavior, Crime and the Criminal Justice System McEwen, J. Thomas Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research. ICPSR (Series) 3931 Access restricted ; authentication may be required: http://dx.doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR03931.v2 nmm 22 4500 ICPSR06436 MiAaI m f a u cr mn mmmmuuuu 130619s1995 miu f a eng d (MiAaI)ICPSR06436 MiAaI MiAaI National Victim Assistance Agency Survey, 1992 [electronic resource] J. Thomas McEwen 1995-08-16 Ann Arbor, Mich. Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor] 1995 ICPSR 6436 Numeric Title from ICPSR DDI metadata of 2013-06-19. AVAILABLE. This study is freely available to the general public. Also available as downloadable files. This data collection examines victim assistance programs that are operated by law enforcement agencies, prosecutor's offices, and independent assistance agencies. Victim assistance programs came into being when it was discovered that, in addition to the physical, emotional, and financial impact of a crime, victims often experience a "second victimization" because of insensitive treatment by the criminal justice system. Specifically, this study sought to answer the following questions: (1) What are the current staffing levels of victim assistance programs? (2) What types of victims come to the attention of the programs? (3) What types of services are provided to victims? and (4) What are the operational and training needs of victim assistance programs? The survey was sent to 519 police departments, sheriff departments, and prosecutor's offices identified as having victim assistance programs. Also, 172 independent full-service agencies that were believed to provide referral or direct services to victims (not just advocacy) were also sent surveys. Variables on staffing levels include the number of full-time, part-time, and volunteer personnel, and the education and years of experience of paid staff. Victim information includes the number of victims served for various types of crime, and the percent of victims served identified by race/ethnicity and by age characteristics (under 16 years old, 17-64 years old, and over 65 years old). Variables about services include percent estimates on the number of victims receiving various types of assistance, such as information on their rights, information on criminal justice processes, "next-day" crisis counseling, short-term supportive counseling, or transportation. Other data gathered include the number of victims for which the agency arranged emergency loans, accompanied to line-ups, police or prosecutor interviews, or court, assisted in applying for state victim compensation, prepared victim impact statements, notified of court dates or parole hearings, or made referrals to social service agencies or mental health agencies. Information is also presented on training provided to criminal justice, medical, mental health, or other victim assistance agency personnel, and whether the agency conducted community or public school education programs. Agencies ranked their need for more timely victim notification of various criminal justice events, improvement or implementation of various forms of victim and public protection, and improvement of victim participation in various stages of the criminal justice process. Agencies also provided information on training objectives for their agency, number of hours of mandatory pre-service and in-service training, types of information provided during the training of their staff, sources for their training, and the priority of additional types of training for their staff. Agency variables include type of agency, year started, and budget information. Cf.: http://dx.doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR06436.v1 counseling icpsr criminal justice system icpsr law enforcement agencies icpsr victim compensation icpsr victim rights icpsr victims services icpsr victims icpsr NACJD X. Victimization ICPSR XVII.E. Social Institutions and Behavior, Crime and the Criminal Justice System McEwen, J. Thomas Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research. ICPSR (Series) 6436 Access restricted ; authentication may be required: http://dx.doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR06436.v1