National Archive of Criminal Justice Data

This dataset is maintained and distributed by the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data (NACJD), the criminal justice archive within ICPSR. NACJD is primarily sponsored by three agencies within the U.S. Department of Justice: the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Justice, and the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

National Evaluation of Title I of the 1994 Crime Act: Survey Sampling Frame of Law Enforcement Agencies, 1993-1997 (ICPSR 3080) RSS

Principal Investigator(s):

Summary:

The data in this collection represent the sampling frame used to draw a national sample of law enforcement agencies. The sampling frame was a composite of law enforcement agencies in existence between June 1993 and June 1997 and was used in a subsequent study, a national evaluation of Title I of the 1994 Crime Act. The evaluation was undertaken to (1) measure differences between Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) grantees and nongrantees at the time of application, (2) measure changes over time in grantee agencies, and (3) compare changes over time between grantees and nongrantees. The sampling frame was comprised of two components: (a) a grantee component consisting of agencies that had received funding during 1995, and (b) a nongrantee component consisting of agencies that appeared potentially eligible but remained unfunded through 1995.

Access Notes

  • These data are freely available.

Dataset(s)

Dataset - Download All Files (15.6 MB)

Study Description

Citation

Roth, Jeffrey. NATIONAL EVALUATION OF TITLE I OF THE 1994 CRIME ACT: SURVEY SAMPLING FRAME OF LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES, 1993-1997. ICPSR version. Washington, DC: Urban Institute [producer], 1998. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2001. http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR03080.v1

Persistent URL:

Export Citation:

  • RIS (generic format for RefWorks, EndNote, etc.)
  • EndNote XML (EndNote X4.0.1 or higher)

Funding

This study was funded by:

  • United States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. National Institute of Justice (95-IJ-CX-0073)

Scope of Study

Subject Terms:   community policing, crime control programs, law enforcement agencies, policies and procedures

Geographic Coverage:   United States

Time Period:  

  • 1993-06--1997-06

Unit of Observation:   Law enforcement agencies.

Universe:   All law enforcement agencies in the United States in existence at any time between June 1993 and June 1997.

Data Types:   administrative records data

Data Collection Notes:

(1) Users are strongly encouraged to obtain the full research report from the National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJ 183643) for a detailed description of the sampling frame and the subsequent study that pulled samples from the sampling frame. (2) The number of cases contained in this collection differs from that stated in the research report because of missing data not used by the principal investigators. (3) The user guide and codebook are provided by ICPSR as a Portable Document Format (PDF) file. The PDF file format was developed by Adobe Systems Incorporated and can be accessed using PDF reader software, such as the Adobe Acrobat Reader. Information on how to obtain a copy of the Acrobat Reader is provided on the ICPSR Web site.

Methodology

Study Purpose:   The data in this collection represent the sampling frame used to draw a national sample of law enforcement agencies and was used in a subsequent study, a national evaluation of Title I of the 1994 Crime Act. The evaluation was undertaken to (1) measure differences between Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) grantees and nongrantees at the time of application, (2) measure changes over time in grantee agencies, and (3) compare changes over time between grantees and nongrantees.

Study Design:   The sampling frame, which was a composite of law enforcement agencies in existence between June 1993 and June 1997, was comprised of two components. The first, a grantee component, consisted of agencies that had received funding during 1995. A grantee list, created in April 1996, was obtained from applicant records from the grants management database from the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS). Specifically, COPS provided databases for the following programs: (1) Funding Accelerated for Small Towns (FAST), (2) Accelerated Hiring, Education, and Deployment (AHEAD), (3) Universal Hiring Program (UHP), and (4) Making Officer Redeployment Effective (MORE). These databases included, among other things, the applicant's originating agency identifier (ORI) and the status for each submitted application. An application was considered "funded" if the status variable indicated that the application was accepted by COPS for funding by December 31, 1995. Because a single agency could have had applications accepted in any of the multiple programs, the various databases were flattened so that each agency represented a single record. An agency was added to the grantee component of the sampling frame if at least one of its applications was deemed "funded." The second component of the sampling frame was a nongrantee component, which consisted of agencies that appeared potentially eligible but remained unfunded through 1995. To determine the nongrantee component of the sampling frame, a master list of candidates for inclusion as eligible nongrantees was compiled in July 1998 consisting of agencies pulled from the following sources: (1) the National Crime Information Center (NCIC), (2) the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, and (3) the National Law Enforcement Agency List (NLEAL). NLEAL, which was a subset of the Justice Agency List, contained the most comprehensive list of law enforcement agencies in existence at any point between June 1993 and June 1997. To reduce this master list, "clearly ineligible" agencies were removed using various automated algorithms. Researchers also used a combination of visual inspection and computer matching on the agencies from the NCIC and UCR to further eliminate "clearly ineligible" agencies. This reduced master list was then merged with the flattened grantee list and any agency appearing on both lists was removed from the nongrantee master list. The resulting agencies from the reduced master list (making up the nongrantee component), along with the grantee list (making up the grantee component) comprised the sampling frame.

Data Source:

administrative records

Description of Variables:   Variables include agency identification number, type of agency, FIPS code, Office of Community Policing Service eligibility, COPS funding status, total number of full- and part-time employees, total number of full- and part-time sworn employees, population, and sheriff agencies' eligibility for grants, based on one of three criteria: (1) the sheriff agency already had a Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) grant, (2) another sheriff agency in the same state received a COPS grant, or (3) the sheriff agency was located in a state where sheriff agencies were known to have law enforcement authority.

Response Rates:   Not applicable.

Presence of Common Scales:   None.

Extent of Processing:  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:

  • Checked for undocumented or out-of-range codes.

Version(s)

Original ICPSR Release:  

Version History:

  • 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.

Related Publications ?

Utilities

Metadata Exports

If you're looking for collection-level metadata rather than an individual metadata record, please visit our Metadata Records page.

Download Statistics

Found a problem? Use our Report Problem form to let us know.