Performance Measures in Prosecution and Their Application to Community Prosecution at Two Sites in the United States, 2005-2006 (ICPSR 20401)

Time Period(s) View help for Time Period(s)

Date of Collection View help for Date of Collection

Data Collection Notes View help for Data Collection Notes

Study Purpose View help for Study Purpose

The purpose of this study was to explore empirical evidence to support the performance measurement framework identified by the Prosecution Study for the 21st Century. The framework included promoting the fair, impartial, and expeditious pursuit of justice and ensuring public safety.

Study Design View help for Study Design

Two prosecutors' offices participated in the study. One was a traditional office, focusing on holding offenders accountable and case processing. The other was a more community-oriented office, having implemented community prosecution. More specifically, the first office was more traditional in its approach to prosecution, focusing on holding offenders accountable and case processing with some additional efforts focused on addressing and preventing certain types of crime, such as gang and gun violence, domestic violence, child abuse, and truancy. The second office was more community-oriented, having implemented and embraced a community prosecution approach to crime, which involved proactive problem-solving, partnerships with the community, and use of techniques other than criminal prosecution to address certain types of crime and public safety issues.

The American Prosecutors Research Institute (APRI) conducted two site visits to each site--one at the beginning of the project to select performance measures and a second in the middle of the project to review the performance measures data that had been submitted by the site. Performance measures were operationalized for each office according to the strategies and practices to which they were tied. Each site submitted monthly data on the identified performance measures for analysis. The data collected to construct each measure focused on available relevant data already in existence in each of the sites. Data elements used to create the measures included items such as the number of particular cases filed, pleas to lesser charges or as charged, or convicted, number of repeat offenders, sentence length, number of reported crimes and calls for service, and case processing times, among others. Both traditional and non-traditional data elements were selected for both sites. Site 1 submitted 15 months of data (Part 1) and Site 2 submitted 6 months of data (Part 2). APRI created models for each site showing the relationship between goals, objectives, performance measures, and activities. Correlation and factor analyses were used to examine the relationship between the measures and the goals/objectives.

APRI also designed and administered a public safety survey to assess a number of factors related to the performance of prosecutors' offices, but for which data could not be provided by the offices. In Part 3, a total of 975 citizens were asked to provide some basic demographic data about themselves and to respond to Likert-style questions measuring attitudes and opinions on six factors: the seriousness of local crime, safety of the environment, organizational behavior of the prosecutor's office, participation in the community, community education, and task performance. The public safety surveys were administered by phone using random digit dialing (RDD). Dialing continued until 325 respondents, in each of the jurisdictions, provided complete survey data. In Site 1, the public safety survey was administered twice, in December 2005 and in April 2006. In Site 2, the public safety survey was administered in September 2006. Due to concerns about conducting a community survey during an election campaign, Site 2 only administered one survey, late in the study period.

Sample View help for Sample

The researchers selected two prosecutors' offices to participate in the study: Site 1 -- a traditional office, focusing on holding offenders accountable and case processing, and Site 2 -- a more community-oriented office, having implemented community prosecution. Both Site 1 and Site 2 provided performance measures data. The public safety surveys (Part 3) were administered by phone to a random sample of respondents in each of the jurisdictions (Site 1 and Site 2) using random digit dialing (RDD). In Site 1, the public safety survey was administered twice, in December 2005 and in April 2006. In Site 2, the public safety survey was administered in September 2006. Due to concerns about conducting a community survey during an election campaign, Site 2 only administered one survey. For each of the three times that the survey was administered, random digit dialing continued until 325 respondents provided complete survey data. Thus, the total sample consists of 975 respondents (650 from Site 1 and 325 from Site 2).

Universe View help for Universe

Part 1: All performance measure data collected by Site 1 from January 2005 to March 2006. Part 2: All performance measure data collected by Site 2 from January 2005 to March 2006. Part 3: All persons with telephones aged 18 and over living in the jurisdiction of Site 1 in December 2005 and April 2006 and all persons with telephones aged 18 and over living in the jurisdiction of Site 2 in September 2006.

Unit(s) of Observation View help for Unit(s) of Observation

Data Source View help for Data Source

Data Type(s) View help for Data Type(s)

Mode of Data Collection View help for Mode of Data Collection

Description of Variables View help for Description of Variables

Part 1, Site 1 Administrative Data, contains 15 months of data and Part 2, Site 2 Administrative Data, contain 6 months of data on the identified performance measures for analysis from each site. Specifically, Part 1 and Part 2 contain items such as the number of particular cases filed, pleas to lesser charges or as charged or convicted, number of repeat offenders, sentence length, number of reported crimes and calls for service, and case processing times, among others. Part 3, Public Safety Survey Data, contains variables that provide some basic demographic data (age, race, gender) about the respondents and several variables in response to Likert-style questions measuring attitudes and opinions on six factors: the seriousness of local crime, safety of the environment, organizational behavior of the prosecutor's office, participation in the community, community education, and task performance. In particular, variables in Part 3 included citizens' impressions of changes in the level of crime in their communities and the city as a whole, level of citizen fear of being a victim of various specified crimes, general feelings of safety in their community and the city as a whole, recent changes in citizens' level of fear of crime, identifying environmental conditions (e.g., abandoned cars, poor lighting) that lead to citizens feeling unsafe, the nature of citizens' interaction, if any, with the local prosecutor's office, the perceived helpfulness and fairness of the local prosecutor's office (for those residents with direct interaction with the prosecutor's office), citizens' understanding of the work of prosecutors (e.g., why some cases do not go to trial, etc.), whether citizens have served on a jury in the past five years, the perceived importance of the prosecutor's office for public safety and crime reduction, and the efficacy of the prosecutor's office in holding offenders accountable, addressing community problems, administering justice swiftly, etc.

Response Rates View help for Response Rates

Part 1 and Part 2: Not applicable. Part 3: Not available.

Presence of Common Scales View help for Presence of Common Scales

Several Likert-type scales were used.

Original Release Date View help for Original Release Date

2008-10-31

Version History View help for Version History

Weight View help for Weight

none