Use of Computerized Crime Mapping by Law Enforcement in the United States, 1997-1998 (ICPSR 2878)
Version Date: Apr 18, 2008 View help for published
Principal Investigator(s): View help for 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
https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR02878.v3
Version V3
Summary View help for 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.
Citation View help for Citation
Export Citation:
Funding View help for Funding
Subject Terms View help for Subject Terms
Geographic Coverage View help for Geographic Coverage
Restrictions View help for Restrictions
A downloadable version of data for this study is available however, certain identifying information in the downloadable version may have been masked or edited to protect respondent privacy. Additional data not included in the downloadable version are available in a restricted version of this data collection. For more information about the differences between the downloadable data and the restricted data for this study, please refer to the codebook notes section of the PDF codebook. Users interested in obtaining restricted data must complete and sign a Restricted Data Use Agreement, describe the research project and data protection plan, and obtain IRB approval or notice of exemption for their research.
HideTime Period(s) View help for Time Period(s)
Date of Collection View help for Date of Collection
Study Purpose View help for Study Purpose
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 View help for 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 View help for Sample
Stratified random sampling.
Universe View help for Universe
All law enforcement agencies in the United States.
Unit(s) of Observation View help for Unit(s) of Observation
Data Source View help for Data Source
mailback questionnaires
Data Type(s) View help for Data Type(s)
Description of Variables View help for 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 View help for Response Rates
The response rate after two mailings was 72 percent.
Presence of Common Scales View help for Presence of Common Scales
Several Likert-type scales were used.
HideOriginal Release Date View help for Original Release Date
2001-02-16
Version History View help for Version History
- Mamalian, Cynthia A., Nancy G. LaVigne, and Elizabeth Groff. USE OF COMPUTERIZED CRIME MAPPING BY LAW ENFORCEMENT IN THE UNITED STATES, 1997-1998. 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. http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR02878.v3
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.
2001-02-16 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.
- Standardized missing values.
- Performed recodes and/or calculated derived variables.
- Checked for undocumented or out-of-range codes.
Notes
The public-use data files in this collection are available for access by the general public. Access does not require affiliation with an ICPSR member institution.
One or more files in this data collection have special restrictions. Restricted data files are not available for direct download from the website; click on the Restricted Data button to learn more.