Search results

Showing 1 – 8 of 8 results.

Curated

Evaluation of the Phoenix, Arizona, Homicide Clearance Initiative, 2003-2005 (ICPSR 26081)

Released/updated on: 2011-07-05

Geographic coverage: United States, Phoenix, Arizona

Time period: 2003-07-01--2005-06-30

The purpose of the study was to conduct a process and outcome evaluation of the Homicide Clearance Project in the Phoenix, Arizona Police Department. The primary objective of the Homicide Clearance Project was to improve homicide clearance rates by increasing investigative time through the transfer of four crime scene specialists to the homicide unit. In 2004, the Phoenix Police Department received a grant from the Bureau of Justice Assistance providing support for the assignment of four crime scene specialists directly to the department's Homicide Unit. Responsibilities of the crime scene specialists were to collect evidence at homicide scenes, prepare scene reports, develop scene diagrams, and other supportive activities. Prior to the project, homicide investigators were responsible for evidence collection, which reduced the time they could devote to investigations. The crime scene specialists were assigned to two of the four investigative squads within the homicide unit. This organizational arrangement provided for a performance evaluation of the squads with crime scene specialists (experimental squads) against the performance of the other squads (comparison squads). During the course of the evaluation, research staff coded information from all homicides that occurred during the 12-month period prior to the transfers (July 1, 2003 - June 30, 2004), referred to as the baseline period, the 2-month training period (July 1, 2004 - August 31, 2004), and a 10-month test period (September 1, 2004 - June 30, 2005). Data were collected on 404 homicide cases (Part 1), 532 homicide victims and survivors (Part 2), and 3,338 records of evidence collected at homicide scenes (Part 3). The two primary sources of information for the evaluation were investigative reports from the department's records management system, called the Police Automated Computer Entry (PACE) system, and crime laboratory reports from the crime laboratory's Laboratory Information Management System (LIMS). Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3 each contain variables that measure squad type, time period, and whether six general categories of evidence were collected. Part 1 contains a total of 18 variables including number of investigators, number of patrol officers at the scene, number of witnesses, number of crime scene specialists at the scene, number of investigators collecting evidence at the scene, total number of evidence collectors, whether the case was open or closed, type of arrest, and whether the case was open or closed by arrest. Part 2 contains a total of 37 variables including victim characteristics and motives. Other variables in Part 2 include an instrumental/expressive homicide indicator, whether the case was open or closed, type of arrest, whether the case was open or closed by arrest, number of investigators, number of patrol officers at the scene, number of witnesses, and investigative time to closure. Part 3 contains a total of 46 variables including primary/secondary scene indicator, scene type, number of pieces of evidence, total time at the scene, and number of photos taken. Part 3 also includes variables that measure whether 16 specific types of evidence were found and the number of items of evidence that were collected for 13 specific evidence types.

Curated

Restricted

Forensic Evidence in Homicide Investigations, Cleveland, Ohio, 2008-2011 (ICPSR 36202)

Released/updated on: 2018-02-13

Geographic coverage: United States, Ohio, Cleveland

Time period: 2008-01-01--2011-01-01

These data are part of NACJD's Fast Track Release and are distributed as they were received from the data depositor. The files have been zipped by NACJD for release, but not checked or processed except for the removal of direct identifiers. Users should refer to the accompanying readme file for a brief description of the files available with this collection and consult the investigator(s) if further information is needed.

The objective of this study was to determine how homicide investigators use evidence during the course of their investigations. Data on 294 homicide cases (315 victims) that occurred in Cleveland between 2008 and 2011 was collected from investigative reports, forensic analysis reports, prosecutors and homicide investigators, provided by the Cleveland Ohio Police Department, Cuyahoga County Medical Examiner's Office, and Cuyahoga County Clerk of Courts.

The study collection includes 1 Stata data file (NIJ_Cleveland_Homicides.dta, n=294, 109 variables).

Curated

National Assessment Program Survey of Criminal Justice Agencies in the United States, 1992-1994 (ICPSR 6481)

Released/updated on: 2005-11-04

Geographic coverage: United States

Time period: 1992-01-01--1994-01-01

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.

Curated

National Assessment Program Survey of Criminal Justice Personnel in the United States, 1986 (ICPSR 9923)

Released/updated on: 2006-01-12

Geographic coverage: United States

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.

Curated

Restricted

National Survey of Police Call Management Strategies and Community Policing Activities, 2000 (ICPSR 3931)

Released/updated on: 2006-01-31

Geographic coverage: United States

Time period: 2000-05-01--2000-10-01

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.

Curated

National Victim Assistance Agency Survey, 1992 (ICPSR 6436)

Released/updated on: 1995-08-16

Geographic coverage: United States

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.

Curated

Restricted

The Role and Impact of Forensic Evidence on the Criminal Justice System, 2004-2008 [United States] (ICPSR 33462)

Released/updated on: 2017-03-30

Geographic coverage: San Diego, United States, Colorado, Denver, California, Florida, Miami

Time period: 2004-01-01--2006-01-01, 2005-01-01--2008-01-01

These data are part of NACJD's Fast Track Release and are distributed as they there received from the data depositor. The files have been zipped by NACJD for release, but not checked or processed except of the removal of direct identifiers. Users should refer to the accompany readme file for a brief description of the files available with this collections and consult the investigator(s) if further information is needed.

This collection includes data gathered through three separate study designs. The first study called for tracking cases and forensic evidence through local criminal justice processes for five offenses: homicide, sexual assault, aggravated assault, robbery and burglary. Two sites, Denver, Colorado, and San Diego, California, participated in the study. Demographic data were collected on victims (Victim Data n = 7,583) and defendants (Defendant Data n = 2,318). Data on forensic evidence collected at crime scenes included DNA material (DNA Evidence Data n = 1,894), firearms evidence (Ballistics Evidence Data n = 488), latent prints (Latent Print Evidence Data n = 766), trace evidence (Other Impressions Evidence Data n = 49), and drug evidence (Drug Evidence Data n = 43). Comparisons were then made between open and closed cases from the participating sites. Two smaller studies were conducted as part of this grant. The second study was an analysis of an experiment in the Miami-Date, Florida Police Department (Miami-Data County Data n = 1,421) to determine whether clearance rates for no-suspect property crimes could be improved through faster processing of DNA evidence. The third study was a survey of 75 police departments across the nation (Crime Labs Survey Data) to obtain information on the organizational placement, staffing and responsibilities of crime lab units.

Curated

Restricted

Spatial Configuration of Places Related to Homicide Events in Washington, DC, 1990-2002 (ICPSR 4544)

Released/updated on: 2015-07-29

Geographic coverage: District of Columbia, United States

Time period: 1990-01-01--2002-12-01

The purpose of this research was to further understanding of why crime occurs where it does by exploring the spatial etiology of homicides that occurred in Washington, DC, during the 13-year period 1990-2002.

The researchers accessed records from the case management system of the Metropolitan Police, District of Columbia (MPDC) Homicide Division to collect data regarding offenders and victims associated with the homicide cases. Using geographic information systems (GIS) software, the researchers geocoded the addresses of the incident location, the victim's residence, and offender's residence for each homicide case. They then calculated both Euclidean distance and shortest path distance along the streets between each address per case. Upon applying the concept of triad as developed by Block et al. (2004) in order to create a unit of analysis for studying the convergence of victims and offenders in space, the researchers categorized the triads according to the geometry of locations associated with each case. (Dots represented homicides in which the victim and offender both lived in the residence where the homicide occurred; lines represented homicides that occurred in the home of either the victim or the offender; and triangles represented three non-coincident locations: the separate residences of the victim and offender, as well as the location of the homicide incident.) The researchers then classified each triad according to two separate mobility triangle classification schemes: Traditional Mobility, based on shared or disparate social areas, and Distance Mobility, based on relative distance categories between locations. Finally, the researchers classified each triad by the neighborhood associated with the location of the homicide incident, the location of the victim's residence, and the location of the offender's residence.

A total of 3 statistical datasets and 7 geographic information systems (GIS) shapefiles resulted from this study. Note: All datasets exclude open homicide cases. The statistical datasets consist of Offender Characteristics (Dataset 1) with 2,966 cases; Victim Characteristics (Dataset 2) with 2,311 cases; and Triads Data (Dataset 3) with 2,510 cases. The GIS shapefiles have been grouped into a zip file (Dataset 4). Included are point data for homicide locations, offender residences, triads, and victim residences; line data for streets in the District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia; and polygon data for neighborhood clusters in the District of Columbia.