Search results

Showing 1 – 20 of 20 results.
Curated

Automated Reporting System Pilot Project in Los Angeles, 1990 (ICPSR 9969)

Released/updated on: 2006-01-12
Geographic coverage: United States, Los Angeles
Time period: 1990-04-01--1990-12-01
The purpose of this pilot project was to determine if preliminary investigation report (PIR) data filed by patrol officers could be collected via laptop computers to allow the direct input of the data into the Los Angeles Police Department Crime and Arrest Database without adversely affecting the personnel taking or using the reports. This data collection addresses the following questions: (1) Did officers and supervisors prefer the automated reporting system (ARS) or the handwritten version of the PIR? (2) Did the ARS affect the job satisfaction or morale of officers and supervisors? (3) Did the ARS reduce the amount of time that patrol officers, supervisors, and clerks spent on paperwork? (4) Did the ARS affect the accuracy of information contained in the PIRs? (5) Did detectives and prosecuting attorneys find the ARS a more reliable source than handwritten PIRs? Officers and supervisors in two divisions of the Los Angeles Police Department, Wilshire and Hollywood, participated as control and experimental groups. The control group continued using handwritten ("existing") PIRs while the experimental group used the automated PIRs (ARS). The General Information Questionnaire collected information on each officer's rank, assignment, watch, gender, age, years with the Los Angeles Police Department, education, job morale, job demands, self-esteem, computer anxiety, and relationship with supervisor and other officers. The Job Performance Rating Form gathered data on work efforts, depth of job knowledge, work quality, oral and written skills, and capacity to learn. The Time Study Sheets collected data on investigation time, writing and editing time, travel time, approval and correction time, review time, errors by type, and data input time for both the handwritten and automated forms. The Evaluation of the Existing Form and the Evaluation of the Automated Form both queried respondents on ease of use, system satisfaction, and productivity loss. The ARS Use Questionnaire asked about ease of use, typing skills, computer skills, comfort with the system, satisfaction with training, and preference for the system. The Hollywood Detective Division ARS Use Questionnaire surveyed detectives on the system's ease of use, task improvement, support for continued use, and preference for the system. The PIR Content Evaluation Form collected data on quality of officers' observations, organization and writing skills, physical evidence, statements of victims, witnesses, and suspects, and offense classification. The Caplan Role Conflict and Role Ambiguity subscales were used in the design of the questionnaires.
Curated

Case Tracking and Mapping System Developed for the United States Attorney's Office, Southern District of New York, 1997-1998 (ICPSR 2929)

Released/updated on: 2006-01-18
Geographic coverage: United States, New York (state)
Time period: 1997-07-01--1998-10-01
This collection grew out of a prototype case tracking and crime mapping application that was developed for the United States Attorney's Office (USAO), Southern District of New York (SDNY). The purpose of creating the application was to move from the traditionally episodic way of handling cases to a comprehensive and strategic method of collecting case information and linking it to specific geographic locations, and collecting information either not handled at all or not handled with sufficient enough detail by SDNY's existing case management system. The result was an end-user application designed to be run largely by SDNY's nontechnical staff. It consisted of two components, a database to capture case tracking information and a mapping component to link case and geographic data. The case tracking data were contained in a Microsoft Access database and the client application contained all of the forms, queries, reports, macros, table links, and code necessary to enter, navigate through, and query the data. The mapping application was developed using Environmental Systems Research Institute's (ESRI) ArcView 3.0a GIS. This collection shows how the user-interface of the database and the mapping component were customized to allow the staff to perform spatial queries without having to be geographic information systems (GIS) experts. Part 1 of this collection contains the Visual Basic script used to customize the user-interface of the Microsoft Access database. Part 2 contains the Avenue script used to customize ArcView to link the data maintained in the server databases, to automate the office's most common queries, and to run simple analyses.
Curated

Collecting DNA at Arrest: Policies, Practices, and Implications, in 28 States, 2005-2012 (ICPSR 34682)

Released/updated on: 2016-09-28
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Vermont, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Alabama, Arkansas, Utah, South Carolina, Colorado, Missouri, Alaska, North Dakota, Arizona, South Dakota, Minnesota, California, Kansas, Florida, New Jersey, Michigan, New Mexico, Illinois, Texas, Connecticut, Louisiana, Ohio, Virginia, Maryland
Time period: 1997-01-01--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.

This study examined arrestee DNA laws (laws that allowed testing of arrestees DNA pre-adjudication), their implementation in the field and their subsequent effects on agency operations as well as their success in aiding investigations in the 28 states that have these laws. The study investigated five specific questions:

  1. What states have passed legislation authorizing the collection of DNA from arrestees?
  2. How do the laws and policies regarding collecting DNA from arrestees differ by state?
  3. How have the courts ruled on these new laws?
  4. How have arrestee DNA laws been implemented in each state?
  5. What has been the impact of requiring DNA collection from arrestees on state crime laboratories and other involved agencies?
  6. What evidence is available to determine the effects of collecting DNA from arrestees on public safety or other criminal justice outcomes?

To answer these questions, researchers used a mixed methods data collection plan, including reviewing relevant statutes and case law, interviewing state and federal Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) laboratory staff and other forensic experts, and collecting descriptive data from state laboratories.

Curated
Restricted

Database for Forensic Anthropology in the United States, 1962-1991 (ICPSR 2581)

Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1962-01-01--1991-01-01
This project was undertaken to establish a computerized skeletal database composed of recent forensic cases to represent the present ethnic diversity and demographic structure of the United States population. The intent was to accumulate a forensic skeletal sample large and diverse enough to reflect different socioeconomic groups of the general population from different geographical regions of the country in order to enable researchers to revise the standards being used for forensic skeletal identification. The database is composed of eight data files, comprising four categories. The primary "biographical" or "identification" files (Part 1, Demographic Data, and Part 2, Geographic and Death Data) comprise the first category of information and pertain to the positive identification of each of the 1,514 data records in the database. Information in Part 1 includes sex, ethnic group affiliation, birth date, age at death, height (living and cadaver), and weight (living and cadaver). Variables in Part 2 pertain to the nature of the remains, means and sources of identification, city and state/country born, occupation, date missing/last seen, date of discovery, date of death, time since death, cause of death, manner of death, deposit/exposure of body, area found, city, county, and state/country found, handedness, and blood type. The Medical History File (Part 3) represents the second category of information and contains data on the documented medical history of the individual. Variables in Part 3 include general comments on medical history as well as comments on congenital malformations, dental notes, bone lesions, perimortem trauma, and other comments. The third category consists of an inventory file (Part 4, Skeletal Inventory Data) in which data pertaining to the specific contents of the database are maintained. This includes the inventory of skeletal material by element and side (left and right), indicating the condition of the bone as either partial or complete. The variables in Part 4 provide a skeletal inventory of the cranium, mandible, dentition, and postcranium elements and identify the element as complete, fragmentary, or absent. If absent, four categories record why it is missing. The last part of the database is composed of three skeletal data files, covering quantitative observations of age-related changes in the skeleton (Part 5), cranial measurements (Part 6), and postcranial measurements (Part 7). Variables in Part 5 provide assessments of epiphyseal closure and cranial suture closure (left and right), rib end changes (left and right), Todd Pubic Symphysis, Suchey-Brooks Pubic Symphysis, McKern & Steward--Phases I, II, and III, Gilbert & McKern--Phases I, II, and III, auricular surface, and dorsal pubic pitting (all for left and right). Variables in Part 6 include cranial measurements (length, breadth, height) and mandibular measurements (height, thickness, diameter, breadth, length, and angle) of various skeletal elements. Part 7 provides postcranial measurements (length, diameter, breadth, circumference, and left and right, where appropriate) of the clavicle, scapula, humerus, radius, ulna, scarum, innominate, femur, tibia, fibula, and calcaneus. A small file of noted problems for a few cases is also included (Part 8).
Curated

Fast Screening of Firearm Discharge Residues by Laser-based Spectrochemical Methods, Electrochemical Sensors, and Chemometrics, West Virginia, 2019-2021 (ICPSR 38296)

Released/updated on: 2026-04-16
Geographic coverage: West Virginia, United States
Time period: 2019-01-01--2021-01-01

The detection of gunshot residue (GSR) provides valuable information in violent crimes, accidental shootings, and terrorism. Despite the scientific validity of this discipline, there are persistent challenges regarding the speed of analysis, preservation of the evidence, and interpretation of results. Consequently, there is a critical need to improve the discipline's turnaround times and reliability. This study's overall purpose was to develop a comprehensive approach to overcome these significant concerns and enhance the criminal justice system capabilities. This project developed and validated fast and reliable tests, using laser-induced breakdown spectroscopy (LIBS) and electrochemical (EC) sensors for GSR detection. Also, statistical models were applied for the quantitative interpretation of the evidence. The combination of LIBS and EC data permitted the accurate identification of organic and inorganic residues (OGSR and IGSR, accuracy ranging from 92-99% depending on the subpopulation and classification models). This research focused on developing SMARTER (Simpler, Modern, Affordable, Rapid, Transformative, Effective, and Reliable) solutions for GSR examinations.

The main objectives were:

  1. Application of universal and expanded collection methods
  2. Development of novel, ultrafast methods for dual detection of IGSR and OGSR
  3. Development of modern 3D chemical imaging for crime scene reconstruction
  4. Development of novel micro-particle GSR standards
  5. Creation of a large population study and probabilistic interpretation framework
Curated

Improving the Investigation of Homicide and the Apprehension Rate of Murderers in Washington State, 1981-1986 (ICPSR 6134)

Released/updated on: 2006-01-12
Geographic coverage: United States, Washington
Time period: 1981-01-01--1986-01-01
This data collection contains information on solved murders occurring in Washington State between 1981 and 1986. The collection is a subset of data from the Homicide Investigation Tracking System (HITS), a computerized database maintained by the state of Washington that contains information on murders and sexual assault cases in that state. The data for HITS are provided voluntarily by police and sheriffs' departments covering 273 jurisdictions, medical examiners' and coroners' offices in 39 counties, prosecuting attorneys' offices in 39 counties, the Washington State Department of Vital Statistics, and the Uniform Crime Report Unit of the Washington State Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs. Collected data include crime evidence, victimology, offender characteristics, geographic locations, weapons, and vehicles.
Curated

Law Enforcement Agency Identifiers Crosswalk [United States], 1996 (ICPSR 2876)

Released/updated on: 2001-09-20
Geographic coverage: United States
Researchers have long been able to analyze crime and law enforcement data at the individual agency level (see UNIFORM CRIME REPORTING PROGRAM DATA: [UNITED STATES] [ICPSR 9028]) and at the county level (see, for example, UNIFORM CRIME REPORTING PROGRAM DATA [UNITED STATES]: COUNTY-LEVEL DETAILED ARREST AND OFFENSE DATA, 1997 [ICPSR 2764]). However, analyzing crime data at the intermediate level, the city or place, has been difficult. To facilitate the creation and analysis of place-level data, the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) and the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data (NACJD) created the Law Enforcement Agency Identifiers Crosswalk. The crosswalk file was designed to provide geographic and other identification information for each record included in either the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) files or BJS's Directory of Law Enforcement Agencies. The main variables for each record are the UCR originating agency identifier number, agency name, mailing address, Census Bureau's government identification number, UCR state and county codes, and Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS) state, county, and place codes. These variables make it possible for researchers to take police agency-level data, combine them with Bureau of the Census and BJS data, and perform place-level, jurisdiction-level, and government-level analyses.
Curated

Law Enforcement Agency Identifiers Crosswalk [United States], 2000 (ICPSR 4082)

Released/updated on: 2004-09-16
Geographic coverage: United States
Researchers have long been able to analyze crime and law enforcement data at the individual agency level (see UNIFORM CRIME REPORTING PROGRAM DATA: [UNITED STATES] [ICPSR 9028]) and at the county level (see, for example, UNIFORM CRIME REPORTING PROGRAM DATA [UNITED STATES]: COUNTY-LEVEL DETAILED ARREST AND OFFENSE DATA, 1997 [ICPSR 2764]). However, analyzing crime data at the intermediate level, the city or place, has been difficult. To facilitate the creation and analysis of place-level data, the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) and the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data (NACJD) created the Law Enforcement Agency Identifiers Crosswalk. The crosswalk file was designed to provide geographic and other identification information for each record included in either the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) files or BJS's Directory of Law Enforcement Agencies. The main variables for each record are the UCR originating agency identifier number, agency name, mailing address, Census Bureau's government identification number, UCR state and county codes, and Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS) state, county, and place codes. These variables make it possible for researchers to take police agency-level data, combine them with Bureau of the Census and BJS data, and perform place-level, jurisdiction-level, and government-level analyses.
Curated

Law Enforcement Agency Identifiers Crosswalk [United States], 2005 (ICPSR 4634)

Released/updated on: 2007-01-10
Geographic coverage: United States
The crosswalk file is designed to provide geographic and other identification information for each record included in either the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program files or in the Bureau of Justice Statistics' Census of State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies (CSLLEA). The main variables each record contains are the alpha state code, county name, place name, government agency name, police agency name, government identification number, Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS) state, county, and place codes, and Originating Agency Identifier (ORI) code. These variables allow a researcher to take agency-level data, combine it with Bureau of the Census and BJS data, and perform place-level and government-level analyses.
Curated
Restricted

Multi-User Database on the Attributes of United States Appeals Court Judges, 1801-2000 (ICPSR 6796)

Released/updated on: 2009-02-03
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1801-01-01--2000-01-01
This project orignally was undertaken to compile a definitive database on the personal, social, economic, career, and political attributes of judges who served on the United States Courts of Appeals from 1801 to 1994 - it has now been updated to include information through the year 2000. The database includes conventional social background variables such as appointing president, religion, political party affiliation, education, and prior experience. In addition, unique items are provided: the temporal sequence of prior career experiences, the timing of and reason for leaving the bench, gender, race and ethnicity, position numbering analogous to the scheme used for the Supreme Court, American Bar Association rating, and net worth (for judges who began service on the bench after 1978). The second objective of this project was to merge these data with a multi-user database on United States Courts of Appeals decisions that is headed by Donald Songer and funded by the National Science Foundation. That database includes a unique identification number for each judge participating in a particular decision. The combined databases should enable scholars to explore: (1) intra- and inter-circuit fluctuation in the distribution of social background characteristics, (2) generational and presidential cohort variation in these attributes, and (3) state and partisan control of seats. The collection also facilitates the construction of models that examine the effects of personal attributes on decision-making, while controlling for the conditions above.
Curated
Restricted

Multi-User Database on the Attributes of United States District Court Judges, 1801-2000 (ICPSR 4553)

Released/updated on: 2009-02-03
Time period: 1801-01-01--2000-01-01
This project was undertaken to compile a definitive database on the personal, social, economic, career, and political attributes of judges who served on the United States District Courts from 1801 to 2000. The database includes conventional social background variables such as the name of the appointing president, the judge's religion, political party affiliation, education, and prior experience. In addition, unique items are provided: the temporal sequence of prior career experiences, the timing of and reason for leaving the bench, gender, race and ethnicity, position numbering analogous to the scheme used for the Supreme Court, American Bar Association rating, and net worth (for judges who began service on the bench after 1978). The second objective of this project was to merge these data with a multi-user database on United States District Court decisions. The database is headed by Donald Songer and funded by the National Science Foundation. It includes a unique identification number for each judge participating in a particular decision. The combined databases should enable scholars to explore: (1) intra- and inter-circuit fluctuation in the distribution of social background characteristics, (2) generational and presidential cohort variation in these attributes, and (3) state and partisan control of seats. The collection also facilitates the construction of models that examine the effects of personal attributes on decision making, while controlling for the conditions above. See also MULTI-USER DATABASE ON THE ATTRIBUTES OF UNITED STATES APPEALS COURT JUDGES, 1801-1994 (ICPSR 6796).
Curated
Restricted

A New Approach to Utilizing Evidence from Sexual Assault Kits in Texas: Benefits and Costs of a Universal Testing Statute, 1996-2011 (ICPSR 38096)

Released/updated on: 2023-11-29
Geographic coverage: United States, Texas, Austin
Time period: 1996-01-01--2011-01-01
This study is built on a previous grant from Communities Foundation of Texas assessing effects of a Texas law requiring that law enforcement agencies submit to the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) all unanalyzed sexual assault kits with testable DNA between 1996 and 2011. This study sought to determine the cost effectiveness of DNA analysis of previously untested sexual assault kits as part of the requirement of Texas statute 1636. The Police Foundation worked with police agencies in Dallas, Arlington, Corpus Christi, Fort Worth, and Austin to examine cases with Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) hits (DNA matches to a person or crime) from the group of previously untested kits. Texas, with its 18,000 untested kits collected by DPS provided an excellent opportunity to determine the value of testing old sexual assault kits in which law enforcement agencies apparently saw insufficient merit in testing at the time of the report. Specifically, the research team examined what happens to these cases when the DNA results are returned to the local police agencies: How many result in re-opened investigations and arrests?
Curated

New Orleans Offender Study, 1973-1986 (ICPSR 6005)

Released/updated on: 2006-01-12
Geographic coverage: United States, Louisiana, New Orleans
Time period: 1973-01-01--1986-01-01
These data focus on persons arrested for burglary or armed robbery in New Orleans during 1973-1986. Local, state, and federal arrest records were combined with local and state custody records to provide a more complete criminal history database for researchers than previously available. The five files in this collection supply information on arrests, periods of criminal justice supervision and custody, employment, and basic demographics (sex, race, birth year, and state of birth). For a majority of the juvenile offenders, results of aptitude and diagnostic tests obtained from the Louisiana Department of Corrections, Juvenile Division, are available as well. The unit of analysis is the offender.
Curated

Prosecutor's Management and Information System (PROMIS), New Orleans, 1979 (ICPSR 8219)

Released/updated on: 1992-02-16
Geographic coverage: United States, Louisiana, New Orleans
The Prosecutor's Management and Information System (PROMIS) is a computer-based management information system for public prosecution agencies. PROMIS was initially developed with funds from the United States Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA) to cope with the problems of a large, urban prosecution agency where mass production operations had superseded the traditional practice of a single attorney preparing and prosecuting a given case from inception to final disposition. The combination of massive volumes of cases and the assembly-line fragmentation of responsibility and control had created a situation in which one case was indistinguishable from another and the effects of problems at various stages in the assembly line on ultimate case disposition went undetected and uncorrected. One unique feature of PROMIS that addresses these problems is the automated evaluation of cases. Through the application of a uniform set of criteria, PROMIS assigns two numerical ratings to each case: one signifying the gravity of the crime through a measurement of the amount of harm done to society, and the other signifying the gravity of the prior criminal record of the accused. These ratings make it possible to select the more important cases for intensive, pre-trial preparation and to assure even-handed treatment of cases of like gravity. A complementary feature of PROMIS is the automation of reasons for decisions made or actions taken along the assembly line. Reasons for dismissing cases prior to trial on their merits can be related to earlier cycles of postponements for various reasons and to the reasoning behind intake and screening decisions. The PROMIS data include information about the defendant, case characteristics and processes, charge, sentencing and continuance processes, and the witnesses/victims involved with a case. PROMIS was first used in 1971 in the United States Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia. To enhance the ability to transfer the PROMIS concepts and software to other communities, LEAA awarded a grant to the Institute for Law and Social Research (INSLAW) in Washington, DC. The New Orleans PROMIS data collection is a product of this grant.
Curated

Prosecutor's Management Information System (PROMIS), Rhode Island, 1979 (ICPSR 8288)

Released/updated on: 1992-02-16
Geographic coverage: Rhode Island, United States
The Prosecutor's Management Information System (PROMIS) is a computer-based information system for public prosecution agencies. PROMIS was initially developed with funds from the United States Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA) to cope with problems of a large, urban prosecution agency where mass production operations had superseded the traditional practice of a single attorney preparing and prosecuting a given case from inception to final disposition. The combination of massive volumes of cases and assembly-line fragmentation of responsibility and control had created a situation in which one case was indistinguishable from another and the effects of problems at various stages in the assembly line on ultimate case disposition went undetected and uncorrected. One unique feature of PROMIS that addresses these problems is the automated evaluation of cases. Through the application of a uniform set of criteria, PROMIS assigns two numerical ratings to each case: one signifying the gravity of the crimes through the measurement of the amount of harm done to society, and the other signifying the gravity of the prior record of the accused. These ratings make it possible to select the more important cases for intensive, pre-trial preparation and to assure even-handed treatment of cases with similar degrees of gravity. A complementary feature of PROMIS is the automation of reasons for decisions made or actions taken along the assembly line. Reasons for dismissing cases prior to trial on their merits can be related to earlier cycles of postponement for various reasons and the reasoning behind intake and screening decisions. The PROMIS data include information about the defendant, case characteristics and processes, charge, sentencing and continuance processes, and the witnesses/victims involved in the case. PROMIS was first used in 1971 in the United States Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia. To enhance the ability to transfer the concepts and software to other communities, LEAA awarded a grant to the Institute for Law xand Social Research (INSLAW) in Washington, DC. The Rhode Island PROMIS data collection is a product of this grant.
Curated

Prosecutor's Management Information System (PROMIS), St. Louis, 1979 (ICPSR 8225)

Released/updated on: 1992-02-16
Geographic coverage: United States, Missouri, St. Louis
The Prosecutor's Management Information System (PROMIS) is a computer-based information system for public prosecution agencies. PROMIS was initially developed with funds from the United States Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA) to cope with problems of a large, urban prosecution agency where mass production operations had superceded the traditional practice of a single attorney preparing and prosecuting a given case from inception to final disposition. The combination of massive volumes of cases and assembly-line fragmentation of responsibility and control had created a situation in which one case was indistinguishable from another and the effects of problems at various stages in the assembly line on ultimate case disposition went undetected and uncorrected. One unique feature of PROMIS that addresses these problems is the automated evaluation of cases. Through the application of a uniform set of criteria, PROMIS assigns two numerical ratings to each case: one signifying the gravity of the crimes through the measurement of the amount of harm done to society, and the other signifying the gravity of the prior record of the accused. These ratings make it possible to select the more important cases for intensive, pre-trial preparation and to assure even-handed treatment of cases with similar degrees of gravity. A complementary feature of PROMIS is the automation of reasons for decisions made or actions taken along the assembly line. Reasons for dismissing cases prior to trial on their merits can be related to earlier cycles of postponement for various reasons and the reasoning behind intake and screening decisions. The PROMIS data include information about the defendant, case characteristics and processes, charge, sentencing and continuance processes, and the witness/victims involved in the case. PROMIS was first used in 1971 in the United States Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia. To enhance the ability to transfer the concepts and software to other communities, LEAA awarded a grant to the Institute for Law and Social Research (INSLAW) in Washington, DC. The St. Louis PROMIS data collection is a product of this grant.
Curated

State and Local Prosecution and Civil Attorney Systems, 1976 (ICPSR 7674)

Released/updated on: 2005-11-04
Geographic coverage: United States
The purpose of this data collection was to establish a current name and address listing of state and local government prosecution and civil attorney agencies and to obtain information about agency function, jurisdiction, employment, funding, and attorney compensation arrangements. The data for each agency include information for any identifiable local police prosecutors. Excluded from the study were private law firms that perform legal services periodically for a government and are compensated by retainers and fees. Variables cover agency functions and jurisdiction, agency funding, number and types of employees, compensation and employment restrictions for attorneys, agency's geographical jurisdiction, number of branch offices, and number of branch office employees.
Curated
Restricted
Simple Crosstabs

Survey of Police Chiefs' and Data Analysts' Use of Data in Police Departments in the United States, 2004 (ICPSR 32103)

Released/updated on: 2013-02-21
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 2004-01-01--2004-03-01
This study surveyed police chiefs and data analysts in order to determine the use of data in police departments. The surveys were sent to 1,379 police agencies serving populations of at least 25,000. The survey sample for this study was selected from the 2000 Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics (LEMAS) survey. All police agencies serving populations of at least 25,000 were selected from the LEMAS database for inclusion. Separate surveys were sent for completion by police chiefs and data analysts. Surveys were used to gather information on data sharing and integration efforts to identify the needs and capacities for data usage in local law enforcement agencies. The police chief surveys focused on five main areas of interest: use of data, personnel response to data collection, the collection and reporting of incident-based data, sharing data, and the providing of statistics to the community and media. Like the police chief surveys, the data analyst surveys focused on five main areas of interest: use of data, agency structures and resources, data for strategies, data sharing and outside assistance, and incident-based data. The final total of police chief surveys included in the study is 790, while 752 data analyst responses are included.
Curated
Restricted

Understanding the Use and Efficacy of Moderate Stringency DNA Searches, United States, 2018 (ICPSR 37691)

Released/updated on: 2023-05-17
Geographic coverage: United States
This study was undertaken to investigate familial DNA and moderate stringency DNA testing practices and to highlight the policy development, associated costs, limitations, and capabilities that DNA testing provides in order to offer relevant insight to criminal justice and law enforcement policymakers and researchers who are interested in the use of DNA testing to solve and deter crime.
Back to top