Showing 1 – 13 of 13 results.
Curated
Partially restricted
Building Tribal-Researcher Capacity to Inform Data-Driven Practices, Technology, and Tribal Justice, United States, 2019 (ICPSR 38013)
Released/updated on: 2023-02-13
Geographic coverage: United States
The Center for Court Innovation, in partnership with independent consultants from the public defender's office of certain tribes, conducted a comprehensive survey of tribal justice system stakeholders, focused on the existing use of risk-needs assessments and similar tools, and existing data collection/technology used by tribal jurisdictions around the country. The survey results create a comprehensive portrait of tribal court system risk and need assessment, data collection, management, and challenges reported by those directly involved in managing and working with people in the system.
Curated
Partially 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
Florida's Criminal Justice Workforce Research Information System, 1985-1996 (ICPSR 2542)
Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: United States, Florida
Time period: 1985-01-01--1996-01-01
This project sought to prove that research files could be created through the extraction of personnel management systems data. There were five goals associated with designing and creating the Florida Criminal Justice Workforce Research Information System: (1) to extract data from two transaction management information systems, which could then be used by researchers to describe and analyze the workforce that administers justice in Florida, (2) to pilot test the concept of developing a new research information source from existing data systems, (3) to forge partnerships with diverse criminal justice agencies having a mutual need to understand their respective workforces, (4) to design research files to enable internal and external researchers to utilize the data for analytical purposes, and (5) to describe the methodology used to create the workforce information system in sufficient detail to enable other states to replicate the process and develop their own criminal justice workforce research databases. The project was jointly conceived, designed, and completed by two state-level criminal justice agencies with diverse missions and responsibilities: the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) and the Florida Department of Corrections (FDC). Data were extracted from two personnel management systems: the Automated Transaction Management System (ATMS) operated by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, which contains data on all certified law enforcement, correctional, and correctional probation officers in Florida (Part 1), and the Cooperative Personnel Employment System (COPES) operated by the Department of Management Services, which contains data on all state employees (Part 2). Parts 3-5 consist of data extracted from Parts 1 and 2 regarding certification status (Part 3), education (Part 4), and training (Part 5). Two demographic variables, race and sex, are found in all parts. Parts 1 and 2 also contain variables on employment event type, employer type, position type, salary plan, job class, appointment status, and supervisor indicator. Part 3 variables are certification event type and certificate type. Part 4 variables include degree earned and area of degree. Part 5 includes a variable for passing or failing training certification.
Curated
Partially restricted
Impact of Information Security in Academic Institutions on Public Safety and Security in the United States, 2005-2006 (ICPSR 21188)
Released/updated on: 2008-08-22
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 2005-02-01--2006-06-01
Despite the critical information security issues faced by academic institutions, little research has been conducted at the policy, practice, or theoretical levels to address these issues, and few policies or cost-effective controls have been developed. The purpose of this research study was three-fold: (1) to create an empirically-based profile of issues and approaches, (2) to develop a practical road map for policy and practice, and (3) to advance the knowledge, policy, and practice of academic institutions, law enforcement, government, and researchers. The study design incorporated three methods of data collection: a quantitative field survey, qualitative one-on-one interviews, and an empirical assessment of the institutions' network activity.
Survey data collection involved simple random sampling of 600 academic institutions from the Department of Education's National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) database, recruitment via postcard, telephone, and email, Web-based survey administration, and three follow-ups. Results are contained in Part 1, Quantitative Field Survey Data. Interview data collection involved selecting a sample size of 15 institutions through a combination of simple random and convenience sampling, recruitment via telephone and email, and face-to-face or telephone interviews. Results are contained in Part 2, Qualitative One-on-One Interview Data. Network analysis data collection involved convenience sampling of two academic institutions, recruitment via telephone and email, installing Higher Education Network Analysis (HENA) on participants' systems, and six months of data collection. Results are in Part 3, Subject 1 Network Analysis Data, and Part 4, Subject 2 Network Analysis Data.
The Quantitative Field Survey Data (Part 1) contains 19 variables on characteristics of institutions that participated in the survey component of this study, as well as 263 variables derived from responses to the Information Security in Academic Institutions Survey, which was organized into five sections: Environment, Policy, Information Security Controls, Information Security Challenges, and Resources. The Qualitative One-on-One Interview Data (Part 2) contains qualitative responses to a combination of closed-response and open-response formats. The data are divided into the following seven sections: Environment, Institution's Potential Vulnerability, Institution's Potential Threat, Information Value and Sharing, End Users, Countermeasures, and Insights. Data collected through the empirical analysis of network activity (Part 3 and Part 4) include type and protocol of attack, source and destination information, and geographic location.
Curated
Inventory of Data Elements in State and Federal Corrections Information Systems, 1998 (ICPSR 2575)
Released/updated on: 2005-11-04
Geographic coverage: United States
This survey summarizes the data elements maintained by state and federal corrections information systems that track adult, sentenced offenders, and assesses the severity of obstacles in reporting statistical information. Two instruments, an Inventory Questionnaire and an Obstacles Survey, were mailed to Departments of Correction in all 50 states and the District of Columbia, and to the Federal Bureau of Prisons. The Inventory Questionnaire asked 207 questions about data elements describing offenders, 15 questions about elements describing facility management, and 20 questions about the capabilities of the information system to process data electronically. For some elements, questions were asked to determine if more detailed information (subvalues) about the element existed. The Obstacles Survey asked departments to rate the severity of problems they may encounter when processing requests for statistical information. The items were grouped into five categories: legislative and institutional factors, hardware factors, software factors, staffing factors, and data factors.
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
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
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
Partially 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.