Search results

Showing 1 – 50 of 167 results.

Curated

Partially restricted

Applying Data Science to Justice Systems: The North Carolina Statewide Warrant Repository (NCAWARE), 2014-2019 (ICPSR 37462)

Released/updated on: 2022-12-13

Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Greensboro, United States

Time period: 2014-01-01--2019-01-01

This study uses the data from the unified, statewide warrant repository NCAWARE (NC Arrest Warrant Repository) to evaluate a proposed system for processing and serving arrest warrants. The NCAWARE system is maintained by the North Carolina Administrative Office of the Courts (NCAOC). The study takes place within the Greensboro, NC police department where two of the four police districts utilized the system. This study is the result of the unorganized system for processing and serving warrants and the significant backlog of cases with outstanding warrants that exists across the country. One of the purposes of this study was to create a systematic approach for law enforcement agencies to prioritize the execution of warrants.

Curated

Restricted

Assessing the Delivery of Community Policing Services in Ada County, Idaho, 2002 (ICPSR 4152)

Released/updated on: 2006-01-31

Geographic coverage: United States, Idaho

Time period: 2002-03-01--2002-04-01

This study was conducted to explore the ways that enable the Ada County Sheriff's Office (ACSO) to examine its behavior in five areas that embody its adoption of community policing elements: (1) periodic assessments of citizens' perceptions of crime and police services, (2) substation policing, (3) patrol based in problem-oriented identification and resolution, (4) performance evaluation in a community-oriented policing (COP)/problem-oriented policing (POP) environment, and (5) the building of community partnerships. The researchers strived to obtain both transitive and recursive effects. One of the goals of this project was to facilitate the ACSO's efforts toward self-reflection, and by doing so, become a learning organization. In order to do this, data were collected, via survey, from both citizens of Ada County and from deputies employed by the ACSO. The citizen survey was a random, stratified telephone survey, using CATI technology, administered to 761 Ada County residents who received patrol services from the ACSO. The survey was designed to correspond to a similar survey conducted in 1997 (DEVELOPING A PROBLEM-ORIENTED POLICING MODEL IN ADA COUNTY, IDAHO, 1997-1998 [ICPSR 2654]) in the same area regarding similar issues: citizens' fear of crime, citizens' satisfaction with police services, the extent of public knowledge about and interest in ideas of community policing, citizens' police service needs, sheriff's office service needs and their views of the community policing mandate. The deputy survey was a self-enumerated questionnaire administered to 54 deputies and sergeants of the ACSO during a pre-arranged, regular monthly training. This survey consisted of four sections: the deputies' perception of crime problems, rating of the deputy performance evaluation, ethical issues in policing, and departmental relations.

Curated

Partially restricted

Capturing Human Trafficking Victimization Through Crime Reporting, United States, 2013-2016 (ICPSR 37907)

Released/updated on: 2021-08-16

Geographic coverage: United States

Time period: 2013-01-01--2016-12-31

Despite public attention to the problem of human trafficking, it has proven difficult to measure the problem. Improving the quality of information about human trafficking is critical to developing sound anti-trafficking policy. In support of this effort, in 2013 the Federal Bureau of Investigation incorporated human trafficking offenses in the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) program. Despite this achievement, there are many reasons to expect the UCR program to underreport human trafficking. Law enforcement agencies struggle to identify human trafficking and distinguishing it from other crimes. Additionally, human trafficking investigations may not be accurately classified in official data sources. Finally, human trafficking presents unique challenges to summary and incident-based crime reporting methods. For these reasons, it is important to understand how agencies identify and report human trafficking cases within the UCR program and what part of the population of human trafficking victims in a community are represented by UCR data. This study provides critical information to improve law enforcement identification and reporting of human trafficking.

Coding criminal incidents investigated as human trafficking offenses in three US cities, supplemented by interviews with law and social service stakeholders in these locations, this study answers the following research questions:

How are human trafficking cases identified and reported by the police?
What sources of information about human trafficking exist outside of law enforcement data?
What is the estimated disparity between actual instances of human trafficking and the number of human trafficking offenses reported to the UCR?

Curated

Simple Crosstabs

Census of Federal Law Enforcement Officers (CFLEO), [United States], Fiscal Year 2016 (ICPSR 37607)

Released/updated on: 2020-03-24

Geographic coverage: Puerto Rico, United States, Guam, Virgin Islands of the United States, American Samoa, Northern Mariana Islands

In 2016, there were approximately 132,000 full-time federal law enforcement officers who were authorized to make arrests and carry firearms in the United States and its territories. This data collection comes from the Census of Federal Law Enforcement Officers (CFLEO) and describes the agencies, functions, sex, and race of these officers. The data cover federal officers with arrest and firearm authority in both supervisory and non-supervisory roles employed as of September 30, 2016. The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) administered the CFLEO to 86 federal agencies employing officers with arrest and firearm authority. The data do not include officers stationed in foreign countries and also exclude officers in the U.S. Armed Forces.

Curated

Simple Crosstabs

Census of Federal Law Enforcement Officers (CFLEO), [United States], Fiscal Year 2020 (ICPSR 38667)

Released/updated on: 2023-05-10

Geographic coverage: Puerto Rico, United States, Guam, Virgin Islands of the United States, American Samoa, Northern Mariana Islands

The 2020 Census of Federal Law Enforcement Officers (CFLEO) collects information from federal law enforcement agencies that are authorized to make arrests and/or carry firearms. Data describe the number of officers employed by the agencies, the demographic characteristics of the officers, the functions of the officers, as well as hiring policies, screening techniques, equipment, and use of force techniques employed by these agencies.

Curated

Census of Law Enforcement Gang Units, 2007 (ICPSR 29503)

Released/updated on: 2011-03-22

Geographic coverage: United States

The 2007 Census of Law Enforcement Gang Units (CLEGU) collected data from all state and local law enforcement agencies with 100 or more sworn officers and at least one officer dedicated solely to addressing gangs and gang activities. Law enforcement agencies are often the first line of response to the gang problems experienced across the country and are a critical component of most anti-gang initiatives. One way for law enforcement agencies to address gang-related problems is to form specialized gang units. The consolidation of an agency's gang enforcement activities and resources into a single unit can allow gang unit officers to develop specific expertise and technical skills related to local gang characteristics and behaviors and gang prevention and suppression. No prior studies have collected data regarding the organization and operations of law enforcement gang units nationwide, the types of gang prevention tactics employed, or the characteristics and training of gang unit officers. This CLEGU collected data on the operations, workload, policies, and procedures of gang units in large state and local law enforcement agencies in order to expand knowledge of gang prevention and enforcement tactics. The CLEGU also collected summary measures of gang activity in the agencies' jurisdictions to allow for comparison across jurisdictions with similar gang problems.

Curated

Simple Crosstabs

Census of Law Enforcement Training Academies, 2018 (ICPSR 38250)

Released/updated on: 2021-11-30

Geographic coverage: United States

In 2018, there were 681 state and local law enforcement training academies that provided basic training instruction to 59,511 recruits. As part of the 2018 Census of Law Enforcement Training Academies (CLETA), respondents provided general information about the academies' facilities, resources, programs, and staff. The core curricula subject areas and hours dedicated to each topic, as well as training offered in some special topics, were also included. The collection included information about recruit demographics, completion, and reasons for non-completion of basic training. BJS administered previous versions of the CLETA in 2002, 2006, and 2013.

Curated

Simple Crosstabs

Census of Law Enforcement Training Academies, 2022 (ICPSR 39295)

Released/updated on: 2025-05-13

Geographic coverage: United States

In 2022, there were 747 state and local law enforcement training academies that provided basic training instruction to 60,214 recruits. As part of the 2022 CLETA, respondents provided general information about the academies' resources, programs, recruits and staff. The core curricula subject areas and hours dedicated to each topic, as well as training offered in some special topics, were also included. The collection included information about recruit demographics, completion, and reasons for non-completion of basic training. BJS administered previous versions of the CLETA in 2002, 2006, 2013, and 2018.

Curated

Census of Public Defender Offices: County-Based and Local Offices, 2007 (ICPSR 29502)

Released/updated on: 2011-05-13

Geographic coverage: United States

The Bureau of Justice Statistics' (BJS) 2007 Census of Public Defender Offices (CPDO) collected data from public defender offices located across 49 states and the District of Columbia. Public defender offices are one of three methods through which states and localities ensure that indigent defendants are granted the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment right to counsel. (In addition to defender offices, indigent defense services may also be provided by court-assigned private counsel or by a contract system in which private attorneys contractually agree to take on a specified number of indigent defendants or indigent defense cases.) Public defender offices have a salaried staff of full- or part-time attorneys who represent indigent defendants and are employed as direct government employees or through a public, nonprofit organization. Public defenders play an important role in the United States criminal justice system. Data from prior BJS surveys on indigent defense representation indicate that most criminal defendants rely on some form of publicly provided defense counsel, primarily public defenders. Although the United States Supreme Court has mandated that the states provide counsel for indigent persons accused of crime, documentation on the nature and provision of these services has not been readily available. States have devised various systems, rules of organization, and funding mechanisms for indigent defense programs. While the operation and funding of public defender offices varies across states, public defender offices can be generally classified as being part of either a state program or a county-based system. The 22 state public defender programs functioned entirely under the direction of a central administrative office that funded and administered all the public defender offices in the state. For the 28 states with county-based offices, indigent defense services were administered at the county or local jurisdictional level and funded principally by the county or through a combination of county and state funds. The CPDO collected data from both state- and county-based offices. All public defender offices that were principally funded by state or local governments and provided general criminal defense services, conflict services, or capital case representation were within the scope of the study. Federal public defender offices and offices that provided primarily contract or assigned counsel services with private attorneys were excluded from the data collection. In addition, public defender offices that were principally funded by a tribal government, or provided primarily appellate or juvenile services were outside the scope of the project and were also excluded. The CPDO gathered information on public defender office staffing, expenditures, attorney training, standards and guidelines, and caseloads, including the number and type of cases received by the offices. The data collected by the CPDO can be compared to and analyzed against many of the existing national standards for the provision of indigent defense services.

Curated

Census of Public Defender Offices: State Programs, 2007 (ICPSR 29501)

Released/updated on: 2011-05-13

Geographic coverage: United States

Curated

Census of State and Local Law Enforcement Training Academies, 2006 (ICPSR 27262)

Released/updated on: 2012-09-13

Geographic coverage: United States

As of year-end 2006 a total of 648 state and local law enforcement academies were providing basic training to entry-level recruits in the United States. State agencies approved 98 percent of these academies. This data collection describes the academies in terms of their personnel, expenditures, facilities, curricula, and trainees using data from the 2006 Census of State and Local Law Enforcement Training Academies (CLETA) sponsored by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). The 2006 CLETA, like the initial 2002 study, collected data from all state and local academies that provided basic law enforcement training. Academies that provided only in-service training, corrections and detention training, or other special types of training were excluded. Federal training academies were also excluded.

Curated

Simple Crosstabs

Census of State and Local Law Enforcement Training Academies, 2013 (ICPSR 36764)

Released/updated on: 2018-12-12

Geographic coverage: United States

From 2011 to 2013, a total of 664 state and local law enforcement academies provided basic training to entry-level officer recruits in the United States. During this period, more than 135,000 recruits (45,000 per year) entered a basic training program, and 86 percent completed the program successfully. This completion rate was the same as was observed for the 57,000 recruits who entered training programs in 2005. This data collection describes basic training programs for new recruits based on their content, instructors, and teaching methods. It also describes the recruits' demographics, completion rates, and reasons for failure. The data describing recruits cover those entering basic training programs from 2011 to 2013. The data describing academies are based on 2013, the latest year referenced in the survey. Like prior BJS studies conducted in 2002 and 2006, the 2013 CLETA collected data from all state and local academies that provided basic law enforcement training. Academies that provided only in-service, corrections and detention, or other specialized training were excluded. Federal training academies were also excluded. Any on-the-job training received by recruits subsequent to their academy training is not covered.

Curated

Simple Crosstabs

Census of Tribal Law Enforcement Agencies, 2018 (ICPSR 38938)

Released/updated on: 2024-01-30

Geographic coverage: United States

Time period: 2018-01-01--2018-12-31

The Census of Tribal Law Enforcement Agencies (CTLEA) is the first complete enumeration of tribal law enforcement agencies authorized to issue citations and make arrests for crime committed in Indian country. The CTLEA gathers administrative and operational information from tribally operated police departments, Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) police, and the Alaska Village Public Safety Officer's (VPSO) program operating in the United States during 2018. The CTLEA helps fulfill the Bureau of Justice Statistics' legislative mandate under the Tribal Law and Order Act of 2010 (TLOA; P.L. 111-211, 124 Stat. 2258 Section 251(b)) to establish and implement a tribal crime data collection system.

Data for the CTLEA were collected by NORC, at the University of Chicago, in collaboration with the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) Indian Country section. The CTLEA consists of two surveys specific to tribally operated law enforcement agencies and the BIA police departments. The Alaska VPSO program is sponsored and funded by the Alaska State Troopers, which completed the tribally operated law enforcement agency questionnaire on behalf of all the VPSOs. Due to the unique territorial and criminal jurisdiction in Alaska Native Villages, only two tribally operated law enforcement agencies (the Chickaloon and Metlakatla Indian Community) met the eligibility criteria to be included in the CTLEA. Data for the 2019 CTLEA were collected through mail, email, and telephone nonresponse follow-up. Data on the number and type of tribally operated law enforcement and BIA agencies were obtained from all eligible federally recognized tribes. The final universe of eligible respondents included 234 tribally operated law enforcement agencies and the Alaska VPSO program, of which 215 (91.9%) participated in the survey. The 23 BIA police departments operating in the United States completed the survey.

Curated

Partially restricted

Collecting DNA from Juveniles in 30 U.S. States, 2009-2010 (ICPSR 31281)

Released/updated on: 2014-12-19

Geographic coverage: Oregon, United States, Tennessee, Maine, Alabama, Arkansas, Utah, Washington, South Carolina, Massachusetts, Colorado, Alaska, Wisconsin, Arizona, Montana, Kentucky, South Dakota, Minnesota, California, Kansas, Florida, New Jersey, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Iowa, Illinois, Texas, New Hampshire, Louisiana, Ohio, Virginia

Time period: 2007-01-01--2010-01-01

This study examined the laws, policies, and practices related to juvenile DNA collection, as well as their implications for the juvenile and criminal justice systems. DNA evidence proved valuable in solving crimes, which motivated a concerted effort to expand the categories of offenders who provided DNA samples for analysis and inclusion in the Combined DNA Index System (CODIS), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)-operated national database.

State requirements for DNA collection, which initially focused on adult offenders convicted of sexual or violent offenses, expanded to include other categories of convicted felons, convicted misdemeanants, arrestees, and juveniles. In 30 states, certain categories of juveniles handled in the juvenile justice system must now provide DNA samples. The study was designed to explore the practice and implications of collecting DNA from juveniles and addressed the following questions:

How have state agencies, juvenile justice agencies and state laboratories implemented juvenile DNA collection laws?
What were the number and characteristics of juveniles with profiles included in CODIS?
How have juvenile profiles in CODIS contributed to public safety or other justice outcomes?
What improvements to policies and practices needed to be made?

To examine these questions, researchers at the Urban Institute: (1) systematically reviewed all state DNA statutes; (2) conducted semi-structured interviews with CODIS lab representatives in states that collect DNA from juveniles to understand how the laws were implemented; (3) collected and analyzed descriptive data provided by these labs on the volume and characteristics of juvenile profiles in CODIS; (4) conducted semi-structured interviews with juvenile and criminal justice stakeholders in five case study states; and (5) convened a meeting of federal officials and experts from the forensic and juvenile justice committees to explore the broader impacts of juvenile DNA collection.

Curated

Communication of Innovation in Policing in the United States, 1996 (ICPSR 2480)

Released/updated on: 2005-11-04

Geographic coverage: United States

These data were collected to examine the patterns of communication among police planners in the United States. The focus was on information-sharing, in which police planners and others contact other law enforcement agencies directly to gather the information they need to manage their departments. This study examined this informal network and its role in the dissemination of police research. The Police Communication Network Survey was mailed to the chief executives of 517 local departments and all 49 state police and highway patrol organizations in March 1996. The chief was asked to forward the questionnaire to the commander of the department's planning and research unit. Questions covered the agency most frequently contacted, how frequently this agency was contacted, mode of communication used most often, why this agency was contacted, and the agency most likely contacted on topics such as domestic violence, deadly force, gangs, community policing, problem-oriented policing, drug enforcement strategies, civil liability, labor relations, personnel administration, accreditation, and police traffic services. Information was also elicited on the number of times different law enforcement agencies contacted the respondent's agency in the past year, the percentage of time devoted to responding to requests for information from other agencies, and the amount of training the respondent and the staff received on the logic of social research, research design, statistics, operations research, cost-benefit analysis, evaluation research, and computing. Demographic variables include respondent's agency name, position, rank, number of years of police experience, number of years in the planning and research unit, and highest degree attained.

Curated

Community Policing and Police Agency Accreditation in the United States, 1992 and 1994 (ICPSR 2560)

Released/updated on: 2006-03-30

Geographic coverage: United States

This study was undertaken to examine the compatibility of law enforcement agency accreditation and community policing. It sought to answer the following questions: (1) Are accreditation and community policing compatible? (2) Do accreditation and community policing conflict? (3) Does accreditation support community policing? (4) Did any of this change with the 1994 "top-down" revision of the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies (CALEA) standards? To that end, the researchers conducted separate content analyses of the 897 accreditation standards of the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies (CALEA) in effect at the end of 1992 and the revised set of 436 standards published in 1994. The standards were coded on 27 variables derived from the literature on community policing and police administration. Information was collected on the basics of each accreditation standard, its references to issues of community-oriented policing (COP) and problem-oriented policing (POP), and general information on its compatibility, or conflict with COP and POP. Basic variables cover standard, chapter, section, and applicability. Variables focusing on the compatibility of community-oriented policing and the accreditation standards include sources of legitimacy/authorization, community input, community reciprocity, geographic responsibility, and broadening of functions. Variables on problem-oriented policing include level of analysis, empirical analysis, collaboration with nonpolice agencies, evaluation/assessment, and nature of the problem. Variables on management and administration concern officer discretion, specialization by unit, specialization by task, formalization, centralization, levels/hierarchy, employee notification, employee involvement, employee rights, specific accountability, and customer orientation. General information on the compatibility or conflict between a standard and community-oriented policing/problem-oriented policing includes overall restrictiveness of the standard, primary strategic affiliation, focus on process, and focus on administration.

Curated

Partially restricted

The Comprehensive School Safety Initiative: Study of Police in Schools, California and Florida, 2011-2019 (ICPSR 37591)

Released/updated on: 2022-12-13

Geographic coverage: United States, California, Florida

Time period: 2011-01-01--2019-01-01

Although the placement of school resource officers (SROs) in schools is widespread, little is known about its effectiveness in preventing school crime or the extent to which placement may harm schools and students (e.g., by facilitating the formal processing of minor offenses). The Study of Police in Schools sought to strengthen the evidence base on the effects of SROs on schools and students. Specifically, this study addressed two research questions: (1) What are the effects of SROs on school disciplinary offenses and disciplinary actions? and (2) Do the effects of SROs vary by implementation, school, and student characteristics?

The study focused on public secondary schools that increased SRO staffing through the 2013 and 2014 Department of Justice's Community Policing Services (COPS) Hiring Program (CHP) and on matched comparison schools that neither received SROs funded by CHP grants nor increased SRO staffing at the same time as treatment schools. Using longitudinal analyses of monthly school-level administrative data, the study compared the treatment and comparison schools on disciplinary incidents/offenses and actions. In addition, the study analyzed data from web surveys of school administrators and SROs at the sample schools, and from interviews with law enforcement officials at the agencies that placed the SROs in the schools. To assess the extent to which the presence of SROs affects the measurement of school crime, research staff also collected and analyzed qualitative information from interviews with school administrators in select treatment schools.

To conduct the study, the following data sources were collected or obtained:

Linking and SRO program information data files (1 file for CA, 1 file for FL)
California Department of Education administrative data files (5 files)
SRO web survey data files (1 file for CA, 1 file for FL)
School administrator web survey data files (1 file for CA, 1 file for FL)
Law enforcement agency interview data files (1 file for CA, 1 file for FL)
Moderator data file (1 file for CA)
School administrator interview data file (1 file for CA)

Curated

Partially restricted

Cross-Border Multi-Jurisdictional Task Force Evaluation, San Diego and Imperial Counties, California, 2007-2012 (ICPSR 34904)

Released/updated on: 2016-11-30

Geographic coverage: San Diego County, California, Imperial County, California

Time period: 2007-01-01--2012-01-01, 2007-01-01--2012-01-01, 2011-10-01--2012-04-01, 2007-01-01--2012-01-01

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 study involved a three-year evaluation of two efforts to target crime stemming from the Southern Border of the United States - one which funded greater participation by local officers on four FBI-led multi-jurisdictional task forces (MJTFs) and another that created a new multi-jurisdictional team. As part of this evaluation, researchers documented the level of inter-agency collaboration and communication when the project began, gathered information regarding the benefits and challenges of MJTF participation, measured the level of communication and collaboration, and tracked a variety of outcomes specific to the funded MJTFs, as well as three comparison MJTFs. Multiple methodologies were used to achieve these goals including surveys of task forces, law enforcement stakeholders, and community residents; law enforcement focus groups; program observations; and analysis of archival data related to staffing costs; task force activities; task force target criminal history; and prosecution outcomes.

The study is comprised of several data files in SPSS format:

Imperial County Law Enforcement Stakeholder Survey Data (35 cases and 199 variables)
Imperial County Resident Survey (402 cases and 70 variables)
Imperial Task Force Survey (6 cases and 84 variables)
Prosecution Outcome Data (1,973 cases and 115 variables)
San Diego County Resident Survey (402 cases and 69 variables)
San Diego Law Enforcement Stakeholder Survey (460 cases and 353 variables)
San Diego Task Force Survey (18 cases and 101 variables)
Staff and Cost Measures Data (7 cases and 61 variables)
Criminal Activity Data (110 cases and 50 variables)

Additionally, Calls for Service Data, Countywide Arrest Data, and Data used for Social Network Analysis are available in Excel format.

Curated

Developing a Problem-Oriented Policing Model in Ada County, Idaho, 1997-1998 (ICPSR 2654)

Released/updated on: 2005-11-04

Geographic coverage: United States, Idaho

Time period: 1997-01-01--1998-01-01

To explore the idea of community policing and to get an understanding of citizens' policing needs, representatives from the Ada County Sheriff's Office and Boise State University formed a research partnership and conducted surveys of county residents and sheriff's deputies. The county-wide survey of residents (Part 1) was designed to enhance the sheriff's current community policing program and to assist in the deployment of community policing officers by measuring citizens' perceptions and fear of crime, perceptions of deputies, knowledge of sheriff's services, and support for community policing. Questions in the citizen survey focused on feelings of safety in Ada County, such as perception of drugs, gangs, safety of youth, and safety at night, satisfaction with the Sheriff's Office, including ratings of the friendliness and fairness of the department and how well deputies and citizens worked together, attitudes regarding community-oriented policing, such as whether this type of policing would be a good use of resources and would reduce crime, and neighborhood problems, including how problematic auto theft, vandalism, physical decay, and excessive noise were for citizens. Other questions were asked regarding the sheriff's deputy website, including whether citizens would like the site to post current crime reports, and whether the site should have more information about the jail. Respondents were also queried about their encounters with police, including their ratings of recent services they received for traffic violations, requests for service, and visits to the jail, and familiarity with several programs, such as the inmate substance abuse program and the employee robbery prevention program. Demographic variables in the citizen survey include ethnicity, gender, level of schooling, occupation, income, age, and length of time residing in Ada County. The second survey (Part 2), created for the sheriff's deputies, used questions from the citizen survey about the Sheriff's Office service needs. Deputies were asked to respond to questions in the way they thought that citizens would answer these same questions in the citizen survey. The purpose was to investigate the extent to which sheriff's deputies' attitudes mirrored citizens' attitudes about the quality of service.

Curated

Partially restricted

Simple Crosstabs

Developing Uniform Performance Measures for Policing in the United States: A Pilot Project in Four Agencies, 2008-2009 (ICPSR 29742)

Released/updated on: 2013-04-24

Geographic coverage: Knoxville, Broward County, United States, Texas, Tennessee, Kettering, Ohio, Florida, Dallas

Time period: 2008-01-01--2009-01-01

Between 2008 and 2009, the research team gathered survey data from 458 members of the community (Part 1), 312 police officers (Part 2), and 804 individuals who had voluntary contact (Part 3), and 761 individuals who had involuntary contact (Part 4) with police departments in Dallas, Texas, Knoxville, Tennessee, and Kettering, Ohio, and the Broward County, Florida Sheriff's Office. The surveys were designed to look at nine dimensions of police performance: delivering quality services; fear, safety, and order; ethics and values; legitimacy and customer satisfaction; organizational competence and commitment to high standards; reducing crime and victimization; resource use; responding to offenders; and use of authority. The community surveys included questions about police effectiveness, police professionalism, neighborhood problems, and victimization. The officer surveys had three parts: job satisfaction items, procedural knowledge items, and questions about the culture of integrity. The voluntary police contact and involuntary police contact surveys included questions on satisfaction with the way the police officer or deputy sheriff handled the encounter.

Curated

Directory of Law Enforcement Agencies, 1986: [United States] (ICPSR 8696)

Released/updated on: 1992-02-16

Geographic coverage: United States

This dataset lists law enforcement agencies and contains variables regarding employment categories such as total full-time, part-time, sworn-in, and other employees. It also contains FIPS codes and populations.

Curated

Directory of Law Enforcement Agencies, 1992: [United States] (ICPSR 2266)

Released/updated on: 2005-11-04

Geographic coverage: United States

Curated

Directory of Law Enforcement Agencies, 1996: [United States] (ICPSR 2260)

Released/updated on: 1998-09-11

Geographic coverage: United States

To ensure an accurate sampling frame for its Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics (LEMAS) survey, the Bureau of Justice Statistics periodically sponsors a census of the nation's state and local law enforcement agencies. This census, known as the Directory Survey, gathers data on 49 primary state law enforcement agencies and all sheriffs' departments, local police departments, and special police agencies (state or local) that are publicly funded and employ at least one sworn officer with general arrest powers. The 1996 Directory Survey collected data on the number of sworn and nonsworn personnel employed by each agency, including both full-time and part-time employees. Within the full-time sworn category, data were collected from all agencies on the number who were uniformed officers with regularly assigned duties that included responding to calls for service. For agencies with at least 10 full-time sworn officers, the number whose primary duties were related to investigations, court operations, or jail operations was also obtained. This data collection, compiled in June 1996, represents the third such census, with the first occurring in 1986 (DIRECTORY OF LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES, 1986: [UNITED STATES] [ICPSR 8696]) and the second in 1992 (DIRECTORY OF LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES, 1992: [UNITED STATES] [ICPSR 2266]). Variables include personnel totals, type of government, type of agency, and whether the agency had the legal authority to hold a person beyond arraignment for 48 or more hours.

Curated

Partially restricted

Effects of Marijuana Legalization on Law Enforcement and Crime, Washington, 2004-2018 (ICPSR 37661)

Released/updated on: 2021-04-29

Geographic coverage: United States, Washington

Time period: 2004-01-01--2018-01-01

This study sought to examine the effects of cannabis legalization on crime and law enforcement in Washington State. In 2012 citizens voted to legalize possession of small amounts of cannabis, with the first licensed retail outlets opening on July 1, 2014. Researchers crafted their analysis around two questions. First, how are law enforcement agencies handling crime and offenders, particularly involving marijuana, before and after legalization? Second, what are the effects of marijuana legalization on crime, crime clearance, and other policing activities statewide, as well as in urban, rural, tribal, and border areas?

Research participants and crime data were collected from 14 police organizations across Washington, as well as Idaho police organizations situated by the Washington-Idaho border where marijuana possession is illegal. Additional subjects were recruited from other police agencies across Washington, prosecutors, and officials from the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board, and the National Association of State Boating Law Administrators for focus groups and individual interviews. Variables included dates of calls for service from 2004 through 2018, circumstances surrounding calls for service, geographic beats, agency, whether calls were dispatch or officer initiated, and whether the agency was in a jurisdiction with legal cannabis.

Curated

Simple Crosstabs

Enhancing Response to Victims: A Formative Evaluation of the Office for Victims of Crime Law Enforcement-Based Victim Services (LEV) Program, United States, 2021-2022 (ICPSR 39018)

Released/updated on: 2025-08-14

Geographic coverage: United States

Time period: 2021-01-01--2022-12-31

Through this formative evaluation, researchers sought to provide foundational knowledge of the law enforcement-based victim services programs funded through the Office for Victims of Crime Law Enforcement-based Victim Services (LEV) program and move the victim services field closer to being able to evaluate the effectiveness of LE-based victim services and identify best practices for service provision. The researchers' specific objectives were to (1) develop a comprehensive inventory and typology of all LEV programs, (2) develop logic models and identify core components of a subset of sites, (3) conduct an evaluability assessment in the subset of sites, (4) develop recommendations for future outcome evaluation, and (5) develop an implementation guide and fidelity measures. The data archived here include administrative data on LEV programs provided by the Training and Technical Assistance (TTA) team, a web survey of all LEV sites, and Census data that was used to describe the communities in which LEV programs were located.

Curated

Restricted

Evaluating a Multi-Disciplinary Response to Domestic Violence in Colorado Springs, 1996-1999 (ICPSR 3282)

Released/updated on: 2006-03-30

Geographic coverage: United States, Colorado, Colorado Springs

The Colorado Springs Police Department formed a nontraditional domestic violence unit in 1996 called the Domestic Violence Enhanced Response Team (DVERT). This unit involved a partnership and collaboration with the Center for the Prevention of Domestic Violence, a private, nonprofit victim advocacy organization, and 25 other city and county agencies. DVERT was unique in its focus on the safety of the victim over the arrest and prosecution of the batterer. It was also different from the traditional police model for a special unit because it was a systemic response to domestic violence situations that involved the coordination of criminal justice, social service, and community-based agencies. This study is an 18-month evaluation of the DVERT unit. It was designed to answer the following research and evaluation questions: (1) What were the activities of DVERT staff? (2) Who were the victims and perpetrators of domestic violence? (3) What were the characteristics of domestic violence-related incidents in Colorado Springs and surrounding jurisdictions? (4) What was the nature of the intervention and prevention activities of DVERT? (5) What were the effects of the intervention? (6) What was the nature and extent of the collaboration among criminal justice agencies, victim advocates, and city and county human services agencies? (7) What were the dynamics of the collaboration? and (8) How successful was the collaboration? At the time of this evaluation, the DVERT program focused on three levels of domestic violence situations: Level I included the most lethal situations in which a victim might be in serious danger, Level II included moderately lethal situations in which the victim was not in immediate danger, and Level III included lower lethality situations in which patrol officers engaged in problem-solving. Domestic violence situations came to the attention of DVERT through a variety of mechanisms. Most of the referrals came from the Center for the Prevention of Domestic Violence. Other referrals came from the Department of Human Services, the Humane Society, other law enforcement agencies, or city service agencies. Once a case was referred to DVERT, all relevant information concerning criminal and prosecution histories, advocacy, restraining orders, and human services documentation was researched by appropriate DVERT member agencies. Referral decisions were made on a weekly basis by a group of six to eight representatives from the partner agencies. From its inception in May 1996 to December 31, 1999, DVERT accepted 421 Level I cases and 541 Level II cases. Cases were closed or deactivated when DVERT staff believed that the client was safe from harm. Parts 1-4 contain data from 285 Level I DVERT cases that were closed between July 1, 1996, and December 31, 1999. Parts 5-8 contain data from 515 Level II cases from 1998 and 1999 only, because data were more complete in those two years. Data were collected from (1) police records of the perpetrator and victim, including calls for service, arrest reports, and criminal histories, (2) DVERT case files, and (3) Center for the Prevention of Domestic Violence files on victims. Coding sheets were developed to capture the information within these administrative documents. Part 1 includes data on whether the incident produced injuries or a risk to children, whether the victim, children, or animals were threatened, whether weapons were used, if there was stalking or sexual abuse, prior criminal history, and whether there was a violation of a restraining order. For Part 2 data were gathered on the date of case acceptance to the DVERT program and deactivation, if the offender was incarcerated, if the victim was in a new relationship or had moved out of the area, if the offender had moved or was in treatment, if the offender had completed a domestic violence class, and if the offender had served a sentence. Parts 3 and 4 contain information on the race, date of birth, gender, employment, and relationship to the victim or offender for the offenders and victims, respectively. Part 5 includes data on the history of emotional, physical, sexual, and child abuse, prior arrests, whether the victim took some type of action against the offender, whether substance abuse was involved, types of injuries that the victim sustained, whether medical care was necessary, whether a weapon was used, restraining order violations, and incidents of harassment, criminal trespassing, telephone threats, or kidnapping. Part 6 variables include whether the case was referred to and accepted in Level I and whether a DVERT advocate made contact on the case. Part 7 contains information on the offenders' race and gender. Part 8 includes data on the victims' date of birth, race, and gender.

Curated

Partially restricted

Evaluating the Crime Control and Cost-Benefit Effectiveness of License Plate Recognition (LPR) Technology in Patrol and Investigations, United States, 2014 (ICPSR 37049)

Released/updated on: 2018-08-02

Geographic coverage: United States

Time period: 2014-04-01--2014-08-01

This study, through a national survey and field studies in both patrols and investigations, examined the crime control and cost-effectiveness of the use of license plate readers (LPRs) within police agencies in the United States.

The collection contains 1 SPSS data file (Data-file-for-2013-IJ-CX-0017.sav (n=329; 94 variables)).

A demographic variable includes an agency's number of authorized full time personnel.

Curated

Evaluation of Community Policing Initiatives in Jefferson County, West Virginia, 1996-1997 (ICPSR 2800)

Released/updated on: 2005-11-04

Geographic coverage: West Virginia, United States

This data collection was designed to evaluate the implementation of community policing initiatives for three police departments in Jefferson County, West Virginia: the Ranson Town Police Department, the West Virginia State Police (Jefferson County Detachment), and the Jefferson County Sheriff's Department. The evaluation was undertaken by the Free Our Citizens of Unhealthy Substances Coalition (FOCUS), a county-based group of citizens who represented all segments of the community, including businesses, churches, local law enforcement agencies, and local governments. The aim was to find answers to the following questions: (1) Can community policing have any detectable and measurable impact in a predominantly rural setting? (2) Did the police department do what they said they would do in their funding application? (3) If they were successful, what factors supported their efforts and were key to their success? and (4) If they were not successful, what problems prevented their success? The coalition conducted citizen surveys to evaluate how much of an impact community policing initiatives had in their county. In January 1996, research assistants conducted a baseline survey of 300 households in the county. Survey responses were intended to gauge residents' fear of crime and to assess how well the police were performing their duties. After one year, the coalition repeated its survey of public attitudes, and research assistants interviewed another 300 households. The research assumption was that any change in fear of crime or assessment of police performance could reasonably be attributed to these new community policing inventions. Crime reporting variables from the survey included which crime most concerned the respondent, if the respondent would report a crime he or she observed, and whether the respondent would testify about the crime in court. Variables pertaining to level of concern for specific crimes include how concerned respondents were that someone would rob or attack them, break into or vandalize their home, or try to sexually attack them/someone they cared about. Community involvement variables covered participation in community groups or activities, neighborhood associations, church, or informal social activities. Police/citizen interaction variables focused on the number of times respondents had called to report a problem to the police in the last two years, how satisfied they were with how the police handled the problem, the extent to which this police department needed improvement, whether children trusted law enforcement officers, whether police needed to respond more quickly to calls, whether the police needed improved relations with the community, and in the past year whether local police performance had improved/gotten worse. Specific crime information variables include whether the crime occurred in the respondent's neighborhood, whether he/she was the victim, if crime was serious in the respondent's neighborhood versus elsewhere, whether the respondent had considered moving as a result of crime in the neighborhood, and how personal safety had changed in the respondent's neighborhood. Variables relating to community policing include whether the respondent had heard the term "community policing" in the past year, from what source, and what community policing activities the respondent was aware of. Demographic variables include job self-classification, racial/ethnic identity, length of residency, age, gender, martial status, educational status, and respondent's town of residence.

Curated

Partially restricted

Evaluation of Digital Evidence Processing Efficiencies in Publicly Funded Crime Laboratories, United States, 2020-2023 (ICPSR 38998)

Released/updated on: 2025-12-16

Geographic coverage: United States

Time period: 2020-01-01--2023-01-01

This study investigated the use and value of digital evidence (DE) to create an evidence base for more efficient and effective DE management and processing. Researchers aimed to assess existing laboratory protocols and better understand the scientific rationale underpinning existing laboratory processes with the ultimate goal of assisting law enforcement agencies and crime laboratories in eliminating backlogs, optimizing available resources, and decreasing justice delays. The data deposited with ICPSR include the Crime Laboratories Survey Data, which describe the processes used by crime laboratories to manage and analyze DE, and the Law Enforcement Agencies Survey Data, which includes information on methods and processes for DE seizure, management, and analysis, and data about coordination between law enforcement agencies and associated crime laboratories.

Curated

Partially restricted

Simple Crosstabs

Evaluation of Less-Lethal Technologies on Police Use-of-Force Outcomes in 13 Sites in the United States, 1992-2007 (ICPSR 27561)

Released/updated on: 2013-10-29

Geographic coverage: United States

Time period: 1992-01-01--2007-01-01

The study examined how law enforcement agencies (LEAs) manage the use of force by officers. It was conducted to produce practical information that can help LEAs establish guidelines that assist in the effective design of Conducted Energy Device (CED) deployment programs that support increased safety for officers and citizens. The study used a quasi-experimental design to compare seven LEAs with CED deployment to a set of six matched LEAs that did not deploy CEDs on a variety of safety outcomes. From 2006-2008, data were collected on the details of every use of force incident during a specified time period (1992-2007), as well as demographic and crime statistics for each site. For the agencies that deployed CEDs, at least two years of data on use of force incidents were collected for the period before CED deployment and at least two years of data for the period after CED deployment. For the agencies that did not deploy CEDs, at least four years of data were collected over a similar period.

Curated

Partially restricted

Evaluation of the Domestic Violence Homicide Prevention Demonstration Initiative: Collaboration Surveys, 5 U.S. states, 2015-2019 (ICPSR 38133)

Released/updated on: 2022-08-16

Geographic coverage: North Carolina, United States, Illinois, Tennessee, California, Michigan

Time period: 2015-01-01--2019-01-01

The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) and the Office for Violence Against Women (OVW) has evaluated the implementation process and impact of the U.S. Department of Justice's Domestic Violence Homicide Prevention Demonstration Initiative. The evaluation was conducted by a team of investigators from Yale University and Michigan State University.

The demonstration initiative (DI) included 3 implementation sites (California, North Carolina and Illinois). In addition, 2 comparison or typically implementing sites (Michigan and Tennessee) were included in the evaluation. The sites implemented the Lethality Assessment Program (LAP) developed by the Maryland Network Against Domestic Violence.

A web-based survey was used to gather data to assess changes in collaboration within each of the sites. Respondents from agencies providing support to victims of domestic violence and their offenders reported on their level of collaboration with other named agencies in their networks at two or three time points. Data sets are at the site level. Social network analysis was conducted to assess how the network changes over time.

Curated

Evaluation of the Maricopa County [Arizona] Demand Reduction Program, 1989-1991 (ICPSR 9977)

Released/updated on: 2006-01-12

Geographic coverage: United States, Arizona

Time period: 1989-03-01--1991-05-01

These data were collected to evaluate the Demand Reduction Program, a program initiated in Maricopa County, Arizona, in 1989 to combat drug abuse. A consortium of municipal, county, state, and federal law enforcement agencies developed the program, which stressed user accountability. The Demand Reduction Program had two objectives: (1) to create community-wide awareness of the severity of the drug problem and to alert drug users to the increased risk of legal sanctions, and (2) to adopt a zero-tolerance position of user accountability through an emphasis on increased and coordinated law enforcement activities directed against individual offenders and special treatment programs in lieu of prosecution. Part 1 of the collection, Demand Reduction Program Data, provides information on prosecutor's disposition, arrest date, submitted charges, filed charges, prior charges, disposition of charges, drugs offender used in last three months, information on prior drug treatment, type of attorney, and arrestee's age at arrest, sex, marital status, income, and living arrangement. Part 2 is a Citizen Survey conducted in January 1990, ten months after the implementation of the Demand Reduction Program. Adult residents of Maricopa County were asked in telephone interviews about their attitudes toward drug use, tax support for drug treatment, education, and punishment, their knowledge of the Demand Reduction Program, and demographic information. Parts 3 and 4 supply data from surveys of Maricopa County police officers, conducted in March 1990 and April 1991, to measure attitudes regarding the Demand Reduction Program with respect to (1) police effort, (2) inter-agency cooperation, (3) the harm involved in drug use, and (4) support for diversion to treatment. The two police surveys contained identically-worded questions, with only a small number of different questions asked the second year. Variables include officer's rank, years at rank, years in department, shift worked, age, sex, ethnicity, education, marital status, if officer was the primary or secondary wage earner, officer's perception of and training for the Demand Reduction Program, and personal attitudes toward drug use. Part 5 provides arrest data from the Maricopa County Task Force, which arrested drug users through two methods: (1) sweeps of public and semi-public places, and (2) "reversals," where drug sellers were arrested and replaced by police officers posing as drug sellers, who then arrested the drug buyers. Task Force data include arrest date, operation number, operation beginning and ending date, operation type, region where operation was conducted, charge resulting from arrest, Demand Reduction Program identification number, and arrestee's sex, race, and date of birth.

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

Evaluation of Victim Advocacy Services Funded by the Violence Against Women Act in Urban Ohio, 1999 (ICPSR 2992)

Released/updated on: 2006-03-30

Geographic coverage: United States, Ohio

The focus of this research and evaluation endeavor was on direct service programs in Ohio, particularly advocacy services for female victims of violence, receiving funding through the Services, Training, Officers, Prosecutors (STOP) formula grants under the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) of 1994. The objectives of this project were (1) to describe and compare existing advocacy services in Ohio, (2) to compare victim advocacy typologies and identify key variables in the delivery of services, (3) to develop a better understanding of how victim advocacy services are defined and delivered, and (4) to assess the effectiveness of those services. For Part 1, Service Agencies Data, comprehensive information about 13 VAWA-funded programs providing direct services in urban Ohio was gathered through a mailback questionnaire and phone interviews. Detailed information was collected on organizational structure, clients served, and agency services. Focus groups were also used to collect data from clients (Parts 3-11) and staff (Parts 12-23) about their definitions of advocacy, types of services needed by victims, services provided to victims, and important outcomes for service providers. Part 2, Police Officer Data, focused on police officers' attitudes toward domestic violence and on evaluating service outcomes in one particular agency. The agency selected was a prosecutor's office that planned to improve services to victims by changing how the police and prosecutors responded to domestic violence cases. The prosecutor's office selected one police district as the site for implementing the new program, which included training police officers and placing a prosecutor in the district office to work directly with the police on domestic violence cases. The evaluation of this program was designed to assess the effectiveness of the police officers' training and officers' increased access to information from the prosecutor on the outcome of the case. Police officers from the selected district were administered surveys. Also surveyed were officers from another district that handled a similar number of domestic violence cases and had a comparable number of officers employed in the district. Variables in Part 1 include number of staff, budget, funding sources, number and type of victims served, target population, number of victims served speaking languages other than English, number of juveniles and adults served, number of victims with special needs served, collaboration with other organizations, benefits of VAWA funding, and direct and referral services provided by the agency. Variables in Part 2 cover police officers' views on whether it was a waste of time to prosecute domestic violence cases, if these cases were likely to result in a conviction, whether they felt sympathetic toward the victim or blamed the victim, how the prosecution should proceed with domestic violence cases, how the prosecution and police worked together on such cases, whether domestic violence was a private matter, and how they felt about the new program implemented under VAWA.

Curated

Evaluation of Victim Services Programs Funded by "Stop Violence Against Women" Grants in the United States, 1998-1999 (ICPSR 2735)

Released/updated on: 2006-03-30

Geographic coverage: United States

Time period: 1998-01-01--1999-01-01

This project investigated the effects of Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) STOP (Services, Training, Officers, Prosecutors) funds with respect to the provision of victim services by criminal justice-based agencies to domestic assault, stalking, and sexual assault victims. Violence Against Women grants were intended "to assist states, Indian tribal governments, and units of local government to develop and strengthen effective law enforcement and prosecution strategies to combat violent crimes against women, and to develop and strengthen victim services in cases involving violent crimes against women." Domestic violence and sexual assault were identified as primary targets for the STOP grants, along with support for under-served victim populations. Two types of programs were sampled in this evaluation. The first was a sample of representatives of STOP grant programs, from which 62 interviews were completed (Part 1, Criminal Justice Victim Service Program Survey Data). The second was a sample of 96 representatives of programs that worked in close cooperation with the 62 STOP program grantees to serve victims (Part 2, Ancillary Programs Survey Data). General questions from the STOP program survey (Part 1) covered types of victims served, years program had been in existence, types of services provided, stages when services were provided, number of victims served by the program the previous year, the program's operating budget, and primary and secondary funding sources. Questions about the community in which the program operated focused on types of services for domestic violence and/or sexual assault victims that existed in the community, if services provided by the program complemented or overlapped those provided by the community, and a rating of the community's coordinated response in providing services. Questions specific to the activities supported by the STOP grant included the amount of the grant award, if the STOP grant was used to start the program or to expand services and if the latter, which services, and whether the STOP funds changed the way the program delivered services, changed linkages with other agencies in the community, increased the program's visibility in the community, and/or impacted the program's stability. Also included were questions about under-served populations being served by the program, the impact of the STOP grant on victims as individuals and on their cases in the criminal justice system, and the program's impact on domestic violence, stalking, and sexual assault victims throughout the community. Data from the ancillary programs survey (Part 2) pertain to types of services provided by the program, if the organization was part of the private sector or the criminal justice system, and the impact of the STOP program in the community on various aspects of services provided and on improvements for victims.

Curated

FBI Oral History Collection (ICPSR 29885)

Released/updated on: 2010-12-07

The FBI Oral History Collection, housed on the National Law Enforcement Museum Web site, is a special collection of oral history interviews of former agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Each interview contains information about the former agent's training and career with the FBI, and their reflections on various assignments and cases they worked on.

Curated

Felonious Homicides of American Police Officers, 1977-1992 (ICPSR 3187)

Released/updated on: 2006-03-30

Geographic coverage: United States

Time period: 1977-01-01--1992-01-01

The study was a comprehensive analysis of felonious killings of officers. The purposes of the study were (1) to analyze the nature and circumstances of incidents of felonious police killings and (2) to analyze trends in the numbers and rates of killings across different types of agencies and to explain these differences. For Part 1, Incident-Level Data, an incident-level database was created to capture all incidents involving the death of a police officer from 1983 through 1992. Data on officers and incidents were collected from the Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted (LEOKA) data collection as coded by the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) program. In addition to the UCR data, the Police Foundation also coded information from the LEOKA narratives that are not part of the computerized LEOKA database from the FBI. For Part 2, Agency-Level Data, the researchers created an agency-level database to research systematic differences among rates at which law enforcement officers had been feloniously killed from 1977 through 1992. The investigators focused on the 56 largest law enforcement agencies because of the availability of data for explanatory variables. Variables in Part 1 include year of killing, involvement of other officers, if the officer was killed with his/her own weapon, circumstances of the killing, location of fatal wounds, distance between officer and offender, if the victim was wearing body armor, if different officers were killed in the same incident, if the officer was in uniform, actions of the killer and of the officer at entry and final stage, if the killer was visible at first, if the officer thought the killer was a felon suspect, if the officer was shot at entry, and circumstances at anticipation, entry, and final stages. Demographic variables for Part 1 include victim's sex, age, race, type of assignment, rank, years of experience, agency, population group, and if the officer was working a security job. Part 2 contains variables describing the general municipal environment, such as whether the agency is located in the South, level of poverty according to a poverty index, population density, percent of population that was Hispanic or Black, and population aged 15-34 years old. Variables capturing the crime environment include the violent crime rate, property crime rate, and a gun-related crime index. Lastly, variables on the environment of the police agencies include violent and property crime arrests per 1,000 sworn officers, percentage of officers injured in assaults, and number of sworn officers.

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

Hate Crime Investigations and Offender Profiles: A National Survey of U.S. Law Enforcement Agencies, United States, 2018 (ICPSR 38262)

Released/updated on: 2024-12-10

Geographic coverage: United States

Time period: 2018-01-01--2018-12-31

The National Hate Crime Investigation Study (NHCIS) collected detailed data on hate crime investigations from law enforcement agencies (LEAs) across the United States. A nationally representative sample of 2,488 local, county, and state LEAs, stratified by agency type and size, were surveyed about agency-level characteristics and hate crime incidents investigated by their agency between January 1, 2018 and December 31, 2018.

Agency-level surveys collected information about the size of the population the agency serves, the number of full-time sworn officers, total number of hate crime cases reported, National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) participation, hate crime investigation policies and procedures, and whether the agency has conducted outreach to community or local advocacy groups on hate crimes. Case-level surveys and case report data abstraction then captured extensive data about 1,230 hate crime incidents, including crime scene details, investigative strategies, arrests, charges, and court outcomes.

Suspect and victim demographic information in the Case Data file includes sex, gender identity, age, race/ethnicity, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, disability status, and immigration status.

Curated

Partially restricted

How Justice Systems Realign in California: The Policies and Systemic Effects of Prison Downsizing, 1978-2013 (ICPSR 34939)

Released/updated on: 2017-03-30

Geographic coverage: United States, California

Time period: 1978-01-01--2012-01-01, 2013-03-01--2013-07-01, 2012-01-01--2013-01-01

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.

The California correctional system underwent a dramatic transformation under California's Public Safety Realignment Act (AB 109) in 2011, a law that shifted from the state to the counties the responsibility for monitoring, tracking, and incarcerating lower level offenders previously bound for state prison. Realignment, therefore, presents the opportunity to witness 58 natural experiments in the downsizing of prisons. Counties faced different types of offenders, implemented different programs in different community and jail environments, and adopted differing sanctioning policies. This study examines the California's Public Safety Realignment Act's effect on counties' criminal justice institutions, including the disparities that result in charging, sentencing, and resource decisions.

Curated

Restricted

Impact of Terrorism on State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies and Criminal Justice Systems in the United States, 2004 (ICPSR 4677)

Released/updated on: 2007-07-20

Geographic coverage: United States

This study explored the new roles of state and local law enforcement agencies and the changing conditions that came about as a result of the events of September 11, 2001. In order to examine the impact of terrorism on state and local police agencies, the research team developed a survey that was administered to all state police, highway patrol agencies, and general-purpose state bureaus of investigation and a sample population of 400 local police and sheriff agencies in the spring of 2004. The survey asked these state and local law enforcement agencies questions concerning how their allocation of resources, homeland security responsibilities, and interactions with other agencies had changed since September 11, 2001.

Curated

Individual Responses to Affirmative Action Issues in Criminal Justice Agencies, 1981: [United States] (ICPSR 9311)

Released/updated on: 1992-02-17

Geographic coverage: United States

These data, which are part of a larger study undertaken by the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, evaluate the responses of criminal justice employees to affirmative action within criminal justice agencies. Information is provided on employees' (1) general mood, (2) attitudes across various attributes, such as race, sex, rank, education and length of service, and (3) demographic characteristics including age, sex, race, educational level, parents' occupations, and living arrangements. The use of criminal justice employees as the units of analysis provides attitudinal and perceptual data in assessing affirmative action programs within each agency. Variables include reasons for becoming a criminal justice employee, attitudes toward affirmative action status in general, and attitudes about affirmative action in criminal justice settings.

Curated

Restricted

Justice Systems Processing of Child Abuse and Neglect Cases in a Local Jurisdiction (County) in the United States, 1993-1994 (ICPSR 2310)

Released/updated on: 2006-03-30

Geographic coverage: United States

Time period: 1993-01-01--1994-08-25

The purpose of this study was to provide a comprehensive, case-level examination of the full spectrum of case processing of serious child abuse and neglect cases as they flowed through the justice process, from initial receipt of a report to final disposition in the criminal and/or civil court. This was accomplished by in-depth, detailed tracking, from a single jurisdiction, of both prospective and retrospective samples of serious child abuse cases reported to child protective services and law enforcement agencies. The four agencies that participated directly by providing case samples and case files for tracking were: (1) Child Protective Services (CPS), (2) the sheriff's office, (3) Dependency Court Legal Services (DCLS), and (4) the county prosecutor's office. Each case was abstracted at the point of sampling and then tracked throughout the other participating agencies. Data were collected over a nine-month period. Part 1, Maltreatment Abstract, Person Roster, and CPS Abstract Data, contains three types of data. First, information is provided on each maltreatment incident committed by each perpetrator, background of the perpetrator and the victim, and characteristics of the incident. The data continue with a roster of persons, which covers the relationships among the individuals in the case and whether any of these individuals were living together at the time of the maltreatment. Data from the CPS abstract include which source brought the case to the attention of Protective Services, the dates, priority, and investigation level of the report, if any prior allegations of maltreatment had occurred that involved either the same victims and/or perpetrators and, if so, information on those reports, and the perpetrator's response to the incident and level of cooperation with the investigation. For each victim, information is given on medical findings, if applicable, whether photographs were taken, whether a guardian was appointed, whether the victim was assigned an interim placement, and the CPS disposition of the case. Part 1 concludes with information on interviews with the victim, where the case was referred, the assessment of risk in the case, and whether the victim was placed in foster care. Part 2, Dependency Court Abstract Data, provides information on the case, the reason the case was closed, and the outcome as determined by the court. Part 3, Juvenile Court Schedule of Hearings Data, focuses on the schedule of hearings, such as who was present and if they were represented by an attorney, whether the hearing took place, and, if not, the reason for delay. Part 4, Law Enforcement Abstract Data, contains dates of incidents, reports, and arrests, details of the case, and how the case was handled. Part 5, State Attorney's Office Abstract Data, offers data on the case closing, charges, and sentencing, as well as information on the type of defense attorney representing the perpetrator, if a juvenile, how the defendant was referred to adult court, whether the state attorney filed cases on other perpetrators in the case, whether the victim was interviewed by the prosecutor prior to filing, and whether the victim was deposed by the state attorney after the case was filed. Part 6, Criminal Court Schedule of Hearings Data, contains information on date of arrest, filing, and court hearing, whether a public defender was assigned, number of hearings, type of hearing, and coded remarks about the hearing. Part 7, State Attorney Addendum Data, provides "no-file" data from the State Attorney Questionnaire Addendum, including if the no-file was a warrant or arrest, date of the no-file, and reason for the no-file.

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

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

Simple Crosstabs

Law Enforcement Agency Identifiers Crosswalk, United States, 2012 (ICPSR 35158)

Released/updated on: 2018-09-18

Geographic coverage: United States

Criminal justice research may require merging disparate data sources that have no common match keys. The Law Enforcement Agency Identifiers Crosswalk (LEAIC) file facilitates linking reported crime data with socio-economic data. It does this by having a record for each law enforcement agency, law enforcement reporting entity, and access identifier for the National Crime Information Center (NCIC). Essentially, if an entity (law enforcement agency or section of a law enforcement agency) is capable of reporting crime information, it is included in the file. The LEAIC records contain common match keys for merging reported crime data and Census Bureau data. These linkage variables include the Originating Agency Identifier (ORI) code, Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS) state, county and place codes, and Governments Integrated Directory government identifier codes.

Curated

Simple Crosstabs

Law Enforcement Agency Roster (LEAR), 2016 (ICPSR 36697)

Released/updated on: 2017-04-05

Geographic coverage: United States

Time period: 2015-01-01--2016-01-01

In the past several years, BJS has made efforts to develop a national roster of publicly funded law enforcement agencies. The Census of State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies (CSLLEA) represents the core of the BJS's law enforcement statistics program, and is currently used as the primary universe for all BJS law enforcement collections. The CSLLEA was last conducted in 2014 but encountered data collection issues. Since the last law enforcement universe list was the 2008 CSLLEA, BJS decided further work was needed to have a reliable and complete roster of law enforcement agencies. Using the 2008 and 2014 CSLLEA universe as the base, the LEAR integrated multiple datasets in an effort to compile a complete list of active general purpose law enforcement agencies. The goal of the LEAR was to serve as the universe list for which the Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics (LEMAS) core and supplement samples could be pulled. The 2016 LEAR contains a census of 15,810 general purpose law enforcement agencies, including 12,695 local and county police departments, 3,066 sheriffs' offices and 49 primary state police departments. Staffing size from multiple datasets has also been merged into the LEAR file.

Curated

Simple Crosstabs

Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics Body-Worn Camera Supplement (LEMAS-BWCS), 2016 (ICPSR 37302)

Released/updated on: 2019-06-20

Geographic coverage: United States

Time period: 2015-01-01--2016-01-01

Beginning in 2016, the Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics (LEMAS) survey adopted a core and supplement structure. The LEMAS core has been conducted every 3 to 4 years since 1987 with approximately 3,200 local, county and state law enforcement agencies across the United States. Due to the breadth of the survey, detailed analysis of any specific law enforcement topic cannot be done with the LEMAS core. The LEMAS supplements are designed to fill this void by allowing for a more comprehensive examination on a key topic in law enforcement and are administered in between core years. The 2016 LEMAS Body-Worn Camera Supplement (LEMAS-BWCS) is the first supplement administered under the new structure.

Curated

Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics (LEMAS), 1987 (ICPSR 9222)

Released/updated on: 2012-08-01

Geographic coverage: United States

Time period: 1987-06-01--1988-06-01

This survey, the first in the Bureau of Justice Statistics' program on Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics (LEMAS), presents information on three types of general purpose law enforcement agencies: state police, local police, and sheriffs' departments. Data from the primary state police agency in each of 49 states (Hawaii does not have a state police agency) are also presented. Variables include size of the populations served by the typical police or sheriffs' department, levels of employment and spending, various functions of the department, average salary levels for uniformed officers, and other matters relating to management and personnel.