Showing 1 – 46 of 46 results.
Curated
Census of Jail Facilities, 2006 (ICPSR 26602)
Released/updated on: 2010-01-26
Geographic coverage: United States
To reduce respondent burden and improve data quality and timeliness, the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) split the jail census into two parts: The Census of Jail Inmates was conducted with a reference date of June 30, 2005. The following spring it was followed by this enumeration, the Census of Jail Facilities, which collected data as of March 31, 2006. Previous jail enumerations were conducted in 1970 (ICPSR 7641), 1972 (ICPSR 7638), 1978 (ICPSR 7737), 1983 (ICPSR 8203), 1988 (ICPSR 9256), 1993 (ICPSR 6648), and 1999 (ICPSR 3318). The United States Census Bureau collected the data for the Bureau of Justice Statistics. The 2006 Census of Jail Facilities gathered data from all jail detention facilities holding inmates beyond arraignment, a period normally exceeding 72 hours. Jail facilities were operated by cities and counties, by private entities under contract to correctional authorities, and by the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP). Excluded from the census were physically separate temporary holding facilities such as drunk tanks and police lockups that do not hold persons after being formally charged in court. Also excluded were state-operated facilities in Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Alaska, which have combined jail-prison systems. Fifteen independently operated jails in Alaska were included in the Census. The census collected jurisdictional level information on the number of confined inmates; average daily population; number of separate jail facilities; renovation and building plans; court orders and consent decrees; staff by occupational category and race/ethnicity; jail programs; and costs of operation. The census also collected individual jail facility information on the purpose for which the jail held offenders; gender of the inmates authorized to house; functions, such as general adult population confinement, work release, and medical treatment; whether a separate temporary holding area or lockup was operated; rated capacity; number of confined inmates by gender and adult or juvenile status; year of original construction; and whether the facility ever had a major renovation.
Curated
Simple Crosstabs
Census of Jails, 2013 (ICPSR 36128)
Released/updated on: 2018-04-25
Geographic coverage: United States
To reduce respondent burden for the 2013 collection, the Census of Jails was combined with the Deaths in Custody Reporting Program (DCRP). The census provides the sampling frame for the nationwide Survey of Inmates in Local Jails (SILJ) and the Annual Survey of Jails (ASJ). Previous jail enumerations were conducted in 1970 (ICPSR 7641), 1972 (ICPSR 7638), 1978 (ICPSR 7737), 1983 (ICPSR 8203), 1988 (ICPSR 9256), 1993 (ICPSR 6648), 1999 (ICPSR 3318), 2005 (ICPSR 20367), and 2006 (ICPSR 26602). The RTI International collected the data for the Bureau of Justice Statistics in 2013. The United States Census Bureau was the collection agent from 1970-2006.
The 2013 Census of Jails gathered data from all jail detention facilities holding inmates beyond arraignment, a period normally exceeding 72 hours. Jail facilities were operated by cities and counties, by private entities under contract to correctional authorities, and by the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP).
Excluded from the census were physically separate temporary holding facilities such as drunk tanks and police lockups that do not hold persons after being formally charged in court. Also excluded were state-operated facilities in Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Alaska, which have combined jail-prison systems. Fifteen independently operated jails in Alaska were included in the Census.
The 2013 census collected facility-level information on the number of confined and nonconfined inmates, number of inmates participating in weekend programs, number of confined non-U.S. citizens, number of confined inmates by sex and adult or juvenile status, number of juveniles held as adults, conviction and sentencing status, offense type, number of inmates held by race or Hispanic origin, number of inmates held for other jurisdictions or authorities, average daily population, rated capacity, number of admissions and releases, program participation for nonconfined inmates, operating expenditures, and staff by occupational category.
Curated
Partially restricted
Simple Crosstabs
Census of Jails, 2019 (ICPSR 38323)
Released/updated on: 2022-03-30
Geographic coverage: United States
To reduce respondent burden for the 2019 collection, the Census of Jails was combined with the Deaths in Custody Reporting Program (DCRP). The census provides the sampling frame for the nationwide Survey of Inmates in Local Jails (SILJ) and the Annual Survey of Jails (ASJ). Previous jail enumerations were conducted in 1970 (ICPSR 7641), 1972 (ICPSR 7638), 1978 (ICPSR 7737), 1983 (ICPSR 8203), 1988 (ICPSR 9256), 1993 (ICPSR 6648), 1999 (ICPSR 3318), 2005 (ICPSR 20367), 2006 (ICPSR 26602), and 2013 (ICPSR 36128). The RTI International collected the data for the Bureau of Justice Statistics in 2013 and 2019. The United States Census Bureau was the collection agent from 1970-2006.
The 2019 Census of Jails gathered data from all jail detention facilities holding inmates beyond arraignment, a period normally exceeding 72 hours. Jail facilities were operated by cities and counties, by private entities under contract to correctional authorities, and by the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP).
Excluded from the census were physically separate temporary holding facilities such as drunk tanks and police lockups that do not hold persons after being formally charged in court. Also excluded were state-operated facilities in Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Alaska, which have combined jail-prison systems. Fifteen independently operated jails in Alaska were included in the Census.
The 2019 census collected information on the number of confined inmates, number of persons supervised outside jail, number of inmates participating in weekend programs, number of confined non-U.S. citizens, number of inmates by sex and adult or juvenile status, number of juveniles held as adults, number of inmates who were parole or probation violators, number of inmates by conviction status, number of inmates by felony or misdemeanor status, number of inmates held by race or Hispanic origin, number of inmates held for other jurisdictions or authorities, average daily population, rated capacity, admissions and releases, number of staff employed by local jails, facility functions, and number of jails under court orders and consent decrees.
The 2019 census also included a module to collect data on the effects of the opioid epidemic on local jails and jail responses to the epidemic. Items included:
- Jail practices on opioid use disorder testing, screening, and treatment.
- Number of local jail admissions screened during June 2019.
- Number of positive screens.
- Number of admissions treated for opioid use disorder.
- Number of jail inmates treated for opioid withdrawal at midyear 2019.
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
Census of Problem-Solving Courts, 2012 (ICPSR 36717)
Released/updated on: 2017-04-06
Geographic coverage: United States
With the creation of the first drug court in Miami-Dade County, Florida in 1989, problem-solving courts emerged as an innovative effort to close the revolving door of recidivism. Designed to target the social and psychological problems underlying certain types of criminal behavior, the problem-solving model boasts a community-based, therapeutic approach. As a result of the anecdotal successes of early drug courts, states expanded the problem-solving court model by developing specialized courts or court dockets to address a number of social problems. Although the number and types of problem-solving courts has been expanding, the formal research and statistical information regarding the operations and models of these programs has not grown at the same rate. Multiple organizations have started mapping the variety of problem-solving courts in the county; however, a national catalogue of problem-solving court infrastructure is lacking. As evidence of this, different counts of problem-solving courts have been offered by different groups, and a likely part of the discrepancy lies in disagreements about how to define and identify a problem-solving court. What is known about problem-solving courts is therefore limited to evaluation or outcome analyses of specific court programs.
In 2010, the Bureau of Justice Statistics awarded the National Center for State Courts a grant to develop accurate and reliable national statistics regarding problem-solving court operations, staffing, and participant characteristics. The NCSC, with assistance from the National Drug Court Institute (NDCI), produced the resulting Census of Problem-Solving Courts which captures information on over 3,000 problem-solving courts that were operational in 2012.
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
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 Publicly Funded Forensic Crime Laboratories, 2002 (ICPSR 4287)
Released/updated on: 2005-09-02
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 2003-01-01--2004-01-01
To obtain current baseline information about the workload and operations of the nation's forensic crime laboratories, the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) conducted its first census of publicly funded forensic crime laboratories from 2003 to 2004. Data were collected on the organization, functions, budget, staffing, workload, and performance expectations of the nation's publicly funded federal, state, and local forensic crime laboratories currently operating.
Curated
Census of Publicly Funded Forensic Crime Laboratories, 2002 and 2005 (ICPSR 23120)
Released/updated on: 2008-10-24
Geographic coverage: United States
This data collection contains data from censuses of publicly funded crime laboratories in 2002 and 2005. The data were collected to examine change and stability in the operations of crime laboratories serving federal, state, and local jurisdictions. The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) first surveyed forensic crime laboratories in 1998, focusing solely on agencies that performed DNA analysis. The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) funded the 1998 study as part of its DNA Laboratory Improvement Program. The BJS' National Study of DNA Laboratories was repeated in 2001. An expanded version of the data collection, called the Census of Publicly Funded Forensic Crime Laboratories, was first conducted among all forensic crime laboratories in 2002. Data were collected from 2003 to 2004 on the organization, functions, budget, staffing, workload, and performance expectations of the nation's forensic crime laboratories operating in 2002. A total of 306 of the 351 crime laboratories operating in 2002 responded to the census. The latest census obtained data from 351 of the 389 laboratories operating in 2005, including at least 1 laboratory from every state. The nation's publicly funded forensic crime laboratories performed a variety of forensic services in 2005, including DNA testing and controlled substance identification for federal, state, and local jurisdictions. The 2005 Census of Publicly Funded Forensic Crime Laboratories obtained detailed information on the types of forensic requests received by these laboratories and the resources needed to complete them. The census also collected data on crime laboratory budgets, personnel, accreditations, and backlogged cases.
Curated
Simple Crosstabs
Census of Publicly Funded Forensic Crime Laboratories, 2009 (ICPSR 34340)
Released/updated on: 2018-01-26
Geographic coverage: United States
This data collection contains data from censuses of publicly funded crime laboratories in 2009. The data were collected to examine change and stability in the operations of crime laboratories serving federal, state, and local jurisdictions. The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) first surveyed forensic crime laboratories in 1998, focusing solely on agencies that performed DNA analysis. The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) funded the 1998 study as part of its DNA Laboratory Improvement Program. The BJS' National Study of DNA Laboratories was repeated in 2001. An expanded version of the data collection, called the Census of Publicly Funded Forensic Crime Laboratories, was first conducted among all forensic crime laboratories in 2002. For the 2009 study, data were collected from 2010 to 2011 on the organization, functions, budget, staffing, workload, and performance expectations of the nation's forensic crime laboratories operating in 2009. A total of 397 of the 411 eligible crime laboratories operating in 2009 responded to the census, including at least 1 laboratory from every state. The nation's publicly funded forensic crime laboratories performed a variety of forensic services in 2009, including DNA testing and controlled substance identification for federal, state, and local jurisdictions. The 2009 Census of Publicly Funded Forensic Crime Laboratories obtained detailed information on the types of forensic requests received by these laboratories and the resources needed to complete them. The census also collected data on crime laboratory budgets, personnel, accreditations, and backlogged cases.
Curated
Simple Crosstabs
Census of Publicly Funded Forensic Crime Laboratories, 2014 (ICPSR 36759)
Released/updated on: 2017-04-19
Geographic coverage: United States
This data collection contains data from censuses of publicly funded crime laboratories in 2014. The data were collected to examine change and stability in the operations of crime laboratories serving federal, state, and local jurisdictions. The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) first surveyed forensic crime laboratories in 1998, focusing solely on agencies that performed DNA analysis. The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) funded the 1998 study as part of its DNA Laboratory Improvement Program. The BJS' National Study of DNA Laboratories was repeated in 2001. An expanded version of the data collection, called the Census of Publicly Funded Forensic Crime Laboratories, was first conducted among all forensic crime laboratories in 2002. For the 2014 study, data were collected from April 2015 to September 2015 on the organization, functions, budget, staffing, workload, and performance expectations of the nation's forensic crime laboratories operating in 2014. A total of 360 of the 409 eligible crime laboratories operating in 2014 responded to the census. The nation's publicly funded forensic crime laboratories performed a variety of forensic services in 2014, including DNA testing and controlled substance identification for federal, state, and local jurisdictions. The 2014 Census of Publicly Funded Forensic Crime Laboratories obtained detailed information on the types of forensic requests received by these laboratories and the resources needed to complete them. The census also collected data on crime laboratory budgets, personnel, accreditations, and backlogged cases.
Curated
Census of State Adult Correctional Facilities, 1979 (ICPSR 7852)
Released/updated on: 2005-11-04
Geographic coverage: United States
This census, designed by the Bureau of Justice Statistics and conducted by the United States Census Bureau, includes all state correctional facilities known to the Census Bureau in 1979. Each facility is classified into one of ten categories such as community center, prison farm, road camp, or reception center. Data for 1979 include number of inmates by security classification and by sex, number of full- and part-time staff, number of paid and volunteer staff broken down by position, age, pay, and education, number and age of facilities, type of facilities provided in each cell by size of cell, hospital facilities available, programs provided for the inmates, job training, and inmate IQ scores.
Curated
Census of State Adult Correctional Facilities, 1984 (ICPSR 8444)
Released/updated on: 2005-11-04
Geographic coverage: United States
This study provides a descriptive analysis of confinement facilities and state-operated community-based correctional facilities nationwide. Decision-makers, practitioners, and researchers may use the census to analyze the current conditions and needs of state correctional facilities for adults. Variables of interest include physical security, age of facilities, functions of facilities, programs, inmate work assignments, staff employment, facilities under court order/consent decree for conditions of confinement, capital and operating expenditures, custody level of residents/inmates, one-day and average daily population counts, race/ethnicity of inmates, inmate work assignments, inmate deaths, special inmate counts, and assaults and incidents by inmates. The institution is the unit of analysis.
Curated
Census of State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies (CSLLEA), 2008 (ICPSR 27681)
Released/updated on: 2011-08-03
Geographic coverage: United States
The BJS Census of State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies (CSLLEA) is conducted every 4 years to provide a complete enumeration of agencies and their employees. Employment data are reported by agencies for sworn and nonsworn (civilian) personnel and, within these categories, by full-time or part-time status. The pay period that included September 30, 2008, was the reference date for all personnel data. Agencies also complete a checklist of functions they regularly perform, or have primary responsibility for, within the following areas: patrol and response, criminal investigation, traffic and vehicle-related functions, detention-related functions, court-related functions, special public safety functions (e.g., animal control), task force participation, and specialized functions (e.g., search and rescue). The CSLLEA provides national data on the number of state and local law enforcement agencies and employees for local police departments, sheriffs' offices, state law enforcement agencies, and special jurisdiction agencies. It also serves as the sampling frame for BJS surveys of law enforcement agencies.
Curated
Simple Crosstabs
Census of State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies (CSLLEA), 2018 (ICPSR 38771)
Released/updated on: 2023-05-30
Geographic coverage: United States
The BJS Census of State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies (CSLLEA) is conducted every 4 years to provide a complete enumeration of agencies and their employees. Employment data are reported by agencies for sworn and nonsworn (civilian) personnel and, within these categories, by full-time or part-time status. The pay period that included June 30, 2018, was the reference date for personnel data. Agencies also complete a checklist of functions they regularly perform, or have primary responsibility for, within the following areas: patrol and response, criminal investigation, traffic and vehicle-related functions, detention-related functions, court-related functions, forensic services, special public safety functions (e.g., animal control), task force participation, and specialized functions (e.g., search and rescue). The CSLLEA provides national data on the number of state and local law enforcement agencies and employees for local police departments, sheriffs' offices, state law enforcement agencies, and special jurisdiction agencies. It also serves as the sampling frame for BJS surveys of law enforcement agencies.
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
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
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 all police and sheriffs' departments that are publicly funded and employ at least one full-time or part-time sworn officer with general arrest powers. This data collection, compiled in July 1992, represents the second such census, with the first occurring in 1986 (DIRECTORY OF LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES, 1986: [UNITED STATES] [ICPSR 8696]). Variables include personnel totals, type of agency, geographic location of agency, and whether the agency had the legal authority to hold a person beyond arraignment for 48 or more hours.
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
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
Implementation of Community Corrections in Oregon, Colorado, and Connecticut [1981] (ICPSR 8407)
Released/updated on: 2006-01-12
Geographic coverage: Oregon, United States, Colorado, Connecticut
Data were collected from three states to evaluate the success of community corrections programs and to identify the conditions that underlie these successes. In-person field interviews, telephone interviews, and mailback questionnaires were used at state, county, and district levels. The variables in the study were designed to examine the kinds of people who implement and maintain these programs, the level of commitment by judicial and prison officials to these programs, community support, and the goals of cost reduction, work training, and rehabilitation.
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.
Curated
Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics (LEMAS), 1990 (ICPSR 9749)
Released/updated on: 2012-08-02
Geographic coverage: United States
This survey, the second in the Bureau of Justice Statistics' program on Law Enforcement and Administrative Statistics (LEMAS), presents information on four types of general-purpose law enforcement agencies: state police, local police, special police, and sheriff's departments. Variables include size of the population served by the police or sheriff's department, levels of employment and spending, various functions of the department, average salary levels for uniformed officers, and other matters related to management and personnel.
Curated
Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics (LEMAS), 1993 (ICPSR 6708)
Released/updated on: 2012-08-02
Geographic coverage: United States
This survey, the third in the Bureau of Justice Statistics' program on Law Enforcement and Administrative Statistics (LEMAS), presents information on five types of general-purpose law enforcement agencies: state police, county police, special police (state and local), municipal police, and sheriff's departments. Variables include size of the population served by the police or sheriff's department, levels of employment and spending, various functions of the department, average salary levels for uniformed officers, policies and programs, and other matters related to management and personnel.
Curated
Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics (LEMAS): 1997 Sample Survey of Law Enforcement Agencies (ICPSR 2700)
Released/updated on: 2008-12-04
Geographic coverage: United States
This survey, the fourth in the Bureau of Justice Statistics' program on Law Enforcement and Administrative Statistics (LEMAS), presents information on law enforcement agencies: state police, county police, special police (state and local), municipal police, and sheriff's departments. Variables include size of the population served by the police or sheriff's department, levels of employment and spending, various functions of the department, average salary levels for uniformed officers, policies and programs, and other matters related to management and personnel.
Curated
Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics (LEMAS): 1999 Sample Survey of Law Enforcement Agencies (ICPSR 3079)
Released/updated on: 2008-12-09
Geographic coverage: United States
This survey, the fourth in the Bureau of Justice Statistics' program on Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics (LEMAS), presents information on law enforcement agencies: state police, county police, special police (state and local), municipal police, and sheriff's departments. Variables include size of the population served by the police or sheriff's department, levels of employment and spending, various functions of the department, average salary levels for uniformed officers, policies and programs, and other matters related to management and personnel.
Curated
Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics (LEMAS): 2000 Sample Survey of Law Enforcement Agencies (ICPSR 3565)
Released/updated on: 2008-12-08
Geographic coverage: United States
This survey, the sixth in the Bureau of Justice Statistics' program on Law Enforcement and Administrative Statistics (LEMAS), presents information on law enforcement agencies in the United States: state police, county police, special police (state and local), municipal police, and sheriff's departments. Variables include size of the population served by the police or sheriff's department, levels of employment and spending, various functions of the department, average salary levels for uniformed officers, policies and programs, and other matters related to management and personnel.This survey, the sixth in the Bureau of Justice Statistics' program on Law Enforcement and Administrative Statistics (LEMAS), presents information on law enforcement agencies in the United States: state police, county police, special police (state and local), municipal police, and sheriff's departments. Variables include size of the population served by the police or sheriff's department, levels of employment and spending, various functions of the department, average salary levels for uniformed officers, policies and programs, and other matters related to management and personnel.
Curated
Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics (LEMAS): 2003 Sample Survey of Law Enforcement Agencies (ICPSR 4411)
Released/updated on: 2006-05-10
Geographic coverage: United States
The Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics (LEMAS) survey collects data from a nationally representative sample of publicly funded State and local law enforcement agencies in the United States. Data include agency personnel, expenditures and pay, operations, community policing initiatives, equipment, computers and information systems, and written policies. The LEMAS survey has been conducted in 1987, 1990, 1993, 1997, 1999 (limited scope), 2000, and 2003.
Curated
Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics (LEMAS), 2007 (ICPSR 31161)
Released/updated on: 2011-07-07
Geographic coverage: United States
Every three to four years, the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) surveys a nationally representative sample of state and local law enforcement agencies. The surveys are conducted as part of the Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics (LEMAS) program. Data include agency personnel, expenditures and pay, operations, community policing initiatives, equipment, computers and information systems, and written policies. The LEMAS survey has been conducted in 1987, 1990, 1993, 1997, 1999 (limited scope), 2000, 2003, and 2007.
Curated
Simple Crosstabs
Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics (LEMAS), 2013 (ICPSR 36164)
Released/updated on: 2015-09-22
Geographic coverage: United States
The Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics (LEMAS) survey collects data from a nationally representative sample of state and local law enforcement agencies in the United States. Although the data collection instrument (see page 150 of the codebook) uses the year 2012 for the title, most questions have a reference date of January 1, 2013. For this reason, the study title uses the year 2013. The 2013 LEMAS sample design called for the survey questionnaire to be sent to 3,336 general purpose state and local law enforcement agencies including 2,353 local police departments, 933 sheriffs' offices, and the 50 primary state law enforcement agencies. The design called for all agencies employing 100 or sworn personnel to be included with certainty (self-representing) and for smaller agencies to be sampled from strata base on number of officers employed. A total of 26 local police departments were determined to be out-of-scope for the survey because they were closed, outsourced, or operating on a part-time basis. A total of 38 sheriffs' offices were excluded from the survey because they had no primary law enforcement jurisdiction. The final mailout total of 3,272 agencies included 2,327 local police departments, 895 sheriffs' offices, and the 50 state agencies.
Curated
Simple Crosstabs
Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics (LEMAS), 2016 (ICPSR 37323)
Released/updated on: 2020-08-20
Geographic coverage: United States
The Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics (LEMAS) survey collects data from a nationally representative sample of general-purpose agencies (i.e., local and county police departments, sheriffs' offices, and primary state police agencies). The 2016 LEMAS sample design called for the survey questionnaire to be sent to 3,499 general purpose law enforcement agencies, including 2,640 local and county police departments, 810 sheriffs' offices, and the 49 primary state police departments (Hawaii does not have a primary state police agency). The design called for all agencies employing 100 or more full-time equivalent sworn personnel to be included with certainty (self-representing), and for smaller agencies to be sampled from strata based on number of full-time equivalent sworn officers and type of agency. A total of 28 local police departments were determined to be out-of-scope for the survey because they had closed, had less than one full-time equivalent sworn officer, had contracted out their services with another law enforcement agency, or only had special enforcement responsibilities. The final mail out total of 3,471 agencies included 2,612 local police departments, 810 sheriffs' offices, and the 49 state agencies.
Curated
Simple Crosstabs
Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics (LEMAS), 2020 (ICPSR 38651)
Released/updated on: 2023-03-07
Geographic coverage: United States
The Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics (LEMAS) survey collects data from a nationally representative sample of general-purpose agencies (i.e., local and county police departments, sheriffs' offices, and primary state police agencies). The 2020 LEMAS sample design called for the survey questionnaire to be sent to 3,499 general purpose law enforcement agencies, including 2,631 local and county police departments, 819 sheriffs' offices, and the 49 primary state police departments (Hawaii does not have a primary state police agency). The design called for all agencies employing 100 or more full-time equivalent sworn personnel to be included with certainty (self-representing), and for smaller agencies to be sampled from strata based on number of full-time equivalent sworn officers and type of agency. A total of 37 local police departments were determined to be out-of-scope for the survey because they had closed, had less than one full-time equivalent sworn officer, had contracted out their services with another law enforcement agency, or only had special enforcement responsibilities. The final mail out total of 3,462 agencies included 2,611 local police departments, 802 sheriffs' offices, and the 49 state agencies.
Curated
National Assessment Program Survey of Criminal Justice Personnel in the United States, 1986 (ICPSR 9923)
Released/updated on: 2006-01-12
Geographic coverage: United States
This survey probed the needs and problems facing local criminal justice practitioners. Within each sampled county, survey questionnaires were distributed to the police chief of the largest city, the sheriff, the jail administrator, the prosecutor, the chief trial court judge, the trial court administrator (where applicable), and probation and parole agency heads. Although the general topics covered in the questionnaires are similar, specific items are not repeated across the questionnaires, except for those given to the sheriffs and the police chiefs. The sheriffs surveyed were those with law enforcement responsibilities, so the questions asked of the police chiefs and the sheriffs were identical. The questionnaires were tailored to each group of respondents, and dealt with five general areas: (1) background characteristics, including staff size, budget totals, and facility age, (2) criminal justice system problems, (3) prison crowding, (4) personnel issues such as training needs and programs, and (5) operations and procedures including management, management information, and the specific operations in which the respondents were involved. In some cases, sets of question items were grouped into question batteries that dealt with specific topic areas (e.g., staff recruitment, judicial training, and number of personnel). For example, the Staff Recruitment battery items in the Probation and Parole Questionnaire asked respondents to use a 4 point scale to indicate the seriousness of each of the following problems: low salaries, poor image of corrections work, high entrance requirements, location of qualified staff, shortage of qualified minority applicants, and hiring freezes.
Curated
National Manpower Survey, 1973-1976 (ICPSR 7675)
Released/updated on: 1992-02-16
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1973-01-01--1976-01-01
This data collection contains information from a series of national surveys, conducted simultaneously across the criminal justice system, to ascertain national manpower strengths and goals, agency information and characteristics, and attitudes of the agency heads during the period 1973-1976. The National Manpower Survey was undertaken to assess the adequacy of existing federal, state, and local training and education programs meeting current personnel needs in various law enforcement and criminal justice functions and operations. The study intended to project future personnel and training needs, by occupation, in relation to anticipated availability of qualified personnel in order to assess the future adequacy of training and educational resources. It also sought to establish "needs priorities" as a basis for future training and academic assistance programs to be funded by the Bureau of Justice Statistics. The study design systematically covered the personnel needs in all state and local governmental agencies that were part of the law enforcement and criminal justice system. Sectors within the system included: (1) law enforcement, consisting of police departments and sheriff's agencies, ranging in size from one-person constabularies to large city departments employing 20,000 or more individuals, (2) corrections, including both adult and juvenile correctional institutions and agencies, and (3) the judicial process, including a wide range of courts with varying jurisdictions and scope, district attorneys or prosecutors' offices, and public defenders' offices. For this study, the Bureau of Social Science Research was responsible for the acquisition and assessment of existing statistical data as well as the design and execution of systematic mail surveys of agencies, officials, and employees within the law enforcement/criminal justice system. Nine nationwide surveys were directed to executives in criminal justice agencies, including chiefs of police (in both large and small departments), sheriffs (in both large and small departments), chief prosecutors, chief defenders, court administrators, wardens of adult correctional facilities, directors of juvenile correctional facilities, and chief probation and parole officers. Two additional surveys were sent to general and appellate jurisdiction courts. In the nine surveys directed to criminal justice executives, the instruments asked respondents for (1) an overall assessment of manpower problems, including personnel categories in which critical shortages might exist, and total personnel required to fulfill all agency duties and responsibilities, (2) desired and actual entry level standards, as well as entry level and in-service training content and requirements, (3) demographic, educational, training, and occupational background information about the executive respondent, (4) opinions about major obstacles to effectiveness and attitudes toward various issues such as team policing, plea bargaining, and computer-assisted case management, and (5) a fact sheet section dealing with agency employment by occupational category, salaries, and workloads. Each of the remaining two surveys was a census of general and appellate jurisdiction courts designed to yield basic statistical information regarding the courts and court systems' current staffing, training activities, and caseloads, and did not seek any attitudinal or subjective responses. Thus the agency itself was the reporting unit, with the respondent required only to be in a position to provide accurate, reliable information.
Curated
Restricted
National Prosecutors Survey, 1996 (ICPSR 2433)
Released/updated on: 2005-11-04
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1996-01-01--1996-12-31
The National Survey of Prosecutors is a biennial survey of chief prosecutors in state court systems. A chief prosecutor is an official, usually locally elected and typically with the title of district attorney or county attorney, who is in charge of a prosecutorial district made up of one or more counties, and who conducts or supervises the prosecution of felony cases in a state court system. Prosecutors in courts of limited jurisdiction, such as municipal prosecutors, were not included in the survey. The survey's purpose was to obtain detailed descriptive information on prosecutors' offices, as well as information on their policies and practices. The data collection instrument was based on questions that were included in the NATIONAL PROSECUTORS SURVEY, 1994 (ICPSR 6785), and also added queries on topics of current concern. Variables cover staffing, workload, funding, what type of computer access the office had, whether the office was part of an integrated computerized system with other specific criminal agencies, the use of DNA evidence in plea negotiations of felony trials, which laboratories performed these DNA analyses, juvenile matters, and risks associated with the role of the prosecutor, such as threatening letters or calls, face-to-face assaults, or batter/assaults. The unit of analysis is the district office.
Curated
National Prosecutors Survey, 2005 (ICPSR 4600)
Released/updated on: 2007-02-23
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 2005-01-01--2005-12-31
The National Survey of Prosecutors is a biennial survey of chief prosecutors in state court systems. A chief prosecutor is an official, usually locally elected and typically with the title of district attorney or county attorney, who is in charge of a prosecutorial district made up of one or more counties, and who conducts or supervises the prosecution of felony cases in a state court system. Prosecutors in courts of limited jurisdiction, such as municipal prosecutors, were not included in the survey. The survey's purpose was to obtain detailed descriptive information on prosecutors' offices, as well as information on their policies and practices. The data collection instrument was based on questions that were included in the NATIONAL PROSECUTORS SURVEY, 1994 (ICPSR 6785), and added queries on topics of current concern. Variables cover staffing, workload, funding, what type of computer access the office had, whether the office was part of an integrated computerized system with other specific criminal agencies, the use of DNA evidence in plea negotiations of felony trials, which laboratories performed these DNA analyses, juvenile matters, and risks associated with the role of the prosecutor, such as threatening letters or calls, face-to-face assaults, or batter/assaults. The unit of analysis is the district office.
Curated
National Prosecutors Survey [Census], 2007 (ICPSR 33202)
Released/updated on: 2012-05-14
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 2007-01-01--2007-12-31
The 2007 Census of State Court Prosecutors marked the second BJS survey of all prosecutors' offices in the United States. The first census, conducted in 2001, included the 2,341 offices in operation at that time. The second census included the 2,330 state court prosecutors' offices operating in 2007. Neither census included offices of municipal attorneys or county attorneys, who primarily operate in courts of limited jurisdiction. State court prosecutors serve in the executive branch of state governments and handle felony cases in state courts of general jurisdiction. By law, these prosecutors are afforded broad discretion in determining who is charged with an offense and whether a case goes to trial. The chief prosecutor, also referred to as the district attorney, county attorney, commonwealth attorney, or state's attorney, represents the state in criminal cases and is answerable to the public as an elected or appointed public official. The Office of the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia is the only federal prosecutor included in the census. This unique office is responsible for prosecution of serious local crimes committed in the District and also for prosecution of federal cases, whether criminal or civil.
Curated
National Survey of DNA Crime Laboratories, 1998 (ICPSR 2879)
Released/updated on: 2005-11-04
Geographic coverage: United States
This study reports findings from a survey of publicly operated forensic crime labs that perform deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) testing. The survey includes questions about each lab's budget, personnel, workload, and operating policies and procedures. Data were obtained from 108 out of 120 estimated known labs, including all statewide labs.
Curated
National Survey of DNA Crime Laboratories, 2001 (ICPSR 3550)
Released/updated on: 2005-11-04
Geographic coverage: United States
This study contains data from a survey of publicly operated forensic crime labs that perform deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) testing. The survey was a follow-up to the initial survey of DNA crime labs in 1998 (ICPSR study 2879). The survey included questions about each lab's budget, personnel, procedures, equipment, and workloads in terms of known subject cases, unknown subject cases, and convicted offender DNA samples. The survey was sent to 135 forensic laboratories, and 124 responses were received from individual public laboratories and headquarters for statewide forensic crime laboratory systems. The responses included 110 publicly funded forensic laboratories that performed DNA testing in 47 states.
Curated
Simple Crosstabs
Pilot Study of State and Federal Digital Evidence Laboratories, [United States], 2014 (ICPSR 37055)
Released/updated on: 2018-10-18
Geographic coverage: United States
The Pilot Study of State and Federal Digital Evidence Laboratories data collection contains data collected in 2015 as part of the Census of Publicly Funded Forensic Crime Laboratories (CPFFCL). The CPFFCL examined the forensic services provided by publicly funded crime labs across the nation and the resources devoted to completing the work.
To capture more information about an emerging forensic science discipline known as digital evidence, the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) expanded the scope of the 2014 CPFFCL from previous data collections to include a separate pilot study of state and federal agencies that solely analyzed digital evidence in support of criminal investigations and prosecutions. These agencies obtained digital and multimedia evidence in various formats, including audio, video, and graphical images from computers, cell phones, cameras, and other electronic devices. The traditional CPFFCL definition of a crime lab limited the information collected about digital evidence since some agencies only handle this type of evidence and employ forensic experts with training in computer science or information technology as opposed to natural sciences such as chemistry and biology.
The census collected detailed information on laboratory staff, budgets, workloads, and backlogs in requests for forensic services. The census also provides data on lab accreditations, proficiency tests, and other quality assurances.
Curated
Survey of Campus Law Enforcement Agencies, 1995: [United States] (ICPSR 6846)
Released/updated on: 2005-11-04
Geographic coverage: United States
In 1995, to determine the nature of law enforcement services provided on campus, the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) surveyed four-year institutions of higher education in the United States with 2,500 or more students. This survey describes nearly 600 of these campus law enforcement agencies in terms of their personnel, expenditures and pay, operations, equipment, computers and information systems, policies, and special programs. The survey was based on the BJS Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics (LEMAS) program, which collected similar data from a national sample of state and local law enforcement agencies.
Curated
Survey of Campus Law Enforcement Agencies, 2004-2005: [United States] (ICPSR 27261)
Released/updated on: 2010-03-09
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 2004-01-01--2005-01-01
This survey covered the 2004-2005 academic year and collected data from law enforcement agencies using sworn police officers and those using only non-sworn security officers. Agencies serving 4-year United States universities and colleges with a fall 2004 enrollment of 2,500 or more, and those serving 2-year public colleges with a fall 2004 enrollment of 10,000 or more were surveyed. United States military academies and for-profit institutions were excluded. Data were collected in conjunction with the 2004 BJS Census of State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies. The survey instrument was patterned after the BJS Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics survey. Data were collected describing campus law enforcement agencies, including personnel, expenditures and pay, operations, equipment, computers and information systems, policies, and special programs. BJS conducted an earlier survey of campus law enforcement agencies, covering the 1994-1995 school year. Users can access the data collection from the ICPSR Web site (ICPSR 6846).
Curated
Simple Crosstabs
Survey of Campus Law Enforcement Agencies, 2011-2012 (ICPSR 36217)
Released/updated on: 2015-08-13
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 2011-01-01--2012-01-01
These data are from the Bureau of Justice Statistics' (BJS) 2011- 12 Survey of Campus Law Enforcement Agencies. In preparation for the survey, a universe list of 4-year and 2-year campuses was compiled using the United States Department of Education's Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS).
The survey focused primarily on agencies serving 4-year universities and colleges with a fall headcount enrollment of 2,500 or more. In addition, 2-year institutions with 2,500 or more students and a sample of 4-year institutions with 1,000 to 2,499 students were surveyed. These campuses are covered in a separate report. Schools were classified according to the level of the highest proportion of degrees awarded. The survey excluded:
- United States military academies and schools,
- for-profit institutions,
- schools operating primarily online.
Of the 905 4-year campuses with 2,500 or more students identified as being potentially eligible for the 2011-12 survey, 861 reported that they were operating their own campus law enforcement agency. These 861 agencies were asked to provide data describing their personnel, functions, expenditures and pay, operations, equipment, computers and information systems, community policing activities, specialized units, and emergency preparedness activities. ICF International, with the assistance of BJS, served as the data collection agent. BJS also conducted surveys of campus law enforcement agencies covering the 1994-95 and 2004-05 school years. The reports produced from these surveys are available on the BJS Web site and data are available on the ICPSR Web site.
Curated
Simple Crosstabs
Survey of Campus Law Enforcement Agencies, 2021-2022: [United States] (ICPSR 39452)
Released/updated on: 2026-04-09
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 2021-01-01--2022-01-01
These data are from the Bureau of Justice Statistics' (BJS) 2021-2022 Survey of Campus Law Enforcement Agencies (SCLEA). The 2021 SCLEA was conducted as a census of campus law enforcement agencies serving public and private 4-year and 2-year institutions offering in-person instruction with more than 1,000 full-time students. Respondents provided data on agency personnel, functions, technology and communication, training, and equipment and techniques. BJS also conducted surveys of campus law enforcement agencies covering the 1994-95 (ICPSR 6846), 2004-05 (ICPSR 27261), and 2011-12 (ICPSR 36217) school years. The reports produced from these surveys are available on the BJS Web site and data are available on the ICPSR Web site.