Search results

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

This study examined how police managers would use information about their officers' performance in procedural justice terms. The project provided for the injection of citizen assessment of service quality into systems of police performance measurement and accountability. Information on the quality of police-citizen encounters was drawn from surveys of citizens who had contact with the police in each of two cities, Schenectady and Syracuse, New York. Following the accumulation of survey data to form a baseline, survey results on citizens' satisfaction and judgments about procedural justice in their police contacts were summarized and reported to command staffs on a monthly basis through the departments' respective Compstat meetings. In this way the project provided for measures of police performance with respect to procedural justice with sufficient periodicity that the information was potentially useful in managing performance.

The study addressed four specific questions:

1. Does performance on these outcomes - procedural justice and citizen satisfaction - improve when information on these outcomes is incorporated into departments' systems of performance measurement and accountability?
2. What do police managers do with this information, and how (if at all) are field supervisors and patrol officers affected by it?
3. Are survey-based measures of citizens' subjective experiences valid measures of police performance, that is, do they reflect the procedural justice with which police act?
4. Can survey based measures be deployed economically (e.g., through targeted sampling), and can other, less expensive measures of the quality of police-citizen encounters be substituted for survey-based measures?

To answer these questions, researches used a mixed methods data collection plan. In both Schenectady and Syracuse, a survey was administered to people who had recent contact with the police. Semi-monthly samples were randomly drawn from police records of calls for service, stops, and arrests from mid-July, 2011, through mid-January, 2013. Across the 18 months of surveying, 3,603 interviews were completed. Also carried out, was a survey of key informants in each city - neighborhood association leaders - in order to extend the assessment of public perceptions of the local police beyond those who have direct contact with police to the larger community. Interviews with patrol officers and supervisors were also conducted in both sites, once at about the mid-point of the 18-month police services survey and again at the conclusion of the surveying. Interviews were conducted with the commanders shortly after the project was introduced to them in October of 2011. Finally, in Schenectady, "armchair" observation of a subset of the 1,800 encounters about which the citizen had already been interviewed was conducted.

The collection contains 7 SPSS data files and 6 Syntax files:

1. archive_Census_beat.sav (n=30; 28 variables)
2. archive_keyinformant_analysis.sps
3. archive_keyinformant_survey.sav (n=90; 28 variables)
4. archive_obs_byenc.sav (n=476; 79 variables)
5. archive_obs_byobserver.sav (n=1,078; 476 variables)
6. archive_obs_enc_analysis.sps
7. archive_obs_enc_var_construction.sps
8. archive_police_data.sav (n=3,603; 9 variables)
9. archive_policeservices_survey_analysis.sps
10. archive_policeservices_survey_closed.sav (n=3,603; 148 variables)
11. archive_policeservices_survey_open.sav (n=1,218; 23 variables)
12. archive_policeservices_survey_var_construction.sps
13. Syntax to replicate results - list by table.pdf

For confidentiality reasons, the qualitative interviews with citizens, police sergeants, patrol officers, and commanders regarding their experiences are not available as part of this collection.

The Drug Market Intervention (DMI) has been identified as a promising practice for disrupting overt-drug markets, reducing the crime and disorder associated with drug sales, and improving police-community relations. Montgomery County, Maryland; Flint, Michigan; Guntersville, Alabama; Lake County, Indiana; Jacksonville, Florida; New Orleans, Louisiana; and Roanoke, Virginia applied for and received DMI training and technical assistance from Michigan State University in 2010 and 2011. This study followed the seven sites that were trained in the program to determine how the program was implemented, how the DMI affected the targeted drug market, whether the program affected crime and disorder, whether the program improved police-community relations, and how much the program cost.

This project assesses the effectiveness of a one-day, 5-hour workshop (ESSI training, hereafter) designed for joint instruction by school staff and police to all school staff. The goal was to promote positive outcomes and reduce police involvement in interactions between staff and students exhibiting inappropriate behavior through increased staff awareness of youth behavior, the functions of the juvenile justice system, and disproportionate minority contact (DMC) in disciplinary action.

1,024 school staff participated in 51 ESSI training sessions throughought the 2015/16 academic year, which also serves as the training year in the longitudinal data. Schools which did not participate in the training served as controls for the participating school. Data were drawn from a panel of students enrolled in either a training or control school, with ten schools in each group. Data on this panel of students was collected for a five-year period, from the 2013/14 through the 2017/18 academic years.

School-level data serves as the unit of analysis, as the study's main goal was to test the effects of training on school-wide outcomes. The estimated coefficient indicates small attendance reductions during the post-training phase for the training group. This indicates that most of the differences between the training and control group were statistically insignificant and that there was no pattern of statistically significant positive effects across the training schools. The second set of analyses, performed on student-level data, indicates that male and minority students are more likely to be involved in disciplinary incidents and to receive suspensions or expulsions as a consequence of their behaviors than White and female students.

This study examines whether or not prior experiences with the police, both directly and indirectly through the experiences of others, can influence one's decision to report a crime. Data from the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) was linked with the Police-Public Contact Survey (PPCS) to construct a dataset of the police-related experiences of crime victims and non-victims. Variables include information on the prevalence, frequency, and the nature of respondents' encounters with the police in the prior year, as well as respondents' personal and household victimization experiences that occurred after the administration of the PPCS, including whether the crime was reported to the police. Demographic variables include age, race, gender, education, and socioeconomic status.

The ICPSR's holdings for both the NCVS and the PPCS are available in the NCVS series.

The Enhancing Procedural Justness of Encounters Through Substantiation (EPJETS) project was a collaborative initiative between researchers from Stockton, Rutgers, and Northwestern Universities and the police departments of Atlantic City and Pleasantville, New Jersey that aimed to test whether incorporating principles of procedural justice, sharing body-worn camera (BWC) footage with drivers following traffic stops, and strategically targeting identified high-traffic crash locations for enforcement could improve public trust and perceptions of police legitimacy. Between October 2022 and June 2024, the study evaluated 1,423 traffic stops conducted for speeding violations by comparing standard enforcement protocols to a novel procedural justice-based intervention. Drivers who were speeding were surveyed immediately after the stop by researchers to determine whether the EPJETS protocol positively affected their perceptions of officer treatment and the effectiveness of BWCs.

The Finn Institute is an independent, not-for-profit corporation that conducts research on matters of public safety and security. The project provided for steps that would strengthen and enhance an existing police-researcher partnership, focused around analyses of proactive policing. As part of a research partnership with the Albany Police Department (APD) and the Finn Institute, this study was oriented around a basic research question: can proactive policing be conducted more efficiently, in the sense that a better ratio of high-value to lower-value stops is achieved, such that the trade-off between crime reduction and police community relations is mitigated.

Albany Resident Survey Dataset (DS1) unit of analysis was individuals. Variables include neighborhood crime and disorder, legitimacy and satisfaction with police service, and direct and vicarious experience with stop and perceptions of stops as a problem. Demographic variables include age, race, education, employment, marital status, and household count.

Management of "Smart Stops" Dataset (DS2) unit of analysis was investigatory stops; variables include records of individual stops, the month and year of the stop, whether the location of the stop was a high-crime location, whether the person stopped (or any of the persons stopped, if multiple people were stopped at one time) were high-risk, and whether the stop resulted in an arrest.

Trends in Proactive Policing Dataset (DS3) unit of analysis was APD officers. Variables include number of stops per quarter; variables include demographics such as officer characteristics such as their assignments, length of service, and gender.

This project aimed to develop new insights into offender decision-making in hot spots in New York City, and to test whether these insights could inform interventions to reduce crime in hot spots. There were two phases to the project. In the first phase a set of hypotheses were developed about offender decision-making based on semi-structured interviews with individuals who were currently incarcerated, formerly incarcerated individuals, individuals currently on probation, and community members of high crime areas with no justice-involvement. These interviews suggested several factors worthy of further testing. For instance, offenders believed they were less likely to get away with a crime if they knew more about the officers in their community. That is, when police officers were less anonymous, offenders were less likely to go forward with a crime.

In the second phase a field intervention was developed and conducted to test whether reducing officer anonymity might deter crime. Through a randomized controlled trial (RCT) while working with NYPD neighborhood coordination officers, who work in New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) developments, it was tested whether sending information about officers to residents in housing developments would deter crime in those developments.

The Law Enforcement and Family Support program consists of multi-dimensional stress management services for law enforcement personnel within the state of Tennessee. The Tennessee Sheriffs' Association was awarded a grant to develop, demonstrate, and test innovative stress-reduction and support programs for State or local law enforcement personnel and their families. Over an 18-month period, a framework of stress-related services on a statewide basis for law enforcement personnel and their families was developed. The services cover a range of activities from on-scene defusings to group therapy for families, children, and couples. Its focus is the early recognition and provision of services, which preserves confidentiality while utilizing extensive peer support. The program implemented a model for a stress reduction program at regional law enforcement training academies and produced a text/workbook for educating new recruits and their families on stress related topics. In addition, this program incorporated a monitoring and evaluation component, which consisted of three studies, a Baseline Study, a Critical Incident Stress Debriefing (C.I.S.D.) Study, and an Evaluation of C.I.S.D. Peer and Family Teams Study, all of which utilized a design that attempted to test the efficacy of services provided to law enforcement personnel and their families and are described in more detail below.

Baseline Study (Dataset 1) - A baseline survey, the Tennessee Law Enforcement Officer Questionnaire, was developed and distributed to officers in a randomly selected number of departments from each of three regions: West, Middle, and East. The agencies from each region were matched based on demographics such as number of sworn officers. In addition to demographic information, participants were asked to identify their awareness of 19 services that may be offered by their agency as well as the utilization and willingness to use these services. The final section of the questionnaire asked participants to identify post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms that they may have experienced after a critical incident on the job. All law enforcement agencies in Tennessee were organized into groups based on type of agency (City, County, State). Agencies from each group were randomly selected. A summary of the data from Time 1 provides Tennessee with a baseline of the current awareness, utilization, and willingness to use services. In addition, this data provides an understanding of the number of critical incidents that law enforcement officers in Tennessee have experienced as well as the potential to which these incidences have impacted officers' perception of their performance.

Critical Incident Stress Debriefing (C.I.S.D.) Study (Datasets 2 and 3) - The goal of this portion of the project was to determine the effectiveness of critical incidents stress debriefing (CISD) as a means to assist officers in dealing with the negative effects of exposure to a critical incident. To identify the effectiveness of the CISD intervention as well as the support programs in each region, information was collected from officers who participated in a debriefing at three time periods (i.e. prior to CISD, 2-weeks after CISD, 3-months after CISD). The Western region received only Critical Incident Stress Debriefing (CISD), the Eastern region received CISD, and Peer Support, and the Middle region received CISD, Peer Support, and Family Support. Participants were asked to identify what services they and their family may have used (e.g. EAP, Counseling, Family Support Team, Peer Support Team, Training Seminar). Additionally, participants were asked to identify any health problems they experienced since the incident, and lost work time as a result of the incident. A CISD Team member identified the type of critical incident that the officer experienced.

Evaluation of the C.I.S.D. Peer and Family Teams Study (Dataset 4) - The goal of this section of the evaluation process was to identify the impact that the three Teams had on participants. Specifically participants' perception of the usefulness of the Teams and what was gained from their interaction with the Teams was to be measured. Initially, the Team evaluation forms were to be filled out by every individual who participated in a debriefing at the 2-week and 3-month periods. Asking participants to complete Team evaluations at these time periods would allow participants in the Middle region to have exposure to the Family Support and Peer Support Teams, and participants in the Eastern region to have exposure to a Peer Support Team. The procedure was modified so that Team evaluations were conducted at the completion of the project. The evaluation first asked the participant to identify if they had been contacted by a member of a Team (CISD, Peer, Family).

The Part 1 (Baseline) data public and restricted files contain 5,425 cases and 157 variables. The Part 2 (Critical Incident Stress Debriefing) data public and restricted files contain 329 cases and 189 variables. The Part 3 (Critical Incident Stress Debriefing Matched Cases) data public and restricted files contain 236 cases and 354 variables. The Part 4 (Evaluation of CISD Peer and Family Teams) data public and restricted files contain 81 cases and 24 variables.

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.

These data were collected as part of an effort to gain a more in depth understanding of the processes surrounding disengagement from a youth gang, and come from structured interviews with their parent or guardian. The interview included such topics as parental monitoring practices, attitudes about the youth's peer group, and perceptions about the neighborhood. Study participants lived in seven geographically diverse cities in the United States, making it one of few multi-site studies of gangs or gang members.

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 gathered information from police officers and residents of four different community areas that had undergone some form of police consolidation or contracting. The communities were the city of Pontiac in Michigan; the cities of Chisago and Lindstrom in Minnesota; York and Windsor Townships and the boroughs of Felton, Jacobus, Yoe, Red Lion, and Windsor in Pennsylvania; and the city of Compton in California. Surveys were administered to gauge the implementation and effectiveness of three models of police consolidation: merger of agencies, regionalization under which two or more agencies join to provide services in a broader area, and contracting by municipalities with other organizations for police services.

The collection includes 5 SPSS files:

• ComptonFinal_Masked-by-ICPSR.sav (176 cases / 99 variables)
• MinnesotaFinal_Masked-by-ICPSR.sav (228 cases / 99 variables)
• PontiacFinal_Masked-by-ICPSR.sav (230 cases / 99 variables)
• YorkFinal_Masked-by-ICPSR.sav (219 cases / 99 variables)
• OfficerWebFINALrecodesaug2015revised_Masked-by-ICPSR.sav (139 cases / 88 variables)

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 purpose of the study was to implement a "platform-based" methodology for collecting data about police organizations and the communities they serve with the goals of generating in-depth standardized information about police organizations, personnel and practices and to help move policing in the direction of evidence-based "learning-organizations" by providing judicious feedback to police agencies and policy makers. The research team conducted three web-based Law Enforcement Organizations (LEO) surveys of sworn and civilian law enforcement employees (LEO Survey A Data, n=22,765; LEO Survey B Data, n=15,825; and LEO Survey C Data, n=16,483). The sample was drawn from the 2007 Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics (LEMAS) database. Agencies with 100 to 3,000 sworn police personnel were eligible for participation. To collect data for the Police-Community Interaction (PCI) survey (PCI Data, n=16,659), each week department employees extracted names and addresses of persons who had recent contact with a police officer because of a reported crime incident, traffic accident or traffic stop. Typically, the surveys were completed within two to four weeks of the encounter.

This project is concerned with understanding the determinants of racial bias in police traffic stops and in the city of Syracuse, New York. Using an officer-level panel of data on vehicle stops and vehicle searches by 512 officers from 2006 to 2009, the primary goal of this research is to better understand the effects of officer experience on their proclivities for racial bias in traffic stops, while controlling for officer, citizen, and neighborhood demographics.

Included in these data are variables for census tracts as well as their racial and ethnic makeup, times and dates when traffic stops occurred, sunrise and sunset data for the City of Syracuse, and the racial and ethnic makeup of citizens involved in stops.

The Police-Public Contact Survey (PPCS) provides detailed information on the nature and characteristics of face-to-face contacts between police and the public, including the reason for and outcome of the contact. The PPCS interviews a nationally representative sample of United States residents aged 16 years or older as a supplement to the National Crime Victimization Survey. To date, the PPCS has been conducted five times by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS):

• The first survey -- described in the BJS publication Police Use of Force: Collection of National Data (NCJ 165040) -- documented levels of contacts with police during 1996.
• The second survey -- described in Contacts between Police and the Public: Findings from the 1999 National Survey (NCJ 184957) -- recorded police-citizen contacts in 1999. These data are archived as POLICE-PUBLIC CONTACT SURVEY, 1999: [UNITED STATES] (ICPSR 3151).
• The third survey -- described in Contacts between Police and the Public: Findings from the 2002 National Survey (NCJ 207845) -- covered interactions between police and the public in 2002. These data are archived as POLICE-PUBLIC CONTACT SURVEY, 2002: [UNITED STATES] (ICPSR 4273).
• The fourth survey -- described in the BJS publication, Contacts between Police and the Public, 2005 (NCJ 215243) -- covered interactions between police and the public in 2005. These data are archived as POLICE-PUBLIC CONTACT SURVEY, 2005: [UNITED STATES] (ICPSR 20020).
• The fifth survey -- described in the BJS publication, Contacts between Police and the Public, 2008 (NCJ 234599) -- covered interactions between police and the public in 2008. These data are archived as POLICE-PUBLIC CONTACT SURVEY, 2008 (ICPSR 32022).

The Police-Public Contact Survey (PPCS) provides detailed information on the nature and characteristics of face-to-face contacts between police and the public, including the reason for and outcome of the contact. The PPCS interviews a nationally representative sample of U.S. residents age 16 or older as a supplement to the National Crime Victimization Survey. To date, the PPCS has been conducted six times by BJS:

The first survey - described in the BJS publication Police Use of Force: Collection of National Data (NCJ 165040) - documented levels of contacts with police during 1996.

The second survey - described in Contacts between Police and the Public: Findings from the 1999 National Survey (NCJ 184957) - recorded police-citizen contacts in 1999. These data are archived as POLICE-PUBLIC CONTACT SURVEY, 1999: [UNITED STATES] (ICPSR 3151).

The third survey - described in Contacts between Police and the Public: Findings from the 2002 National Survey (NCJ 207845) - covered interactions between police and the public in 2002. These data are archived as POLICE-PUBLIC CONTACT SURVEY, 2002: [UNITED STATES] (ICPSR 4273).

The fourth survey - described in the BJS publication Contacts between Police and the Public, 2005 (NCJ 215243) - covered interactions between police and the public in 2005. These data are archived as POLICE-PUBLIC CONTACT SURVEY, 2005: [UNITED STATES] (ICPSR 020020).

The fifth survey - described in the BJS publication Contacts between Police and the Public, 2008 (NCJ 234599) - covered interactions between police and the public in 2008. These data are archived as POLICE-PUBLIC CONTACT SURVEY, 2008 (ICPSR 32022).

The sixth survey (split sample design due to instrument changes) - new instrument findings described in two publications: Police Behavior During Traffic and Street Stops, 2011 (NCJ 242937) and Requests for Police Assistance, 2011 (NCJ 242938) - covered interactions between police and publice and public perceptions of police in 2011. These data are archived as POLICE-PUBLIC CONTACT SURVEY, 2011 (ICPSR 34276).

The Police-Public Contact Survey (PPCS) provides detailed information on the nature and characteristics of face-to-face contacts between police and the public, including the reason for and outcome of the contact and the respondent's satisfaction with the contact. The data can be used to estimate the likelihood of different types of contact for residents with different demographic characteristics, including contacts involving the use of nonfatal force by police. The PPCS is used to collect data from a nationally representative sample of U.S. residents age 16 or older as a supplement to the National Crime Victimization Survey. To date, the PPCS has been conducted seven times by BJS:

1. 1996. Described in the BJS publication Police Use of Force: Collection of National Data (NCJ 165040).

2. 1999. Described in Contacts between Police and the Public: Findings from the 1999 National Survey (NCJ 184957). These data are archived as POLICE-PUBLIC CONTACT SURVEY, 1999: [UNITED STATES] (ICPSR 3151).

3. 2002. Described in Contacts between Police and the Public: Findings from the 2002 National Survey (NCJ 207845). These data are archived as POLICE-PUBLIC CONTACT SURVEY, 2002: [UNITED STATES] (ICPSR 4273).

4. 2005. Described in the BJS publication Contacts between Police and the Public, 2005 (NCJ 215243). These data are archived as POLICE-PUBLIC CONTACT SURVEY, 2005: [UNITED STATES] (ICPSR 020020).

5. 2008. Described in the BJS publication Contacts between Police and the Public, 2008 (NCJ 234599). These data are archived as POLICE-PUBLIC CONTACT SURVEY, 2008 (ICPSR 32022).

6. 2011. Split sample design due to instrument changes. New instrument findings described in two publications: Police Behavior During Traffic and Street Stops, 2011 (NCJ 242937) and Requests for Police Assistance, 2011 (NCJ 242938). These data are archived as POLICE-PUBLIC CONTACT SURVEY, 2011 (ICPSR 34276).

7. 2015. Described in the BJS publication Contacts between Police and Public, 2015 (NCJ 251145). These data are archived as POLICE-PUBLIC CONTACT SURVEY, 2015 (ICPSR 36653).

The Police-Public Contact Survey (PPCS) provides detailed information on the nature and characteristics of face-to-face contacts between police and the public, including the reason for and outcome of the contact and the respondent's satisfaction with the contact. The data can be used to estimate the likelihood of different types of contact for residents with different demographic characteristics, including contacts involving the use of nonfatal force by police. The PPCS is used to collect data from a nationally representative sample of U.S. residents age 16 or older as a supplement to the National Crime Victimization Survey. To date, the PPCS has been conducted eight times by BJS:

1. 1996. Described in the BJS publication Police Use of Force: Collection of National Data (NCJ 165040).

2. 1999. Described in Contacts between Police and the Public: Findings from the 1999 National Survey (NCJ 184957). These data are archived as POLICE-PUBLIC CONTACT SURVEY, 1999: [UNITED STATES] (ICPSR 3151).

3. 2002. Described in Contacts between Police and the Public: Findings from the 2002 National Survey (NCJ 207845). These data are archived as POLICE-PUBLIC CONTACT SURVEY, 2002: [UNITED STATES] (ICPSR 4273).

4. 2005. Described in the BJS publication Contacts between Police and the Public, 2005 (NCJ 215243). These data are archived as POLICE-PUBLIC CONTACT SURVEY, 2005: [UNITED STATES] (ICPSR 020020).

5. 2008. Described in the BJS publication Contacts between Police and the Public, 2008 (NCJ 234599). These data are archived as POLICE-PUBLIC CONTACT SURVEY, 2008 (ICPSR 32022).

6. 2011. Split sample design due to instrument changes. New instrument findings described in two publications: Police Behavior During Traffic and Street Stops, 2011 (NCJ 242937) and Requests for Police Assistance, 2011 (NCJ 242938). These data are archived as POLICE-PUBLIC CONTACT SURVEY, 2011 (ICPSR 34276).

7. 2015. Described in the BJS publication Contacts between Police and Public, 2015 (NCJ 251145). These data are archived as POLICE-PUBLIC CONTACT SURVEY, 2015 (ICPSR 36653).

8. 2018.Described in the BJS publication Contacts between Police and Public, 2018. These data are archived as POLICE-PUBLIC CONTACT SURVEY, 2018 (ICPSR 37916).

The Police-Public Contact Survey (PPCS) provides detailed information on the nature and characteristics of face-to-face contacts between police and the public, including the reason for and outcome of the contact and the respondent's satisfaction with the contact. The data can be used to estimate the likelihood of different types of contact for residents with different demographic characteristics, including contacts involving the use of nonfatal force by police. The PPCS is used to collect data from a nationally representative sample of U.S. residents age 16 or older as a supplement to the National Crime Victimization Survey. To date, the PPCS has been conducted nine times by BJS:

1. 1996. Described in the BJS publication Police Use of Force: Collection of National Data (NCJ 165040).

2. 1999. Described in Contacts between Police and the Public: Findings from the 1999 National Survey (NCJ 184957). These data are archived as POLICE-PUBLIC CONTACT SURVEY, 1999: [UNITED STATES] (ICPSR 3151).

3. 2002. Described in Contacts between Police and the Public: Findings from the 2002 National Survey (NCJ 207845). These data are archived as POLICE-PUBLIC CONTACT SURVEY, 2002: [UNITED STATES] (ICPSR 4273).

4. 2005. Described in the BJS publication Contacts between Police and the Public, 2005 (NCJ 215243). These data are archived as POLICE-PUBLIC CONTACT SURVEY, 2005: [UNITED STATES] (ICPSR 20020).

5. 2008. Described in the BJS publication Contacts between Police and the Public, 2008 (NCJ 234599). These data are archived as POLICE-PUBLIC CONTACT SURVEY, 2008 (ICPSR 32022).

6. 2011. Split sample design due to instrument changes. New instrument findings described in two publications: Police Behavior During Traffic and Street Stops, 2011 (NCJ 242937) and Requests for Police Assistance, 2011 (NCJ 242938). These data are archived as POLICE-PUBLIC CONTACT SURVEY, 2011 (ICPSR 34276).

7. 2015. Described in the BJS publication Contacts between Police and Public, 2015 (NCJ 251145). These data are archived as POLICE-PUBLIC CONTACT SURVEY, 2015 (ICPSR 36653).

8. 2018. Described in the BJS publication Contacts between Police and Public, 2018. These data are archived as POLICE-PUBLIC CONTACT SURVEY, 2018 (ICPSR 37916).

9. 2020. Described in the BJS publication Contacts between Police and Public, 2020. These data are archived as POLICE-PUBLIC CONTACT SURVEY, 2020 (ICPSR 38320).

The Police-Public Contact Survey (PPCS) provides detailed information on the nature and characteristics of face-to-face contacts between police and the public, including the reason for and outcome of the contact and the respondent's satisfaction with the contact. The data can be used to estimate the likelihood of different types of contact for residents with different demographic characteristics, including contacts involving the use of nonfatal force by police. The PPCS is used to collect data from a nationally representative sample of U.S. residents age 16 or older as a supplement to the National Crime Victimization Survey. To date, the PPCS has been conducted ten times by BJS:

1. 1996. Described in the BJS publication Police Use of Force: Collection of National Data (NCJ 165040).

2. 1999. Described in Contacts between Police and the Public: Findings from the 1999 National Survey (NCJ 184957). These data are archived as POLICE-PUBLIC CONTACT SURVEY, 1999: [UNITED STATES] (ICPSR 3151).

3. 2002. Described in Contacts between Police and the Public: Findings from the 2002 National Survey (NCJ 207845). These data are archived as POLICE-PUBLIC CONTACT SURVEY, 2002: [UNITED STATES] (ICPSR 4273).

4. 2005. Described in the BJS publication Contacts between Police and the Public, 2005 (NCJ 215243). These data are archived as POLICE-PUBLIC CONTACT SURVEY, 2005: [UNITED STATES] (ICPSR 20020).

5. 2008. Described in the BJS publication Contacts between Police and the Public, 2008 (NCJ 234599). These data are archived as POLICE-PUBLIC CONTACT SURVEY, 2008 (ICPSR 32022).

6. 2011. Split sample design due to instrument changes. New instrument findings described in two publications: Police Behavior During Traffic and Street Stops, 2011 (NCJ 242937) and Requests for Police Assistance, 2011 (NCJ 242938). These data are archived as POLICE-PUBLIC CONTACT SURVEY, 2011 (ICPSR 34276).

7. 2015. Described in the BJS publication Contacts between Police and Public, 2015 (NCJ 251145). These data are archived as POLICE-PUBLIC CONTACT SURVEY, 2015 (ICPSR 36653).

8. 2018. Described in the BJS publication Contacts between Police and Public, 2018. These data are archived as POLICE-PUBLIC CONTACT SURVEY, 2018 (ICPSR 37916).

9. 2020. Described in the BJS publication Contacts between Police and Public, 2020. These data are archived as POLICE-PUBLIC CONTACT SURVEY, 2020 (ICPSR 38320).

10. 2022. Described in the BJS publication Contacts between Police and Public, 2022. These data are archived as POLICE-PUBLIC CONTACT SURVEY, 2022 (ICPSR 38872).

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 purpose of this study was to develop a research-based framework to guide police agencies in future selection, implementation, and use of technology. This project was conducted in three phases. First, an expert panel was convened to identify key policing technology and to ensure that the survey captured critical indicators of technology performance. Second, a nationally representative survey was administered to over 1,200 state and local law enforcement agencies. The survey explored policing strategies and activities as well as technology acquisition, use, and challenges.

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

This study applied an experimental design to examine the crime and short- and long-term community impact of different hot spots policing approaches in 71 residential crime hot spots in St Louis County, MO. Hot spots were selected using Part I and Part II incidents in the year preceding the study (2011). The design contrasted a traditional enforcement-oriented hot spots approach versus place-based problem solving responses expected to change the routine activities of places over the long term. Twenty hot spots were randomly assigned to collaborative problem solving, while 20 were randomly assigned to directed patrol. Thirty-one randomly assigned hot spots received standard police practices. The treatment lasted five months (June-October, 2012).

In order to assess community impact, researchers conducted 2,851 surveys of hot spots residents over three time points: March-May, 2012, at baseline; November 2012-January 2013, immediately following treatment; and May-July 2013, six to nine months after treatment concluded. In addition to collecting data on the crime and community effects, the study also collected data on the time officers spent in hot spots and the activities performed while on directed patrol. Officers were surveyed to learn their views about implementing hot spots policing.

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

This study interviewed young men living in New York City about their experiences being stopped by the police on the street or in their cars. It examined how experience with the police as well as general evaluations of police policies, practices and behaviors in the respondent's neighborhood shaped views about police legitimacy, and law related behavior, such as compliance with the law and cooperation with legal authorities.

This study looks at the impact of police departments' organizational and managerial characteristics on police-community relations. Particular attention is paid to communities of color in the analysis. The dataset merges variables from various data sources. These include the following series housed within ICPSR:

• Two sub-series within the The Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data Series: Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted (LEOKA), and Offenses Known and Clearances by Arrest
• The Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics (LEMAS) Series

Additionally, the following sources are also contained in the final dataset and available online:

• The Fatal Encounters and Police Violence Project, both of which track the number of people killed by police.
• The American Community Survey, which is conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau.

Variables include officer counts, demographics, weapons used, technologies, duties performed, salary figures, department units, qualifications, training structure, budgets, states, and addresses by department. Total crimes for each jurisdiction are collected. The presence of officer foot patrols, civilian review boards, and other community policing initiatives are measured. Violence committed against officers and civilians are included. Demographic variables of residents of jurisdictions including poverty, housing status, race, marital status are collected as well.