Search results

Showing 1 – 19 of 19 results.

Curated

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

Released/updated on: 2006-03-30

Geographic coverage: United States

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

Curated

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

Released/updated on: 2005-11-04

Geographic coverage: United States, Idaho

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

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

Curated

Educating the Public About Police Through Public Service Announcements in Lima, Ohio, 1995-1997 (ICPSR 2885)

Released/updated on: 2006-03-30

Geographic coverage: United States, Lima, Ohio

Time period: 1995-01-01--1997-01-01

This study was designed to analyze the impact of four televised public service announcements (PSAs) aired for three months in Lima, Ohio. The researchers sought to answer three specific research questions: (1) Were the PSAs effective in transferring knowledge to citizens about the police? (2) Did the PSAs have an impact on resident satisfaction with the police? and (3) Did the PSAs have an impact on the behavior of citizens interacting with the police? To assess public attitudes about the Lima police and to determine whether the substance of the PSAs was being communicated to the residents of Lima, three waves of telephone interviews were conducted (Part 1). The first telephone interviews were conducted in April 1996 with approximately 500 randomly selected Lima residents. These were baseline interviews that took place before the PSAs aired. The survey instrument used in the first interview assessed resident satisfaction with the police and the services they provided. After completion of the Wave 1 interviews, the PSAs were aired on television for three months (June 5-August 28, 1996). After August 28, the PSAs were removed from general circulation. A second wave of telephone interviews was conducted in September 1996 with a different group of randomly selected Lima residents. The same survey instrument used during the first interviews was administered during the second wave, with additional questions added relating to whether the respondent saw any of the PSAs. A third group of randomly selected Lima residents was contacted via the telephone in January 1997 for the final wave of interviews. The final interviews utilized the identical survey instrument used during Wave 2. The focus of this follow-up survey was on citizen retention, over time, of the information communicated in the PSAs. Official data collected from computerized records maintained by the Lima Police Department were also collected to monitor changes in citizen behavior (Part 2). The records data span 127 weeks, from January 1, 1995, to June 7, 1997, which includes 74 weeks of pre-PSA data and 53 weeks of data for the period during the initial airing of the first PSA and thereafter. Variables in Part 1 include whether respondents were interested in learning about what to do if stopped by the police, what actions they had displayed when stopped by the police, if they would defend another person being treated unfairly by the police, how responsible they felt (as a citizen) in preventing crimes, the likelihood of calling the police if they were aware of a crime, perception of crime and fear of crime, and whether there had been an increase or decrease in the level of crime in their neighborhoods. Respondents were also asked about the amount of television they watched, whether they saw any of the public service announcements and if so to rate them, whether the PSAs provided information not already known, whether any of the PSA topics had come up in conversations with family or friends, and whether the respondent would like to see more PSAs in the future. Finally, respondents were asked whether the police were doing as much as they could to make the neighborhood safe, how responsive the police were to nonemergency matters, and to rate their overall satisfaction with the Lima Police Department and its various services. Demographic variables for Part 1 include the race, gender, age, marital status, level of education, employment status, and income level of each respondent. Variables in Part 2 cover police use-of-force or resisting arrest incidents that took place during the study period, whether the PSA aired during the week in which a use-of-force or resisting arrest incident took place, the number of supplemental police use-of-force reports that were made, and the number of resisting arrest charges made.

Curated

Impact Assessment of Sex Offender Notification on Wisconsin Communities, 1998 (ICPSR 3015)

Released/updated on: 2006-03-30

Geographic coverage: United States, Wisconsin

In response to widespread public concern about convicted sex offenders being returned from prison, federal and state laws have been passed authorizing or requiring the notification of local communities where sex offenders would be living. The dilemma associated with community notification is balancing the public's right to be informed with the need to successfully reintegrate offenders within the community. Wisconsin was one of the 50 state jurisdictions that enacted a sex offender community notification statute. This project was an in-depth study of that state's experience from the vantage point of several groups affected by the community notification process. This data collection contains three surveys that were conducted from January 1998 through mid-September 1998: (1) a survey of 704 neighborhood residents at 22 community notification meetings throughout the state (Part 1), (2) a statewide survey of 312 police and sheriff agencies (Part 2), and (3) a statewide survey of 128 probation and parole agents and their supervisors from units with sex offender caseloads (Part 3). Variables in Part 1 include how respondents found out about the date and place of the community notification meeting, respondents' opinions of the purpose of the meeting, how clearly the purpose of meeting was stated, how the meeting went, outcomes, rating of information presented, if materials were handed out, if the materials were helpful, and respondents' level of concern after the meeting. Enforcement agency data (Part 2) include variables such as type of agency, type of jurisdiction, population size, if the agency designated a special staff member to coordinate the sex offender registration and notification functions, if the agency had policies regarding registration of sex offenders and community notification about sex offenders, if the agency attended statewide training, who participated in the Core Notification Team, what kind of information was used to determine a sex offender's risk to the community, which agencies registered to receive notice, and if the agency planned to update or expand their notification list. Additional variables cover the number of requests for information from Neighborhood Watch Programs, what identifying information about the offender the agency released, types of communication the agency received from the public after a notification had been issued, topics discussed in the public communication to the agency, benefits of the community notification law, difficulties in carrying out the requirements of the law, and methods developed to handle the problems. Probation and parole survey (Part 3) variables focused on characteristics of the respondent's supervising area, the number of agents assigned to the respondents' unit, the number of agents designated as Sex Offender Intensive Supervision Program (SO-ISP) agents or SO-ISP back-up agents, the number of child or adult sex offenders under probation or parole, if the respondent participated in any meetings regarding the provisions of the notification law and its implementation, if the supervisor received specialized training, and areas covered in the training. Other variables include whether the notification level was decided by the Core Notification Team, difficulties the respondent had with Special Bulletin Notification (SBN) offenders assigned to his/her caseload, if the respondent's field unit utilized SO-ISP or "high risk" agent teams to manage sex offenders, which individuals worked with the respondent's team, the type of caseload the respondent supervised, the number of sex offenders on the respondent's caseload, if the respondent used a special risk assessment or classification instrument for sex offenders, other information used to determine the supervision level for a sex offender, if child sex offenders were managed differently than other sex offenders, how often a polygraph was used on sex offenders, who paid for the polygraph, who chose the treatment provider, the number of supervision contacts with high-risk, SBN, or medium-risk sex offenders per week, victim policies and procedures used, rules or policies regarding revocation, and prerevocation sanctions used.

Curated

Impacts of Specific Incivilities on Responses to Crime and Local Commitment, 1979-1994: [Atlanta, Baltimore, Chicago, Minneapolis-St. Paul, and Seattle] (ICPSR 2520)

Released/updated on: 2008-04-23

Geographic coverage: Baltimore, Seattle, Minneapolis, United States, Chicago, Atlanta, Illinois, St. Paul, Minnesota, Georgia, Maryland, Washington

Time period: 1979-01-01--1994-01-01

This data collection was designed to test the "incivilities thesis": that incivilities such as extant neighborhood physical conditions of disrepair or abandonment and troubling street behaviors contribute to residents' concerns for personal safety and their desire to leave their neighborhood. The collection examines between-individual versus between-neighborhood and between-city differences with respect to fear of crime and neighborhood commitment and also explores whether some perceived incivilities are more relevant to these outcomes than others. The data represent a secondary analysis of five ICPSR collections: (1) CHARACTERISTICS OF HIGH AND LOW CRIME NEIGHBORHOODS IN ATLANTA, 1980 (ICPSR 7951), (2) CRIME CHANGES IN BALTIMORE, 1970-1994 (ICPSR 2352), (3) CITIZEN PARTICIPATION AND COMMUNITY CRIME PREVENTION, 1979: CHICAGO METROPOLITAN AREA SURVEY (ICPSR 8086), (4) CRIME, FEAR, AND CONTROL IN NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL CENTERS: MINNEAPOLIS AND ST. PAUL, 1970-1982 (ICPSR 8167), and (5) TESTING THEORIES OF CRIMINALITY AND VICTIMIZATION IN SEATTLE, 1960-1990 (ICPSR 9741). Part 1, Survey Data, is an individual-level file that contains measures of residents' fear of victimization, avoidance of dangerous places, self-protection, neighborhood satisfaction, perceived incivilities (presence of litter, abandoned buildings, vandalism, and teens congregating), and demographic variables such as sex, age, and education. Part 2, Neighborhood Data, contains crime data and demographic variables from Part 1 aggregated to the neighborhood level, including percentage of the neighborhood that was African-American, gender percentages, average age and educational attainment of residents, average household size and length of residence, and information on home ownership.

Curated

Increasing the Efficiency of Police Departments in Allegany County, New York, 1994-1995 (ICPSR 2558)

Released/updated on: 2006-03-30

Geographic coverage: United States, New York (state)

Time period: 1994-01-01--1995-01-01

This study sought to investigate the attitudes of residents and law enforcement personnel living or working in Allegany County, New York in order to (1) assess community support of law enforcement efforts to collaborate on projects, and (2) determine rural law enforcement agencies' willingness to work together on community policing projects and share resources in such a way as to improve and increase their overall individual and collective effectiveness and efficiency. Community policing, for this study, was defined as any law enforcement strategy designed to improve policy directed toward law enforcement interaction with community groups and citizens. Data were gathered from surveys that were distributed to two groups. First, to determine community perceptions of crime and attitudes toward the development of collaborative community policing strategies, surveys were distributed to the residents of the villages of Alfred and Wellsville and the town of Alfred in Allegany County, New York (Part 1, Community Survey Data). Second, to capture the ideas and perceptions of different types of law enforcement agencies regarding their willingness to share training, communication, and technology, surveys were distributed to the law enforcement agencies of Wellsville, Alfred, the New York State Police substation (located in the town of Wellsville), the county sheriff's department, and the Alfred State College and Alfred University public safety departments (Part 2, Law Enforcement Survey Data). For Part 1 (Community Survey Data), the residents were asked to rate their level of fear of crime, the reason for most crime problems (i.e., gangs, drugs, or unsupervised children), positive and negative contact with police, the presence and overall level of police service in the neighborhoods, and the importance of motor vehicle patrols, foot patrols, crime prevention programs, and traffic enforcement. Respondents were also asked whether they agreed that police should concentrate more on catching criminals (as opposed to implementing community-based programs), and if community policing was a good idea. Demographic data on residents includes their age, sex, whether they had been the victim of a property or personal crime, and the number of years they had lived in their respective communities. Demographic information for Part 2 (Law Enforcement Survey Data) includes the sex, age, and educational level of law enforcement respondents, as well as the number of years they had worked with their respective departments. Respondents were asked if they believed in and would support programs targeted toward youth, adults, the elderly, and merchants. Further queries focused on the number of regular and overtime hours used to train, develop, and implement department programs. A series of questions dealing with degrees of trust between the departments and levels of optimism was also asked to gauge attitudes that might discourage collaboration efforts with other departments on community-oriented programs. Officers were also asked to rate their willingness to work with the other agencies.

Curated

Police-Public Contact Survey, 1999: [United States] (ICPSR 3151)

Released/updated on: 2001-06-18

Geographic coverage: United States

This survey was undertaken to learn more about how often and under what circumstances police-public contact becomes problematic. The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) initiated surveys of the public on their interactions with police in 1996 with the first Police-Public Contact Survey, a pretest among a nationally representative sample of 6,421 persons aged 12 or older. That initial version of the questionnaire revealed that about 20 percent of the public had direct, face-to-face contact with a police officer at least once during the year preceding the survey. At that time, the principal investigator estimated that about 1 in 500 residents, or about a half million people, who had an encounter with a police officer also experienced either a threat of force or the actual use of force by the officer. The current survey, an improved version of the 1996 Police-Public Contact Survey, was fielded as a supplement to the National Crime Victimization Survey (ICPSR 6406) during the last six months of 1999. A national sample nearly 15 times as large as the pretest sample in 1996 was used. The 1999 survey yielded nearly identical estimates of the prevalence and nature of contacts between the public and the police. This survey, because of its much larger sample size, permits more extensive analysis of demographic differences in police contacts than the 1996 pretest. In addition, it added a new and more detailed set of questions about traffic stops by police, the most frequent reason given for contact with police. Variables in the dataset cover type of contact with police, including whether it was face-to-face, initiated by the police or the citizen, whether an injury to the officer or the citizen resulted from the contact, crimes reported, and police use of force. Demographic variables supplied for the citizens include gender, race, and Hispanic origin.

Curated

Police-Public Contact Survey, 2002 [United States] (ICPSR 4273)

Released/updated on: 2005-08-18

Geographic coverage: United States

The Police-Public Contact Survey (PPCS), was designed by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) to document contacts between police and the public that culminated in police using force. The 2002 survey was conducted as a supplement to the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS). To date, the PPCS has been conducted three 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 in POLICE-PUBLIC CONTACT SURVEY, 1999: [UNITED STATES] (ICPSR 3151). The third survey -- described here under the title "Contacts Between Police and the Public: Findings From the 2002 National Survey" (NCJ 207845) -- covered interactions between police and the public in 2002. The results of this survey are contained in this data collection.

Curated

Police-Public Contact Survey, 2005 [United States] (ICPSR 20020)

Released/updated on: 2008-05-06

Geographic coverage: United States

The Police-Public Contact Survey (PPCS), was designed by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) to document contacts between police and the public that culminated in police using force. The 2005 survey was conducted as a supplement to the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS). To date, the PPCS has been conducted four 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 in POLICE-PUBLIC CONTACT SURVEY, 1999 (ICPSR 3151). The third survey -- described in the BJS publication, "Contacts Between Police and the Public, Findings from the 2002 National Survey" (NCJ 207845) -- recorded police-citizen contacts in 2002. These data are archived in 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. The results of this survey are contained in this data collection.

Curated

Police-Public Contact Survey, 2008 (ICPSR 32022)

Released/updated on: 2011-10-05

Geographic coverage: United States

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).

Curated

Simple Crosstabs

Police-Public Contact Survey, 2011 (ICPSR 34276)

Released/updated on: 2014-03-18

Geographic coverage: United States

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).

Curated

Simple Crosstabs

Police-Public Contact Survey, 2015 (ICPSR 36653)

Released/updated on: 2018-04-11

Geographic coverage: United States

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).

Curated

Simple Crosstabs

Police-Public Contact Survey, 2018 (ICPSR 37916)

Released/updated on: 2021-12-13

Geographic coverage: United States

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).

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).

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).

Curated

Simple Crosstabs

Police-Public Contact Survey, 2020 (ICPSR 38320)

Released/updated on: 2022-11-17

Geographic coverage: United States

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).

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).

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).

Curated

Simple Crosstabs

Police-Public Contact Survey, 2022 (ICPSR 38872)

Released/updated on: 2024-10-03

Geographic coverage: United States

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).

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).

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).

Curated

Public and Private Resources in Public Safety [United States]: Metropolitan Area Panel Data, 1977 and 1982 (ICPSR 8988)

Released/updated on: 1992-02-16

Geographic coverage: United States

This data collection provides a series of measures relating to public safety for all SMSAs in the United States at two time periods. Variables include: municipal employment (e.g. number of municipal employees, number of police employees, police payrolls, municipal employees per 10,000 inhabitants), municipal revenue (total debt, property taxes, utility revenues, income taxes), nonmunicipal employment (retail services, mining services, construction services, finance services), crime rates (murder, robbery, auto theft, rape), labor force and unemployment, property value, and other miscellaneous topics.

Curated

Public Support for Rehabilitation in Ohio, 1996 (ICPSR 2543)

Released/updated on: 2006-03-30

Geographic coverage: United States, Ohio

Time period: 1996-05-28--1996-08-26

The main focus of this research was on identifying the conditions under which public support for rehabilitation varies. A single, multivariate analysis method was used so that the influence of each respondent, criminal, crime, and treatment characterististic could be determined within the context of all other factors. The research also explored differences between global and specific attitudes toward rehabilitation. Data for this study were collected through a mail survey of 1,000 Ohio residents (Part 1). The initial mailing was sent to all 1,000 members of the sample on May 28, 1996. Several followups were conducted, and data collection efforts ended on August 26, 1996. Questionnaire items elicited demographic, experiential, and attitudinal information from each respondent. To assess the potential influence of offender, offense, and treatment characteristics on the respondent's support for rehabilitation, several variables were combined to create a factorial vignette. This method allowed the independent effects of each factor on support for rehabilitation to be determined. The respondents were asked to express their agreement or disagreement with five statements following the vignette: (1) general support for rehabilitation, (2) effectiveness of intervention, (3) basing release decisions on progress in rehabilitation programs, (4) individualizing sentences to fit treatment needs, and (5) expanding treatment opportunities for offenders. Types of offenses included in the vignettes were robbery, burglary, aggravated assault, larceny, motor vehicle theft, fraud, drug sales, and drug use. These offenses were selected since they are well-known to the public, offenders are arrested for these offenses fairly frequently, and the offenses are potentially punishable by a sentence of either prison or probation. Several attributes within the particular offenses in the vignettes were designed to assess the influence of different levels of harm, either financial or physical. Offender characteristics and offense selection for use in the vignettes were weighted by their frequency of arrests as reported in the Federal Bureau of Investigation's 1995 Uniform Crime Report data. A rating of the seriousness of each offense was assigned using a separate survey of 118 undergraduate university students (Part 2), and the resulting seriousness score was used in the analysis of the vignettes. Additional items on the mail survey instrument assessed the respondent's global and specific attitudes toward treatment. Independent variables from the mail survey include the respondent's age, education, income category, sex, race, political party, rating of political conservativism, personal contact with offenders, religious identity salience, religiosity, attitudes toward biblical literalness and religious forgiveness, fear of crime, and victimization. Variables from the vignettes examined whether support for rehabilitation was influenced by offender age, race, sex, type of offense committed, employment status, substance use, prior record, sentence, and treatment program. Global support for rehabilitation was measured by responses to two questions: what the respondent thought the main emphasis in most prisons was (to punish, to rehabilitate, to protect society), and what the main emphasis should be. Items assessed variations in the respondent's attitudes toward rehabilitation by offender's age, sex, and prior record, location of treatment, and the type of treatment provided. Variables from the crime seriousness survey recorded the respondent's rating of various crime events, including assault and robbery (with or without a weapon, with varying degrees of injury, or no injury to the victim), burglary, larceny, and auto theft (with varying values of the property stolen), drug dealing, drug use, and writing bad checks.

Curated

Survey of Victimization and Attitudes Towards Crime and Law Enforcement in Boston and Chicago, 1966 (ICPSR 9085)

Released/updated on: 2006-03-30

Geographic coverage: United States, Chicago, Illinois, Massachusetts, Boston

Time period: 1965-07-01--1966-06-30

This data collection was designed to explore attitudes toward crime and the police and to examine factors related to criminal victimization and the reporting of crime incidents to the police. It combines a victimization survey with data on citizens' attitudes toward crime and the police, and information on behavior in response to crime or the threat of crime. Variables provide information about respondents' neighborhood characteristics, individual demographic attributes (e.g., age, race, gender, education, income, religion, marital status), perceptions of crime, social environment, respondents' views of the criminal justice system, experiences with the police, criminal victimization experiences, protective measures taken, victim-offender relationship, characteristics of the crime incident, police response to crime reports, and victim perceptions of and satisfaction with police response.

Curated

Turnover Among Alaska Village Public Safety Officers, 1994-1999 (ICPSR 2938)

Released/updated on: 2005-11-04

Geographic coverage: United States, Alaska

Time period: 1994-01-01--1999-01-01

The study was designed to examine the high turnover rate in Alaska's Village Public Safety Officers (VPSO) program. The goals were to help guide the design of future delivery of public safety services to Alaska villages and to add to what was a limited understanding of policing in places with tiny populations. The survey instrument was administered to former and currently-serving VPSOs from October 1998 to January 1999. Information was collected on the respondent's motivation for becoming a VPSO, length of time working as a VPSO, if the respondent was satisfied with the pay, retirement benefits, training, housing, and safety, if it was difficult for the respondent to enforce laws against relatives, the respondent's perception of the community's support and expectations, and their job-related stresses, role conflicts, duties, and demands. Those who had left the job were also asked about their post-VPSO employment. Demographic variables include the respondent's age, race, sex, marital status, education, military experience, and whether the officer was an Alaska Native.