Search results

Showing 1 – 50 of 56 results.

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).

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).

Curated

Simple Crosstabs

Police-Public Contact Survey, 2020 (ICPSR 38320)

Released/updated on: 2022-11-17

Geographic coverage: United States

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, 2018 (ICPSR 37916)

Released/updated on: 2021-12-13

Geographic coverage: United States

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, 2015 (ICPSR 36653)

Released/updated on: 2018-04-11

Geographic coverage: United States

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).

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

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, 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, 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.

The following results may be significantly less relevant compared to results above.

Curated

Simple Crosstabs

The Effect of Prior Police Contact on Victimization Reporting: Results From the Police-Public Contact and National Crime Victimization Surveys, United States, 2002-2011 (ICPSR 36370)

Released/updated on: 2021-11-30

Geographic coverage: United States

Time period: 2002-01-01--2011-01-01

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.

Curated

Police Use of Force Data, 1996: [United States] (ICPSR 6999)

Released/updated on: 1998-01-13

Geographic coverage: United States

In 1996, the Bureau of Justice Statistics sponsored a pretest of a survey instrument designed to compile data on citizen contacts with police, including contacts in which police use force. The survey, which involved interviews (both face-to-face and by phone) carried out by the United States Census Bureau, was conducted as a special supplement to the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), an ongoing household survey of the American public that elicits information concerning recent crime victimization experiences. Questions asked in the supplement covered reasons for contact with police officer(s), characteristics of the officer, weapons used by the officer, whether there were any injuries involved in the confrontation between the household member and the officer, whether drugs were involved in the incident, type of offense the respondent was charged with, and whether any citizen action was taken. Demographic variables include race, sex, and age.

Curated

Restricted

Assessing Police Performance in Citizen Encounters, Schenectady and Syracuse, NY, 2011-2014 (ICPSR 35467)

Released/updated on: 2017-12-14

Geographic coverage: Schenectady, United States, Syracuse, New York (state)

Time period: 2011-01-01--2014-01-01

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

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:

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?
What do police managers do with this information, and how (if at all) are field supervisors and patrol officers affected by it?
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?
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:

archive_Census_beat.sav (n=30; 28 variables)
archive_keyinformant_analysis.sps
archive_keyinformant_survey.sav (n=90; 28 variables)
archive_obs_byenc.sav (n=476; 79 variables)
archive_obs_byobserver.sav (n=1,078; 476 variables)
archive_obs_enc_analysis.sps
archive_obs_enc_var_construction.sps
archive_police_data.sav (n=3,603; 9 variables)
archive_policeservices_survey_analysis.sps
archive_policeservices_survey_closed.sav (n=3,603; 148 variables)
archive_policeservices_survey_open.sav (n=1,218; 23 variables)
archive_policeservices_survey_var_construction.sps
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.

Curated

British Crime Survey, 1982 (ICPSR 8672)

Released/updated on: 2006-01-18

Geographic coverage: Great Britain, Wales, England, Global

The primary purpose of the British Crime Survey was to estimate how many of the public in England and Wales are victims of selected types of crime over a year, describing the circumstances under which people become victims, and the consequences of crime for victims. Other aims included providing background information on fear of crime among the public and on public contact with the police. Respondents were asked a series of screening questions to establish whether or not they or their households had been victims of relevant crimes during the one-year reference period. They were then asked a series of very detailed questions about the incidents they reported. Basic descriptive background information on respondents and their households was collected to allow analysis of the sorts of people who do and do not become victims. Information was also collected on other areas which were of intrinsic interest and which could usefully be related to experience as a victim, namely, fear of crime, contact with the police, lifestyle, and self-reported offending.

Curated

Restricted

National Police Research Platform, Phase I [United States], 2009-2011 (ICPSR 34518)

Released/updated on: 2016-08-31

Geographic coverage: United States

Time period: 2009-01-01--2011-01-01

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

The National Police Research Platform was designed to a) strengthen the science of policing by generating timely, in-depth, longitudinal information about policing organizations, personnel and practices and, b) move policing in the direction of evidence-based "learning organizations" by providing translational feedback to police agencies and policy makers. Phase I focused on testing methods and measures in 29 agencies in order to build the Platform infrastructure. First, a "total department" online methodology was successfully implemented covering numerous dimensions of organizational behavior, from supervision and accountability to employee integrity and burnout. Second, a public satisfaction contact survey was implemented in several jurisdictions to provide local external indicators of the quality of police-citizen encounters and organizational legitimacy in the community. Third, two longitudinal studies were initiated - one of new police recruits and one of new first-line supervisors - to chart their career development and identify factors that influence life trajectories. Finally, a randomized control trial was introduced in once site to test the effects of procedural justice training as part of the Platform's measurement system.

Curated

Evaluation of Grants to Encourage Arrest Policies for Domestic Violence Cases in the State College, Pennsylvania, Police Department, 1999-2000 (ICPSR 3166)

Released/updated on: 2006-03-30

Geographic coverage: United States, Pennsylvania

This project was an 18-month long research-practitioner partnership to conduct a process evaluation of the State College Police Department's implementation of a grant to encourage arrest policies for domestic violence. The general goals of the process evaluation were to assess how and to what extent the State College Police Department's proposed activities were implemented as planned, based on the rationale that such activities would enhance the potential for increasing victim safety and perpetrator accountability systemically. As part of the grant, the police department sought to improve case tracking and services to victims by developing new specialized positions for domestic violence, including: (1) a domestic violence arrest coordinator from within the State College Police Department who was responsible for monitoring case outcomes through the courts and updating domestic violence policies and training (Part 1, Victim Tracking Data from Domestic Violence Coordinator), (2) a victims service attorney from Legal Services who was responsible for handling civil law issues for domestic violence victims, including support, child custody, employment, financial, consumer, public benefits, and housing issues (Part 2, Victim Tracking Data From Victim Services Attorney), and (3) an intensive domestic violence probation officer from the Centre County Probation and Parole Department who was responsible for providing close supervision and follow-up of batterers (Part 3, Offender Tracking Data). Researchers worked with practitioners to develop databases suitable for monitoring service provision by the three newly-created positions for domestic violence cases. Major categories of data collected on the victim tracking form (Parts 1 and 2) included location of initial contact, type of initial contact, referral source, reason for initial contact, service/consultation provided at initial contact, meetings, and referrals out. Types of services provided include reporting abuse, filing a Protection from Abuse order, legal representation, and assistance with court procedures. Major categories of data collected on the offender tracking form (Part 3) included location of initial contact, type of initial contact, referral source, reason for initial contact, service/consultation provided, charges, sentence received, relationship between the victim and perpetrator, marital status, children in the home, referrals out, presentencing investigation completed, prior criminal history, and reason for termination. Types of services provided include pre-sentence investigation, placement on supervision, and assessment and evaluation. In addition to developing these new positions, the police department also sought to improve how officers handled domestic violence cases through a two-day training program. The evaluation conducted pre- and post-training assessments of all personnel training in 1999 and conducted follow-up surveys to assess the long-term impact of training. For Part 4, Police Training Survey Data, surveys were administered to law enforcement personnel participating in a two-day domestic violence training program. Surveys were administered both before and after the training program and focused on knowledge about domestic violence policies and protocols, attitudes and beliefs about domestic violence, and the background and experience of the officers. Within six months after the training, the same participants were contacted to complete a follow-up survey. Variables in Part 4 measure how well officers knew domestic violence arrest policies, their attitudes toward abused women and how to handle domestic violence cases, and their opinions about training. Demographic variables in Part 4 include age, sex, race, education, and years in law enforcement.

Curated

Evaluation of the Impact of Innovative Policing Programs on Social Disorder in Seven Cities in the United States, 1983-1990 (ICPSR 6215)

Released/updated on: 2005-11-04

Geographic coverage: United States

Time period: 1983-01-01--1990-01-01

This study was designed to permit a "meta-evaluation" of the impact of alternative policing programs on social disorder. Examples of social disorder include bands of teenagers deserting school and congregating on street corners, solicitation by prostitutes and panhandlers, public drinking, vandalism, verbal harassment of women on the street, street violence, and open gambling and drug use. The data used in this study were taken from studies conducted between 1983 and 1990 in seven cities. For this collection, a common set of questions was identified and recoded into a consistent format across studies. The studies were conducted using similar sampling and interviewing procedures, and in almost every case used a quasi-experimental research design. For each target area studied, a different, matched area was designated as a comparison area where no new policing programs were begun. Surveys of residents were conducted in the target and comparison areas before the programs began (Wave I) and again after they had been in operation for a period ranging from ten months to two-and-a-half years (Wave II). The data contain information regarding police visibility and contact, encounters with police, victimization, fear and worry about crime, household protection and personal precautions, neighborhood conditions and problems, and demographic characteristics of respondents including race, marital status, employment status, education, sex, age, and income. The policing methods researched included community-oriented policing and traditional intensive enforcement programs.

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

National Firearms Survey, 1999 (ICPSR 4552)

Released/updated on: 2007-07-06

Geographic coverage: United States

This survey was undertaken to obtain information on the characteristics of gun ownership, gun storage and gun carrying practices, and weapons-related incidents in the United States--specifically, use of guns and other weapons in self-defense against other people. Data were collected using national random-digit dial telephone surveys completed between March 19, 1999 and July 13, 1999. Sampling was suspended after the school shooting in Littleton, Colorado on April 20, 1999, and resumed after a cool-down period. Part 1, Survey Data, contains the coded data obtained during the interviews, and Part 2, Open-Ended Verbatim Responses, consists of open-ended answers provided by the respondents. Four qualifying questions were asked, dealing with: (1) gun ownership, (2) gun display against the respondent, (3) gun use in self-defense against another person, and (4) the use of a weapon other than a gun in self-defense against another person. A "yes" response to a qualifying question led to a series of additional questions on the same topic as the qualifying question. Information was collected from all respondents on the perceived safety of their neighborhood, whether they would feel safer if more people owned guns, whether guns should be allowed in public places, whether gun injuries were a problem in their community, whether they would favor or oppose a program to reduce gun injuries, and whether they had ever been shot with a gun. Respondents living in households that currently contained a gun were asked how many and what type of guns were present, the main reasons for owning a gun, whether any of the guns were loaded and unlocked, and whether they had received formal firearms training. Questions about incidents in which a gun was displayed in a hostile manner against the respondent included the number of times it took place, how long ago it had occurred, whether the respondent was in the military or police force at the time, the location of the incident, whether the individual displaying the gun was known to the respondent, whether the respondent had a gun, and whether the police were contacted. Respondents who had used a gun or other weapon in self-defense in the last five years were asked about the number of times it took place, the location of the incident, whether they were in the military or police force at the time, the type of weapon used, whether they knew the other person, whether this individual also had a weapon, whether the police were contacted and arrests made, and what crime was committed. Additional questions asked respondents whether they smoked cigarettes, drank alcohol, whether they had gotten married, had had a fire in their home, and had been hospitalized for a fracture in the past year, and whether they had ever had contact with extraterrestrial life. Demographic variables include sex, age, race, education level, household income, type of residential area (e.g., urban, rural, etc.), and age and number of children in the household.

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

Drugs and Police Response: Survey of Public Housing Residents in Denver, Colorado, 1989-1990 (ICPSR 6482)

Released/updated on: 1995-08-16

Geographic coverage: United States, Colorado, Denver

Time period: 1989-01-01--1990-01-01

This data collection is the result of an evaluation of the NEPHU program, conducted by the Police Foundation under the sponsorship of the National Institute of Justice (NIJ). In August 1989, the Bureau of Justice Assistance supported a grant in Denver, Colorado, to establish a special Narcotics Enforcement in Public Housing Unit (NEPHU) within the Denver Police Department. The goal of the Denver NEPHU was to reduce the availability of narcotics in and around the city's public housing areas by increasing drug arrests. NEPHU's six full-time officers made investigations and gathered intelligence leading to on-street arrests and search warrants. The unit also operated a special telephone Drug Hotline and met regularly with tenant councils in the developments to improve community relations. The program worked in cooperation with the Denver Housing Authority and the uniformed patrol division of the Denver Police Department, which increased levels of uniformed patrols to maintain high visibility in the project areas to deter conventional crime. Using a panel design, survey interviews were conducted with residents in the Quigg Newton and Curtis Park public housing units, focusing on events that occurred during the past six months. Respondents were interviewed during three time periods to examine the onset and persistence of any apparent program effects. In December 1989, interviews were completed with residents in 521 households. In June 1990, 422 respondents were interviewed in Wave 2. Wave 3 was conducted in December 1990 and included 423 respondents. In all, 642 individuals were interviewed, 283 of whom were interviewed for all three waves. Because of the evaluation's design, the data can be analyzed to reveal individual-level changes for the 283 respondents who were interviewed on all three occasions, and the data can also be used to determine a cross-section representation of the residents by including the 359 "new" persons interviewed during the course of the evaluation. Information collected includes years and months lived in the development, assessments of changes in the neighborhood, whether the respondent planned to stay in the development, interactions among residents, awareness of anti-drug programs, ranking of various problems in the development, concerns and reports of being a victim of various crimes, perceived safety of the development, assessment of drug use and availability, assessment of police activity and visibility, and personal contacts with police. The unit of analysis is the individual.

Curated

Public Attitudes Toward the Criminal Justice System and Criminal Victimization in North Carolina, 1971 (ICPSR 7670)

Released/updated on: 1992-02-16

Geographic coverage: North Carolina, United States

Time period: 1971-03-01--1971-07-01

This data collection contains the results of a survey of North Carolinians' attitudes about crime. The survey was conducted in 1971 by the Institute for Research in Social Science at the University of North Carolina. The purpose of the study was to assist agencies in assessing public attitudes toward policies in effect or under consideration, and to measure crime in the state. Questions were asked regarding citizen attitudes toward crime (e.g., the most important problem facing the country, the meaning of "law and order", and the degree of worry about and precaution taken by respondents against personal and property crimes), the frequency of respondents' criminal victimization, the reporting of crime by respondents, the amount of contact and satisfaction with criminal justice agencies such as the police, and respondents' attitudes toward the agencies that were part of the legal justice system in North Carolina. Other data include respondents' receipt of government scholarships, loans, and social services, and information about respondents' political participation, party/candidate support, feelings of political efficacy, and voting history. In addition, respondents were asked the degree of their knowledge and sources of information about federal district court decisions (e.g., on school busing in North Carolina), drug arrests, and the North Carolina Council on Crime and Delinquency. Demographic data include household composition, race, age, sex, marital status, occupation, military service, and length of residence.

Curated

Evaluation of the Weed and Seed Initiative in the United States, 1994 (ICPSR 6789)

Released/updated on: 2005-11-04

Geographic coverage: United States

The Department of Justice launched Operation Weed and Seed in 1991 as a means of mobilizing a large and varied array of resources in a comprehensive, coordinated effort to control crime and drug problems and improve the quality of life in targeted high-crime neighborhoods. In the long term, Weed and Seed programs are intended to reduce levels of crime, violence, drug trafficking, and fear of crime, and to create new jobs, improve housing, enhance the quality of neighborhood life, and reduce alcohol and drug use. This baseline data collection effort is the initial step toward assessing the achievement of the long-term objectives. The evaluation was conducted using a quasi-experimental design, matching households in comparison neighborhoods with the Weed and Seed target neighborhoods. Comparison neighborhoods were chosen to match Weed and Seed target neighborhoods on the basis of crime rates, population demographics, housing characteristics, and size and density. Neighborhoods in eight sites were selected: Akron, OH, Bradenton (North Manatee), FL, Hartford, CT, Las Vegas, NV, Pittsburgh, PA, Salt Lake City, UT, Seattle, WA, and Shreveport, LA. The "neighborhood" in Hartford, CT, was actually a public housing development, which is part of the reason for the smaller number of interviews at this site. Baseline data collection tasks included the completion of in-person surveys with residents in the target and matched comparison neighborhoods, and the provision of guidance to the sites in the collection of important process data on a routine uniform basis. The survey questions can be broadly divided into these areas: (1) respondent demographics, (2) household size and income, (3) perceptions of the neighborhood, and (4) perceptions of city services. Questions addressed in the course of gathering the baseline data include: Are the target and comparison areas sufficiently well-matched that analytic contrasts between the areas over time are valid? Is there evidence that the survey measures are accurate and valid measures of the dependent variables of interest -- fear of crime, victimization, etc.? Are the sample sizes and response rates sufficient to provide ample statistical power for later analyses? Variables cover respondents' perceptions of the neighborhood, safety and observed security measures, police effectiveness, and city services, as well as their ratings of neighborhood crime, disorder, and other problems. Other items included respondents' experiences with victimization, calls/contacts with police and satisfaction with police response, and involvement in community meetings and events. Demographic information on respondents includes year of birth, gender, ethnicity, household income, and employment status.

Curated

Restricted

Crime Victimization and Police Treatment of Undocumented Migrant Workers in Palisades Park, NJ, 2011-2012 (ICPSR 35087)

Released/updated on: 2017-03-03

Geographic coverage: United States, New Jersey

Time period: 2011-01-01--2013-12-01

This exploratory study used the case of Palisades Park, New Jersey, to examine five problem areas: the political economy of migrant labor, prevalence and patterns of criminal victimization against undocumented migrant workers (UMWs), prevalence and patterns of violence against women among UMWs, police-migrant interactions, and criminal offending of UMWs. Data collection efforts were concentrated on the recruitment and survey of 160 male day laborers and 120 female migrant workers in face-to-face interviews. Additional data from focus group and key informant interviews were gathered to provide in-depth information on specific concerns and issues.

Curated

Effectiveness of Alternative Victim Assistance Service Delivery Models in the San Diego Region, 1993-1994 (ICPSR 2789)

Released/updated on: 2006-03-30

Geographic coverage: San Diego, United States, California

Time period: 1993-01-01--1994-01-01

This study had a variety of aims: (1) to assess the needs of violent crime victims, (2) to document the services that were available to violent crime victims in the San Diego region, (3) to assess the level of service utilization by different segments of the population, (4) to determine how individuals cope with victimization and how coping ability varies as a function of victim and crime characteristics, (5) to document the set of factors related to satisfaction with the criminal justice system, (6) to recommend improvements in the delivery of services to victims, and (7) to identify issues for future research. Data were collected using five different survey instruments. The first survey was sent to over 3,000 violent crime victims over the age of 16 and to approximately 60 homicide witnesses and survivors in the San Diego region (Part 1, Initial Victims' Survey Data). Of the 718 victims who returned the initial survey, 330 victims were recontacted six months later (Part 2, Follow-Up Victims' Survey Data). Respondents in Part 1 were asked what type of violent crime occurred, whether they sustained injury, whether they received medical treatment, what the nature of their relationship to the suspect was, and if the suspect had been arrested. Respondents for both Parts 1 and 2 were asked which service providers, if any, contacted them at the time of the incident or afterwards. Respondents were also asked what type of services they needed and received at the time of the incident or afterwards. Respondents in Part 2 rated the overall service and helpfulness of the information received at the time of the incident and after, and their level of satisfaction regarding contact with the police, prosecutor, and judge handling their case. Respondents in Part 2 were also asked what sort of financial loss resulted from the incident, and whether federal, state, local, or private agencies provided financial assistance to them. Finally, respondents in Part 1 and Part 2 were asked about the physical and psychological effects of their victimization. Demographic variables for Part 1 and Part 2 include the marital status, employment status, and type of job of each violent crime victim/witness/survivor. Part 1 also includes the race, sex, and highest level of education of each respondent. Police and court case files were reviewed six months after the incident occurred for each initial sample case. Data regarding victim and incident characteristics were collected from original arrest reports, jail booking screens, and court dockets (Part 3, Tracking Data). The variables for Part 3 include the total number of victims, survivors, and witnesses of violent crimes, place of attack, evidence collected, and which service providers were at the scene of the crime. Part 3 also includes a detailed list of the services provided to the victim/witness/survivor at the scene of the crime and after. These services included counseling, explanation of medical and police procedures, self-defense and crime prevention classes, food, clothing, psychological/psychiatric services, and help with court processes. Additional Part 3 variables cover circumstances of the incident, initial custody status of suspects, involvement of victims and witnesses at hearings, and case outcome, including disposition and sentencing. The race, sex, and age of each victim/witness/survivor are also recorded in Part 3 along with the same demographics for each suspect. Data for Part 4, Intervention Programs Survey Data, were gathered using a third survey, which was distributed to members of the three following intervention programs: (1) the San Diego Crisis Intervention Team, (2) the EYE Counseling and Crisis Services, Crisis and Advocacy Team, and (3) the District Attorney's Victim-Witness Assistance Program. A modified version of the survey with a subset of the original questions was administered one year later to members of the San Diego Crisis Intervention Team (Part 5, Crisis Intervention Team Survey Data) and to the EYE Counseling and Crisis Services, Crisis and Advocacy Team (Part 6, EYE Crisis and Advocacy Team Survey Data). The survey questions for Parts 4-6 asked each respondent to provide their reasons for becoming involved with the program, the goals of the program, responsibilities of the staff or volunteers, the types of referral services their agency provided, the number of hours of training required, and the topics covered in the training. Respondents for Parts 4-6 were further asked about the specific types of services they provided to victims/witnesses/survivors. Part 4 also contains a series of variables regarding coordination efforts, problems, and resolutions encountered when dealing with other intervention agencies and law enforcement agencies. Demographic variables for Parts 4-6 include the ethnicity, age, gender, and highest level of education of each respondent, and whether the respondent was a staff member of the agency or volunteer. The fourth survey was mailed to 53 referral agencies used by police and crisis interventionists (Part 7, Service Provider Survey Data). Part 7 contains the same series of variables as Part 4 on dealing with other intervention and law enforcement agencies. Respondents in Part 7 were further asked to describe the type of victims/witnesses/survivors to whom they provided service (e.g., domestic violence victims, homicide witnesses, or suicide survivors) and to rate their level of satisfaction with referral procedures provided by law enforcement officers, hospitals, paramedics, religious groups, the San Diego Crisis Intervention Team, the EYE Crisis Team, and the District Attorney's Victim/Witness Program. Part 7 also includes the hours of operation for each service provider organization, as well as which California counties they serviced. Finally, respondents in Part 7 were given a list of services and asked if they provided any of those services to victims/witnesses/survivors. Services unique to this list included job placement assistance, public awareness campaigns, accompaniment to court, support groups, and advocacy with outside agencies (e.g., employers or creditors). Demographic variables for Part 7 include the ethnicity, age, and gender of each respondent. The last survey was distributed to over 1,000 law enforcement officers from the Escondido, San Diego, and Vista sheriff's agencies (Part 8, Law Enforcement Survey Data). Respondents in Part 8 were surveyed to determine their familiarity with intervention programs, how they learned about the program, the extent to which they used or referred others to intervention services, appropriate circumstances for calling or not calling in interventionists, their opinions regarding various intervention programs, their interactions with interventionists at crime scenes, and suggestions for improving delivery of services to victims. Demographic variables for Part 8 include the rank and agency of each law enforcement respondent.

Curated

Factors Related to Domestic Violence Court Dispositions in a Large Midwestern Urban Area, 1997-1998: [United States] (ICPSR 3010)

Released/updated on: 2006-03-30

Geographic coverage: United States

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

The goal of this study was to identify factors that influence whether city misdemeanor domestic violence cases in which batterers are arrested by police result in dismissals, acquittals, or convictions in the courts, and how these cases are processed. The researchers sought to examine factors that influence court officials' decision-making in domestic violence cases, as well as factors that influence victim and witness reluctance in bringing batterers to successful adjudication. In Part 1 researchers merged pretrial services data with information from police and prosecutors' reports in the urban area under study to answer the following questions: (1) What is the rate of dismissals, acquittals, and convictions for misdemeanor court cases and what are the conditions of these sentences? (2) What factors in court cases are significantly related to whether the disposition is a dismissal, acquittal, or conviction, and how are these cases processed? In Part 2, judges, prosecutors, and public defenders were asked detailed questions about their level of knowledge about, attitudes toward, and self-reported behaviors regarding the processing of domestic violence cases to find out: (1) What roles do legal and extra-legal factors play in decision-makers' self-reported behaviors and attitudes? (2) How do decision-makers rate victim advocate and batterer treatment programs? (3) How do court professionals view the victim's role in the court process? and (4) To what degree do court professionals report victim-blaming attitudes and experiences? For Part 3 researchers used a stratified random sample to select court cases of misdemeanor domestic violence that would be transcribed and used for a content analysis to examine: (1) Who speaks in court and how? and (2) What is considered relevant by different court players? In Parts 4-103 victim surveys and interviews were administered to learn about battered women's experiences in both their personal lives and the criminal processing system. Researchers sought to answer the following questions: (1) How do victim/witnesses perceive their role in the prosecution of their abusers? (2) What factors inhibit them from pursuing prosecution? (3) What factors might help them pursue prosecution? and (4) How consistent are the victims'/witnesses' demographic and psychological profiles with existing research in this area? Domestic violence victims attending arraignment between January 1 and December 31 of 1997 were asked to complete surveys to identify their concerns about testifying against their partners and to evaluate the effectiveness of the court system in dealing with domestic violence cases (Part 4). The disposition of each case was subsequently determined by a research team member's examination of defendants' case files and/or court computer files. Upon case closure victims who had both completed a survey and indicated a willingness to be interviewed were contacted to participate in an interview (Parts 5-103). Variables in Part 1, Pretrial Services Data, include prior criminal history, current charges, case disposition, sentence, victim testimony, police testimony, victim's demeanor at trial, judge's conduct, type of abuse involved, weapons used, injuries sustained, and type of evidence available for trial. Demographic variables include age, sex, and race of defendants, victims, prosecutors, and judges. In Part 2, Professional Survey Data, respondents were asked about their tolerance for victims and offenders who appeared in court more than once, actions taken when substance abuse was involved, the importance of injuries in making a decision, attitudes toward battered women, the role of victim advocates and the police, views on restraining orders, and opinion on whether arrest is a deterrent. Demographic variables include age, sex, race, marital status, and years of professional experience. Variables in Part 3, Court Transcript Data, include number and type of charges, pleas, reasons for dismissals, types of evidence submitted by prosecutors and defense, substance abuse by victim and defendant, living arrangements and number of children of victim and defendant, specific type of abuse, injuries sustained, witnesses to injuries, police testimony, verdict, and sentence. Demographic variables include age and sex of defendant and victim and relationship of victim and defendant. In Part 4, Victim Survey Data, victims were asked about their relationship and living arrangements with the defendant, concerns about testifying in court, desired outcomes of case and punishment for defendant, emotional issues related to abuse, health problems, substance abuse, support networks, other violent domestic incidents and injuries, and safety concerns. Part 5 variables measured victims' safety at different stages of the criminal justice process and danger experienced due to further violent incidents, presence of weapons, and threats of homicide or suicide. Parts 6-103 contain the qualitative interview data.

Curated

Partially restricted

Simple Crosstabs

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

Released/updated on: 2013-04-24

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

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

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

Curated

National Survey of Police-Media Relations, 2000 (ICPSR 3597)

Released/updated on: 2005-11-04

Geographic coverage: United States

This study was undertaken to examine the influence police officers have in creating an image of law enforcement through media relations and public information offices/officers (PIO). A survey was mailed nationwide to police departments serving areas with populations exceeding 100,000 residents. The survey items identified the following factors: (1) the presence and nature of a formal departmental media strategy, (2) the prevalence of full-time police PIO, (3) PIO background characteristics, including educational/vocational training in media, journalism, or public relations, (4) specific goals of police media relations offices and PIOs, (5) the various methods by which these goals are achieved, and (6) the perceived quality of police-media interaction, the police image, and the public information office both before and after the adoption of the current media strategy.

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

Testing and Evaluating Body Worn Video Technology in the Los Angeles Police Department, California, 2012-2018 (ICPSR 37467)

Released/updated on: 2021-04-28

Geographic coverage: United States, Los Angeles, California

Time period: 2015-08-01--2015-09-01, 2016-06-01--2016-08-01, 2012-01-01--2017-01-01

This research sought to evaluate the implementation of body worn cameras (BWCs) in the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD). Researchers employed three strategies to evaluate the impact of BWCs in the department: 1) two-wave officer surveys about BWCs, 2) two-wave Systematic Social Observations (SSOs) of citizen interactions from officer ride-alongs, and 3) a time series analysis of existing LAPD data of use of force and complaint data.

The officer surveys were conducted in the Mission and Newton divisions of the LAPD before and after BWCs were implemented. The survey instrument was designed to measure perceptions of BWCs across a variety of domains and took approximately 20 minutes to complete. Researchers attended roll calls for all shifts and units to request officer participation and administered the surveys on tablets using the Qualtrics software. The pre-deployment survey was administered in both divisions August and September 2015. The post-deployment surveys were conducted with a subset of officers who participated in the pre-deployment surveys during a two-week period in the summer of 2016, approximately nine months following the initial rollout of BWCs.

The SSO data was collected in the Mission and Newton divisions prior to and following BWC implementation. The pre-administration SSOs were conducted in August and September 2015 and the post-administration SSOs were conducted in June and August, 2016. Trained observers spent 725 hours riding with and collecting observational data on the encounters between officers and citizens using tablets to perform field coding using Qualtrics software. A total of 124 rides (71 from Wave I and 53 from Wave II) were completed between both Newton and Mission Divisions. These observations included 514 encounters and involved coding the interactions of 1,022 citizens, 555 of which were deemed to be citizens who had full contact, which was defined as a minute or more of face-time or at least three verbal exchanges.

Patrol officers (including special units) for ride-alongs were selected from a master list of officers scheduled to work each day and shift throughout the observation period. Up to five officers within each shift were randomly identified as potential participants for observation from this master list and observers would select the first available officer from this list. For each six-hour observation period, or approximately one-half of a shift, the research staff observed the interactions between the assigned officer, his or her partner, and any citizens he or she encountered. In Wave 2, SSOs were conducted with the same officers from Wave 1.

The time series data were obtained from the LAPD use of force and complaint databases for each of the 21 separate patrol divisions, a metropolitan patrol division, and four traffic divisions of the LAPD. These data cover the time period where BWC were implemented throughout the LAPD on a staggered basis by division from 2015 to 2018. The LAPD operates using four-week deployment periods (DPs), and there are approximately 13 deployment periods per year. These data span the period of the beginning of 2012 through the 2017 DP 12. These data were aggregated to counts by deployment period based on the date of the originating incident. The LAPD collects detailed information about each application of force by an officer within an encounter. For this reason, separate use of force counts are based on incidents, officers, and use of force applications. Similarly, the LAPD also collects information on each allegation for each officer within a complaint and public complaint counts are based on incidents, officers, and allegations.

Curated

Assessing the Validity and Reliability of National Data on Citizen Complaints about Police Use of Force, 2003 and 2007 (ICPSR 36042)

Released/updated on: 2017-06-30

Geographic coverage: United States

These data are part of the 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 excepted as noted below. All direct identifiers have been removed and replaced with text enclosed in square brackets (e.g.[MASKED]). Due to the masking of select information, variables/content described in the data documentation may not actually be available as part of the collection. Users should consult the investigator(s) if further information is needed.

This collection is one part of the Department of Justice's response to 42 USC 14142, a law which requires the U.S. Attorney General to 1) "acquire data about the use of excessive force by law enforcement officers" and 2) "publish an annual summary of the data." Researchers compared agency-level data reported in the 2003 (ICPSR 4411) and 2007 (ICPSR 31161) waves of the Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics (LEMAS) surveys with available external sources including publicly available reports and direct contact with agency personnel. The purpose of this study was to assess validity and reliability of the available agency-level reported data on citizen complaints about police use of force.

Curated

Restricted

Research on the Impact of Technology on Policing Strategy, 2012-2014 [United States] (ICPSR 36367)

Released/updated on: 2017-12-21

Geographic coverage: United States

Time period: 2012-01-01--2014-01-01

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.

Curated

Restricted

Assessing Trends and Best Practices of Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Programs in the United States, 2003 (ICPSR 4278)

Released/updated on: 2007-09-27

Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Vermont, United States, Tennessee, Arkansas, Utah, West Virginia, Colorado, Missouri, Virgin Islands of the United States, Phoenix, Arizona, Las Vegas, Nevada, District of Columbia, Montana, Sacramento, Seattle, Hawaii, Minnesota, California, Florida, Delaware, New York (state), New Jersey, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Mississippi, Iowa, Illinois, Connecticut, Maryland

Time period: 2002-10-01--2004-04-01

This trends and best practices evaluation geared toward motor vehicle theft prevention with a particular focus on the Watch Your Car (WYC) program was conducted between October 2002 and March 2004. On-site and telephone interviews were conducted with administrators from 11 of 13 WYC member states. Surveys were mailed to the administrators of auto theft prevention programs in 36 non-WYC states and the 10 cities with the highest motor vehicle theft rates. Completed surveys were returned from 16 non-WYC states and five of the high auto theft rate cities. Part 1, the survey for Watch Your Car (WYC) program members, includes questions about how respondents learned about the WYC program, their WYC related program activities, the outcomes of their program, ways in which they might have done things differently if given the opportunity, and summary questions that asked WYC program administrators for their opinions about various aspects of the overall WYC program. The survey for the nonmember states, Part 2, and cities, Part 3, collected information about motor vehicle theft prevention within the respondent's state or city and asked questions about the respondent's knowledge of, and opinions about, the Watch Your Car program.

Curated

Study of Race, Crime, and Social Policy in Oakland, California, 1976-1982 (ICPSR 9961)

Released/updated on: 2006-03-30

Geographic coverage: United States, California, Oakland

Time period: 1976-01-01--1982-01-01

In 1980, the National Institute of Justice awarded a grant to the Cornell University College of Human Ecology for the establishment of the Center for the Study of Race, Crime, and Social Policy in Oakland, California. This center mounted a long-term research project that sought to explain the wide variation in crime statistics by race and ethnicity. Using information from eight ethnic communities in Oakland, California, representing working- and middle-class Black, White, Chinese, and Hispanic groups, as well as additional data from Oakland's justice systems and local organizations, the center conducted empirical research to describe the criminalization process and to explore the relationship between race and crime. The differences in observed patterns and levels of crime were analyzed in terms of: (1) the abilities of local ethnic communities to contribute to, resist, neutralize, or otherwise affect the criminalization of its members, (2) the impacts of criminal justice policies on ethnic communities and their members, and (3) the cumulative impacts of criminal justice agency decisions on the processing of individuals in the system. Administrative records data were gathered from two sources, the Alameda County Criminal Oriented Records Production System (CORPUS) (Part 1) and the Oakland District Attorney Legal Information System (DALITE) (Part 2). In addition to collecting administrative data, the researchers also surveyed residents (Part 3), police officers (Part 4), and public defenders and district attorneys (Part 5). The eight study areas included a middle- and low-income pair of census tracts for each of the four racial/ethnic groups: white, Black, Hispanic, and Asian. Part 1, Criminal Oriented Records Production System (CORPUS) Data, contains information on offenders' most serious felony and misdemeanor arrests, dispositions, offense codes, bail arrangements, fines, jail terms, and pleas for both current and prior arrests in Alameda County. Demographic variables include age, sex, race, and marital status. Variables in Part 2, District Attorney Legal Information System (DALITE) Data, include current and prior charges, days from offense to charge, disposition, and arrest, plea agreement conditions, final results from both municipal court and superior court, sentence outcomes, date and outcome of arraignment, disposition, and sentence, number and type of enhancements, numbers of convictions, mistrials, acquittals, insanity pleas, and dismissals, and factors that determined the prison term. For Part 3, Oakland Community Crime Survey Data, researchers interviewed 1,930 Oakland residents from eight communities. Information was gathered from community residents on the quality of schools, shopping, and transportation in their neighborhoods, the neighborhood's racial composition, neighborhood problems, such as noise, abandoned buildings, and drugs, level of crime in the neighborhood, chances of being victimized, how respondents would describe certain types of criminals in terms of age, race, education, and work history, community involvement, crime prevention measures, the performance of the police, judges, and attorneys, victimization experiences, and fear of certain types of crimes. Demographic variables include age, sex, race, and family status. For Part 4, Oakland Police Department Survey Data, Oakland County police officers were asked about why they joined the police force, how they perceived their role, aspects of a good and a bad police officer, why they believed crime was down, and how they would describe certain beats in terms of drug availability, crime rates, socioeconomic status, number of juveniles, potential for violence, residential versus commercial, and degree of danger. Officers were also asked about problems particular neighborhoods were experiencing, strategies for reducing crime, difficulties in doing police work well, and work conditions. Demographic variables include age, sex, race, marital status, level of education, and years on the force. In Part 5, Public Defender/District Attorney Survey Data, public defenders and district attorneys were queried regarding which offenses were increasing most rapidly in Oakland, and they were asked to rank certain offenses in terms of seriousness. Respondents were also asked about the public's influence on criminal justice agencies and on the performance of certain criminal justice agencies. Respondents were presented with a list of crimes and asked how typical these offenses were and what factors influenced their decisions about such cases (e.g., intent, motive, evidence, behavior, prior history, injury or loss, substance abuse, emotional trauma). Other variables measured how often and under what circumstances the public defender and client and the public defender and the district attorney agreed on the case, defendant characteristics in terms of who should not be put on the stand, the effects of Proposition 8, public defender and district attorney plea guidelines, attorney discretion, and advantageous and disadvantageous characteristics of a defendant. Demographic variables include age, sex, race, marital status, religion, years of experience, and area of responsibility.

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

Partially restricted

Understanding the Use of Force By and Against the Police in Six Jurisdictions in the United States, 1996-1997 (ICPSR 3172)

Released/updated on: 2006-03-30

Geographic coverage: North Carolina, San Diego, Charlotte, Mecklenburg, United States, Texas, Colorado, St. Petersburg, California, Florida, Dallas, Colorado Springs

Time period: 1996-08-01--1997-02-01

This study examined the amount of force used by and against law enforcement officers and more than 50 characteristics of officers, civilians, and arrest situations associated with the use of different levels of force. An important component of this multijurisdiction project was to employ a common measurement of elements of force and predictors of force. Data were gathered about suspects' and police officers' behaviors from adult custody arrests in six urban law enforcement agencies. The participating agencies were the Charlotte-Mecklenburg (North Carolina) Police Department, Colorado Springs (Colorado) Police Department, Dallas (Texas) Police Department, St. Petersburg (Florida) Police Department, San Diego (California) Police Department, and San Diego County (California) Sheriff's Department. Data collection began at different times in the participating departments, so the total sample included arrests during the summer, fall, and winter of 1996-1997. Forms were completed and coded for 7,512 adult custody arrests (Part 1). This form was used to record officer self-reports on the characteristics of the arrest situation, the suspects, and the officers, and the specific behavioral acts of officers, suspects, and bystanders in a particular arrest. Similar items were asked of 1,156 suspects interviewed in local jails at the time they were booked following arrest to obtain an independent assessment of officer and suspect use of force (Part 2). Officers were informed that some suspects would be interviewed, but they did not know which would be interviewed or when. Using the items included on the police survey, the research team constructed four measures of force used by police officers -- physical force, physical force plus threats, continuum of force, and maximum force. Four comparable measures of force used by arrested suspects were also developed. These measures are included in the data for Part 1. Each measure was derived by combining specific actions by law enforcement officers or by suspects in various ways. The first measure was a traditional conceptual dichotomy of arrests in which physical force was or was not used. For both the police and for suspects, the definition of physical force included any arrest in which a weapon or weaponless tactic was used. In addition, police arrests in which officers used a severe restraint were included. The second measure, physical force plus threats, was similar to physical force but added the use of threats and displays of weapons. To address the potential limitations of these two dichotomous measures, two other measures were developed. The continuum-of-force measure captured the levels of force commonly used in official policies by the participating law enforcement agencies. To construct the fourth measure, maximum force, 503 experienced officers in five of the six jurisdictions ranked a variety of hypothetical types of force by officers and by suspects on a scale from 1 (least forceful) to 100 (most forceful). Officers were asked to rank these items based on their own personal experience, not official policy. These rankings of police and suspect use of force, which appear in Part 3, were averaged for each jurisdiction and used in Part 1 to weight the behaviors that occurred in the sampled arrests. Variables for Parts 1 and 2 include nature of the arrest, features of the arrest location, mobilization of the police, and officer and suspect characteristics. Part 3 provides officer rankings on 54 items that suspects might do or say during an arrest. Separately, officers ranked a series of 44 items that a police officer might do or say during an arrest. These items include spitting, shouting or cursing, hitting, wrestling, pushing, resisting, fleeing, commanding, using conversational voice, and using pressure point holds, as well as possession, display, threat of use, or use of several weapons (e.g., knife, chemical agent, dog, blunt object, handgun, motor vehicle).

Curated

Restricted

Collective Efficacy and Social Cohesion in Miami-Dade County, Florida, 2010-2011 (ICPSR 34656)

Released/updated on: 2016-05-20

Geographic coverage: United States, Florida, Miami

Time period: 2010-01-01--2011-01-01

The current study sought to expand the current understanding of the psychometric characteristics of the collective efficacy scale at the individual level and the role of collective efficacy in promoting safe, healthy community conditions. A team of interviewers consisting of residents of the targeted neighborhoods were selected and trained to administer the field surveys (NIJ Neighborhoods Resident Survey Data, 108 variables, n=649). In order to ensure accuracy of the responses, the field supervisor conducted telephone validation for approximately ten to fifteen percent of the surveys. In addition to resident surveys, trained research staff conducted systematic social observations (SSOs) of street segments in selected neighborhoods noting physical and social indictors.

Curated

Partially restricted

Simple Crosstabs

Reducing Violence in Communities: An In-Depth Study of Efforts in Durham, NC and Minneapolis, MN, 2010-2022 (ICPSR 38691)

Released/updated on: 2024-10-30

Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Minneapolis, United States, Minnesota, Durham

Time period: 2010-01-01--2022-01-01

Recognizing that violence can be an intractable problem in many communities and that there are numerous approaches to both an immediate violence problem and the range of root causes behind violence, the National Institute of Justice funded an investigation into what factors underlie violence and efforts being implemented to address those factors and potentially reduce violence at the community level. In this mixed methods study, the RAND Corporation drew on data from key informant interviews, community surveys, administrative data, and geographic data to examine specific factors that contribute to violence, as well as a range of anti-violence efforts that have been used to address violence levels in two U.S. communities: the Bullseye area of Durham, North Carolina, and the Northside (North Minneapolis) neighborhood of Minneapolis, Minnesota. Specifically, the research project aimed to answer the following questions:

What are community level factors that can contribute to persistent violence?
What are the key factors in both cities that distinguish high violent crime areas compared to low violent crime areas?

This collection contains final analytic datasets for Durham (DS1) and Minneapolis (DS2), violent crime rate data (DS3), community survey data for Durham (DS4) and Minneapolis (DS5), and multiple datasets containing community-level contextual factors from the American Community Survey (ACS) and geographical data from the U.S. Census Bureau (2009-2018) that were used to build the final analytic datasets (DS6-DS11). Qualitative data from key informant interviews and GIS data are not available for download at this time. Access to Durham and Minneapolis community survey data is restricted.

Curated

Partially restricted

Simple Crosstabs

Homeland Security in Small Law Enforcement Jurisdictions: Preparedness, Efficacy, and Proximity to Big-City Peers, 2011 (ICPSR 33941)

Released/updated on: 2015-12-22

Geographic coverage: United States

The Homeland Security in Small Law Enforcement Jurisdictions study drew upon data collected from 350 small (1-25 full time sworn officers) law enforcement agencies nationwide to address four gaps in the homeland security research literature and clarify/expand upon an empirically-derived model of homeland security preparedness and organizational efficacy.

Whether physical and relational proximity to large agency peers facilitates the development of homeland security preparedness and improves perceptions of organizational efficacy (the capacity of an organization to respond) in small agencies and, conversely, whether the geographic isolation of small, rural agencies inhibits homeland security efforts.
Whether efficacy of efforts to enhance homeland security is not just a function of perceived/actual risk or funding, but also other "institutional pressures", such as books and journal publications, as well as conferences, training, and other professional networks and channels.
Assessments of preparedness outcomes through "organizational efficacy", the perception about the organization's ability to accomplish its goals.
The lack of theoretical context, such as contingency and institutional theory frameworks, used to examine data on preparedness and organizational efficacy.

Curated

Systematic Review of the Effects of Second Responder Programs, 1992-2007 (ICPSR 31641)

Released/updated on: 2011-08-22

Geographic coverage: United States, United Kingdom, Australia, Global

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

The purpose of this systematic review was to compile and synthesize published and unpublished empirical studies of the effects of second responder programs on repeat incidents of family violence. The researchers employed multiple strategies to search for literature that met the eligibility criteria. A keyword search was performed on a variety of online databases. Researchers reviewed the bibliographies of all second responder studies they located. Researchers performed hand searches of leading journals in the field and searched the Department of Justice Office of Violence Against Women Web site for a listing of federally-funded second responded programs and any evaluations conducted on those programs. A total of 22 studies that discussed second responder programs were found by the research team. Of these, 12 were eliminated from the sample because they did not meet the inclusion criteria, leaving a final sample of 10 studies. After collecting an electronic or paper copy of each article or report, researchers extracted pertinent data from each eligible article using a detailed coding protocol. Two main outcome measures were available for a sufficient number of studies to permit meta-analysis. One outcome was based on police data (Part 1: Police Data, n=9), for example whether a new domestic violence incident was reported to the police in the form of a crime report within six months of the triggering incident. The second outcome was based on survey data (Part 2: Interview Data, n=8), for example whether a new domestic violence incident occurred and was reported to a researcher during an interview within six months of the triggering incident. Several of studies (n=7) included in the meta-analysis had both outcome measures.

Curated

Community Crime Prevention and Intimate Violence in Chicago, 1995-1998 (ICPSR 3437)

Released/updated on: 2005-11-04

Geographic coverage: United States, Chicago, Illinois

Time period: 1995-01-01--1998-01-01

This study sought to answer the question: If a woman is experiencing intimate partner violence, does the collective efficacy and community capacity of her neighborhood facilitate or erect barriers to her ability to escape violence, other things being equal? To address this question, longitudinal data on a sample of 210 abused women from the CHICAGO WOMEN'S HEALTH RISK STUDY, 1995-1998 (ICPSR 3002) were combined with community context data for each woman's residential neighborhood taken from the Chicago Alternative Policing Strategy (CAPS) evaluation, LONGITUDINAL EVALUATION OF CHICAGO'S COMMUNITY POLICING PROGRAM, 1993-2000 (ICPSR 3335). The unit of analysis for the study is the individual abused woman (not the neighborhood). The study takes the point of view of a woman standing at a street address and looking around her. The characteristics of the small geographical area immediately surrounding her residential address form the community context for that woman. Researchers chose the police beat as the best definition of a woman's neighborhood, because it is the smallest Chicago area for which reliable and complete data are available. The characteristics of the woman's police beat then became the community context for each woman. The beat, district, and community area of the woman's address are present. Neighborhood-level variables include voter turnout percentage, organizational involvement, percentage of households on public aid, percentage of housing that was vacant, percentage of housing units owned, percentage of feminine poverty households, assault rate, and drug crime rate. Individual-level demographic variables include the race, ethnicity, age, marital status, income, and level of education of the woman and the abuser. Other individual-level variables include the Social Support Network (SSN) scale, language the interview was conducted in, Harass score, Power and Control score, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) diagnosis, other data pertaining to the respondent's emotional and physical health, and changes over the past year. Also included are details about the woman's household, such as whether she was homeless, the number of people living in the household and details about each person, the number of her children or other children in the household, details of any of her children not living in her household, and any changes in the household structure over the past year. Help-seeking in the past year includes whether the woman had sought medical care, had contacted the police, or had sought help from an agency or counselor, and whether she had an order of protection. Several variables reflect whether the woman left or tried to leave the relationship in the past year. Finally, the dataset includes summary variables about violent incidents in the past year (severity, recency, and frequency), and in the follow-up period.

Curated

Evaluation of the Gang Resistance Education and Training (GREAT) Program in the United States, 1995-1999 (ICPSR 3337)

Released/updated on: 2015-08-21

Geographic coverage: United States

Time period: 1995-01-01--1999-01-01

This study sought to evaluate the effectiveness of the Gang Resistance Education And Training (GREAT) program by surveying five different groups: students in a cross-sectional design (Part 1), law enforcement officers (Part 2), educators (Part 3), parents (Part 4), and students in a longitudinal design (Part 5). Middle school students in the cross-sectional design were surveyed to examine GREAT's short- and long-term effects, and to assess the quality and effectiveness of officer training. Law enforcement officers were surveyed to determine whether their perceptions and expectations of the GREAT program varied depending on sex, race, rank, age, level of education, and length of time working in policing. Data were collected from middle school personnel (administrators, counselors, and teachers) in order to assess educators' attitudes toward and perceptions of the effectiveness of the GREAT program, including the curriculum's appropriateness for middle school students and its effectiveness in delinquency and gang prevention both in the school and in the community. Parents were surveyed to assess their attitudes toward crime and gangs in their community, school prevention programs, the role of police in the school, and their satisfaction with and perceptions of the effectiveness of the GREAT program. The middle school students participating in the longitudinal aspect of this study were surveyed to examine the change in attitudes and behavior, germane to gang activity, over time. Variables for all parts were geared toward assessing perception and attitudes about the police and the GREAT program and their overall effectiveness, community involvement, neighborhood crime, and gang-related activities.

Curated

Restricted

Law Enforcement and Sex Offender Registration and Notification: Perspectives, Uses, and Experiences, 2014-2015 [United States] (ICPSR 36534)

Released/updated on: 2017-12-19

Geographic coverage: United States

Time period: 2014-02-01--2014-06-01, 2015-04-01--2015-05-01

This study represents the first comprehensive national assessment of law enforcement uses of and perspectives on sex offender registration and notification (SORN) systems. The two-year, mixed-method study featured collection and analysis of interview data from over two-dozen jurisdictions, and administration of a nationwide survey of law enforcement professionals. The study examined ways in which law enforcement leaders, uniformed staff, and civilian staff engaged in SORN-related duties perceive SORN's roles and functions, general effectiveness, and informational utility. Additionally, the study elicited law enforcement perspectives related to promising SORN and related sex offender management practices, perceived barriers and challenges to effectiveness, and policy reform priorities.

This collection includes two SPSS data files and one SPSS syntax file: "LE Qualitative Data.sav" with 55 variables and 101 cases, "LE Quantitative Data-ICPSR.sav" with 201 variables and 1402 cases and "LE Quantitative Data Syntax.sps".

Qualitative data from interviews conducted with law enorcement professionals are not available at this time.

Curated

Breaking the School-to-Prison Pipeline: Implications of Removing Police from Schools for Racial and Ethnic Disparities in the Justice System, United States, 2003-2018 (ICPSR 39189)

Released/updated on: 2024-11-20

Geographic coverage: United States

Time period: 2003-01-01--2018-12-31

Momentum toward removing school-based law enforcement (SBLE) has increased since the summer of 2020. This change has occurred due to issues of equity with the hope that removing SBLE will reduce existing racial and ethnic disparities in the criminal justice system. SBLE refers to sworn law enforcement stationed in schools on either a part- or full-time basis. Some SBLE are known as school resource officers, who often receive special training in juvenile law and interacting with students in schools, although this varies from state to state. Other SBLE do not receive any special training in working with young people.

Although the move toward removing SBLE may have intuitive appeal to some school districts, no empirical evidence exists regarding what happens to students' frequency of contact with the criminal justice system after schools remove SBLE. Similarly, current research has not examined the impacts on the attendant racial and ethnic disparities.

All the data used in this study are secondary data from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), including both the publicly available Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC) and the restricted-use School Survey on Crime and Safety (SSOCS). All data cleaning, manipulation, and analysis will be done using syntax files in Stata. This study is a collection of these three Stata .do syntax files.

This study compared changes in three measures of criminal justice contact (i.e., arrests, referrals to law enforcement, and crimes reported to police) in schools that removed SBLE relative to the changes in schools that did not remove SBLE. The study examined within-school racial and ethnic differences in rates of arrest and referrals to law enforcement, and between-school differences in all three measures of criminal justice system contact by school racial composition.

Curated

Informal Social Control of Crime in High Drug Use Neighborhoods in Louisville and Lexington, Kentucky, 2000 (ICPSR 3412)

Released/updated on: 2006-03-30

Geographic coverage: United States, Kentucky, Louisville, Lexington

Time period: 1997-01-01--2000-01-01

This neighborhood-level study sought to explore the effect of cultural disorganization, in terms of both weakened conventional culture and value heterogeneity, on informal social control, and the extent to which these effects may be conditioned by the level of drug use in the neighborhood. Data for Part 1 were collected from face-to-face and telephone interviews with households in the targeted sample. Part 2 is comprised of data collected from the United States Census 1990 Summary Tape File 3A (STF3A) as well as the United States Census 2000 Population counts, Lexington and Louisville police crime incident reports, and police data on drug arrests. The responses gleaned from the survey used in Part 1 were aggregated to the census block group level, which are included in Part 2.

Curated

Partially restricted

Evaluation of the Target Corporation's Safe City Initiative in Chula Vista, California, and Cincinnati, Ohio, 2004-2008 (ICPSR 28044)

Released/updated on: 2010-09-29

Geographic coverage: United States, Texas, Chula Vista, Ohio, Cincinnati, California, New York (state), Buffalo, Houston

Time period: 2004-01-01--2008-11-01, 2004-01-01--2008-11-01, 2007-03-01--2008-03-01

The purpose of the study was to evaluate the implementation of the Safe City crime prevention model that was implemented in designated retail areas in jurisdictions across the United States. The model involved frequent meetings and information-sharing among the police, Target, and neighboring retailers, along with the implementation of enhanced technology. The first step in the Safe City evaluation involved selecting evaluation sites. The final sites selected were Chula Vista, California, and Cincinnati, Ohio. Next, for each of the two sites, researchers selected a site that had a potential for crime displacement caused by the intervention area, and a matched comparison area in another jurisdiction that would likely have been selected as a Safe City site. For Chula Vista, the displacement area was 2 miles east of the intervention area and the comparison area was in Houston, Texas. For Cincinnati, the displacement area was 1.5 miles north of the intervention area and the comparison area was in Buffalo, New York. In Chula Vista, the Safe City intervention activities were focused on gaining a better understanding of the nature and underlying causes of the crime and disorder problems occurring in the designated Safe City site, and strengthening pre-existing partnerships between law enforcement and businesses affected by these problems. In Cincinnati, the Safe City intervention activities centered on increasing business and citizen awareness, communication, and involvement in crime control and prevention activities. The research team collected pre- and post-intervention crime data from local police departments (Part 1) to measure the impact of the Safe City initiatives in Chula Vista and Cincinnati. The 981 records in Part 1 contain monthly crime counts from January 2004 to November 2008 for various types of crime in the retail areas that received the intervention in Chula Vista and Cincinnati, and their corresponding displacement zones and matched comparison areas. Using the monthly crime counts contained in the Safe City Monthly Crime Data (Part 1) and estimations of the total cost of crime to society for various offenses from prior research, the research team calculated the total cost of crimes reported during the month/year for each crime type that was readily available (Part 2). The 400 records in the Safe City Monthly Cost Benefit Analysis Data (Part 2) contain monthly crime cost estimates from January 2004 to November 2008 for assaults, burglaries, larcenies, and robberies in the retail areas that received the intervention in Chula Vista and Cincinnati, and their corresponding displacement zones and matched comparison areas. The research team also received a total of 192 completed baseline and follow-up surveys with businesses in Chula Vista and Cincinnati in 2007 and 2008 (Part 3). The surveys collected data on merchants' perceptions of crime and safety in and around businesses located in the Safe City areas. The Safe City Monthly Crime Data (Part 1) contain seven variables including the number of crimes in the target area, the month and year the crime was committed, the number of crimes in the displacement area, the number of crimes in a comparable area in a comparable city, the city, and the crime type. The Safe City Monthly Cost Benefit Analysis Data (Part 2) contain seven variables including the cost of the specified type of crime occurring in the target area, the month and year the cost was incurred, the cost of the specified type of crime in the displacement area, the cost of the specified type of crime in a matched comparison area, the city, and the crime type. The Safe City Business Survey Data (Part 3) contain 132 variables relating to perceptions of safety, contact with local police, experience and reporting of crime, impact of crime, crime prevention, community connections, and business/employee information.

Curated

Simple Crosstabs

Fatal and Non-Fatal Intimate Partner and Family Violence Against Older Women: An Exploration of Age and Police Response to Inform Research, Policy, and Practice, United States, 2011-2019 (ICPSR 39463)

Released/updated on: 2026-01-28

Geographic coverage: United States

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

This research project examined police response to fatal and non-fatal intimate partner violence (IPV) and family violence (FV) against older women from existing data sources, including the Uniform Crime Reporting Program's National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) and the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) National Violent Death Reporting System (NVDRS). The goals of this project were to explore how existing data sources could inform a better understanding of IPV and FV against older women.

This collection includes variables derived from the publicly available NCVS (Dataset 1) and NIBRS (Datasets 2 and 3) data. The NVDRS data is only available with restricted access through the CDC and is not available with ICPSR.

Curated

Restricted

A Process and Outcome Evaluation of the use of NIBIN and its Effects on Criminal Investigations in the United States, 2006-2012 (ICPSR 34970)

Released/updated on: 2016-09-26

Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Oregon, Puerto Rico, Indiana, Wyoming, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Maine, Alabama, Arkansas, Utah, Washington, South Carolina, Nebraska, West Virginia, Massachusetts, Colorado, Missouri, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Arizona, Nevada, District of Columbia, Rhode Island, Montana, Kentucky, South Dakota, Minnesota, California, Kansas, Florida, Delaware, New York (state), Michigan, Pennsylvania, Mississippi, Iowa, New Mexico, Illinois, Texas, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Louisiana, Ohio, Georgia, Virginia, Maryland, Idaho

Time period: 2006-06-01--2012-07-01

This project had four goals/areas of examination.

Examine the current state of the National Integrated Ballistic Information Network (NIBIN) implementation nationally and at partner sites.
Examine the impediments and facilitators of successful implementation of NIBIN.
Understand the extent to which NIBIN helps identify suspects and increase arrests for firearms crimes.
Understand best practices for the implementation of NIBIN at agencies and for criminal investigations.

Curated

Partially restricted

North Carolina Highway Traffic Study, 2000-2001 (ICPSR 4078)

Released/updated on: 2006-03-30

Geographic coverage: North Carolina, United States

Time period: 2000-01-01--2001-01-01

This study investigated whether the North Carolina State Highway Patrol (NCSHP) practiced racial profiling. The NCSHP provided data on all vehicular stops (Parts 1 and 2), written warnings (Part 3), and citations (Part 4) its officers issued in 2000. This included data on what the stops or tickets were for, the race, sex, and age of the driver, and the make, model, and year of the car being driven. Data on accidents in 2000 (Part 5), also obtained from the NCSHP, were used to examine whether there were racial disparities in unsafe driving practices. These data included information about what caused the accident and the race, sex, and age of the driver. The NCSHP also supplied data on all officers who worked for the NCSHP in 2000 (Part 6), including their race, age, and rank. The data in Part 6 can be linked to the data in Parts 3 and 4. In addition, two surveys of North Carolina drivers were conducted to gather information on reported typical driving behaviors that may influence the probability of being stopped, and to gather information about stops conducted by law enforcement agencies across the state. One was conducted using a sample of North Carolina drivers who had recently renewed their licenses (Part 7), and the other used a sample of North Carolina drivers who were ticketed for speeding between June 1, 1999, and June 1, 2000 (Part 8).

Curated

Evaluation of No-Drop Policies for Domestic Violence Cases in San Diego, California, Omaha, Nebraska, Klamath Falls, Oregon, and Everett, Washington, 1996-2000 (ICPSR 3319)

Released/updated on: 2006-03-30

Geographic coverage: Oregon, Omaha, Klameth Falls, San Diego, United States, Everett, California, Washington, Nebraska

Time period: 1996-01-01--2000-01-01

This study sought to examine the effects of no-drop policies on court outcomes, victim satisfaction with the justice system, and feelings of safety. Moreover, researchers wanted to determine whether (1) prosecution without the victim's cooperation was feasible with appropriate increases in resources, (2) implementing a no-drop policy resulted in increased convictions and fewer dismissals, (3) the number of trials would increase in jurisdictions where no-drop was adopted as a result of the prosecutor's demand for a plea in cases in which victims were uncooperative or unavailable, and (4) prosecutors would have to downgrade sentence demands to persuade defense attorneys to negotiate pleas in the new context of a no-drop policy. Statutes implemented in San Diego, California, were designed to make it easier to admit certain types of evidence and thereby to increase the prosecutor's chances of succeeding in trials without victim cooperation. To assess the impact of these statutes, researchers collected official records data on a sample of domestic violence cases in which disposition occurred between 1996 and 2000 and resulted in no trial (Part 1), and cases in which disposition occurred between 1996 and 1999, and resulted in a trial (Part 2). In Everett, Washington (Part 3), Klamath Falls, Oregon (Part 4), and Omaha, Nebraska (Part 5), researchers collected data on all domestic violence cases in which disposition occurred between 1996 and 1999 and resulted in a trial. Researchers also conducted telephone interviews in the four sites with domestic violence victims whose cases resolved under the no-drop policy (Part 6) in the four sites. Variables for Part 1 include defendant's gender, court outcome, whether the defendant was sentenced to probation, jail, or counseling, and whether the counseling was for batterer, drug, or anger management. Criminal history, other domestic violence charges, and the relationship between the victim and defendant are also included. Variables for Part 2 include length of trial and outcome, witnesses for the prosecution, defendant's statements to the police, whether there were photos of the victim's injury, the scene, or the weapon, and whether medical experts testified. Criminal history and whether the defendant underwent psychological evaluation or counseling are also included. Variables for Parts 3-5 include the gender of the victim and defendant, relationship between victim and defendant, top charges and outcomes, whether the victim had to be subpoenaed, types of witnesses, if there was medical evidence, type of weapon used, if any, whether the defendant confessed, any indications that the prosecutor talked to the victim, if the victim was in court on the disposition date, the defendant's sentence, and whether the sentence included electronic surveillance, public service, substance abuse counseling, or other general counseling. Variables for Part 6 include relationship between victim and defendant, whether the victim wanted the defendant to be arrested, whether the defendant received treatment for alcohol, drugs, or domestic violence, if the court ordered the defendant to stay away from the victim, and if the victim spoke to anyone in the court system, such as the prosecutor, detective, victim advocate, defense attorney, judge, or a probation officer. The victim's satisfaction with the police, judge, prosecutor, and the justice system, and whether the defendant had continued to threaten, damage property, or abuse the victim verbally or physically are also included. Demographic variables on the victim include race, income, and level of education.

Curated

National Evaluation of the National Institute of Justice Grants to Combat Violent Crimes Against Women on Campus Program, 2000-2002 (ICPSR 3814)

Released/updated on: 2006-03-30

Geographic coverage: United States

Time period: 2000-01-01--2002-01-01

This study was undertaken as a process evaluation of the Grants to Combat Violence Against Women on Campus Program (Campus Program), which was conducted by the Institute for Law and Justice under a grant from the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) and funding from the Violence Against Women Office (VAWO). The Campus Program was comprised of 38 colleges or universities, which received funding in 1999 and 2000. Part 1 data consist of basic demographic information about each campus and the violence against women programs and services available at each site. Data for Part 2, collected from questionnaires administered to grant project staff, documented perceptions about the Campus Program project and participation and collaboration from those involved in the partnership with each college or university (i.e., non-profit, non-governmental victim service providers).