This project is concerned with understanding the determinants of racial bias in police traffic stops and in the city of Syracuse, New York. Using an officer-level panel of data on vehicle stops and vehicle searches by 512 officers from 2006 to 2009, the primary goal of this research is to better understand the effects of officer experience on their proclivities for racial bias in traffic stops, while controlling for officer, citizen, and neighborhood demographics. Included in these data are variables for census tracts as well as their racial and ethnic makeup, times and dates when traffic stops occurred, sunrise and sunset data for the City of Syracuse, and the racial and ethnic makeup of citizens involved in stops.

This study's purpose was twofold: to investigate the nature of police patrol work in a community policing context and to field-test data collection instruments designed for systematic social observation. The project, conducted in Richmond, Virginia, where its police department was in the third year of a five-year plan to implement community policing, was designed as a case study of one police department's experience with community policing, focusing on officers in the patrol division. A team of eight researchers conducted observations with the police officers in the spring and summer of 1992. A total of 120 officers were observed during 125 observation sessions. Observers accompanied officers throughout their regular work shifts, taking brief field notes on officers' activities and encounters with the public. All of an observed officer's time during the shift was accounted for by either encounters or activities. Within 15 hours of the completion of the ridealong, the observer prepared a detailed narrative account of events that occurred during the ridealong and coded key items associated with these events. The study generated five nested quantitative datasets that can be linked by common variables. Part 1, Ridealong Data, provides information pertinent to the 125 observation sessions or "rides." Part 2, Activity Data, focuses on 5,576 activities conducted by officers when not engaged in encounters. Data in Part 3, Encounter Data, describe 1,098 encounters with citizens during the ridealongs. An encounter was defined as a communication between officers and citizens that took over one minute, involved more than three verbal exchanges between an officer and a citizen, or involved significant physical contact between the officer and citizen. Part 4, Citizen Data, provides data relevant to each of the 1,630 citizens engaged by police in the encounters. Some encounters involved more than one citizen. Part 5, Arrest Data, was constructed by merging Parts 1, 3, and 4, and provides information on 451 encounters that occurred during the ridealongs in which the citizen was suspected of some criminal mischief. All identification variables in this collection were created by the researchers for this project. Variables from Part 1 include date, start time, end time, unit, and beat assignment of the observation session, and the primary officer's and secondary officer's sex, race/ethnicity, years as an officer, months assigned to precinct and beat, hours of community policing training, and general orientation to community policing. Variables in Part 2 specify the time the activity began and ended, who initiated the activity, type, location, and visibility of the activity, involvement of the officer's supervisor during the activity, and if the activity involved problem-solving, or meeting with citizens or other community organizations. Part 3 variables include time encounter began and ended, who initiated the encounter, primary and secondary officer's energy level and mood before the encounter, problem as radioed by dispatcher, and problem as it appeared at the beginning of the encounter and at the end of the encounter. Information on the location of the encounter includes percent of time at initial location, visibility, officer's prior knowledge of the initial location, and if the officer anticipated violence at the scene. Additional variables focus on the presence of a supervisor, other police officers, service personnel, bystanders, and participants, if the officer filed or intended to file a report, if the officer engaged in problem-solving, and factors that influenced the officer's actions. Citizen information in Part 4 includes sex, age, and race/ethnicity of the citizen, role in the encounter, if the citizen appeared to be of low income, under the use of alcohol or drugs, or appeared to have a mental disorder or physical injury or illness, if the citizen was representing an establishment, if the citizen lived, worked, or owned property

This project aimed to develop new insights into offender decision-making in hot spots in New York City, and to test whether these insights could inform interventions to reduce crime in hot spots. There were two phases to the project. In the first phase a set of hypotheses were developed about offender decision-making based on semi-structured interviews with individuals who were currently incarcerated, formerly incarcerated individuals, individuals currently on probation, and community members of high crime areas with no justice-involvement. These interviews suggested several factors worthy of further testing. For instance, offenders believed they were less likely to get away with a crime if they knew more about the officers in their community. That is, when police officers were less anonymous, offenders were less likely to go forward with a crime. In the second phase a field intervention was developed and conducted to test whether reducing officer anonymity might deter crime. Through a randomized controlled trial (RCT) while working with NYPD neighborhood coordination officers, who work in New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) developments, it was tested whether sending information about officers to residents in housing developments would deter crime in those developments.

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

For this data collection, information on police-citizen encounters was collected to explore the peacekeeping functions of the police and their handling of encounters with mentally ill persons. The data were gathered for part or all of 270 shifts through observations by researchers riding in police cars in two Chicago police districts during a 14-month period in 1980-1981. In Part 1 (Shift Level), information was collected once per shift on the general level of activity during the shift and the observer's perceptions of emotions/attitudes displayed by the police officers he/she observed. The file also contains, for each of the 270 shifts, information about the personal characteristics, work history, and working relationships of the police officers observed. Part 2 (Encounter Level) contains detailed information on each police-citizen encounter including its nature, location, police actions and/or responses, citizens involved, and their characteristics and behavior. A unique and consistent shift identification number is attached to each encounter so that information about police officer characteristics from Part 1 may be matched with Part 2. There are 1,382 police-citizen encounters involving 2,555 citizens in this collection.

The data for this study were collected in order to examine the delivery of police services in selected neighborhoods. Performances of police agencies organized in different ways were compared as they delivered services to different sets of comparable neighborhoods. For Part 1, Citizen Debriefing Data, data were drawn from telephone interviews conducted with citizens who were involved in police-citizen encounters or who requested police services during the observed shifts. The file contains data on the citizens involved in observed encounters, their satisfaction with the delivered services, and neighborhood characteristics. This file includes variables such as the type of incident, estimated property loss, police response time, type of action taken by police, citizen satisfaction with the handling of the problem by police, reasons for dissatisfaction, the emotional state of the citizen during the encounter, whom the officers referred the citizen to for help, the citizen's prior contacts with police, and the citizen's education, age, sex, and total family income. Part 2, General Shift Information, contains data describing the shift (i.e., the eight-hour tour of duty to which the officers were assigned), the officers, and the events occurring during an observed shift. This file includes such variables as the total number of encounters, a breakdown of dispatched runs by type, the number of contacts with other officers, the number of contacts with non-police support units, officer discretion in taking legal action, and officer attitudes on patrol styles and activities. Part 3, Police Encounters Data, describes police encounters observed by the research team during selected shifts. It consists of information describing the officers' role in encounters with citizens observed during a shift and their demeanor toward the citizens involved. The file includes variables such as the type of encounter, how the encounter began, whether the citizens involved possessed a weapon, the encounter location, what other agencies were present during the encounter and when they arrived, police actions during the encounter, the role of citizens involved in the encounter, the demeanor of the officer toward the citizens during the encounter, actions taken by the citizens, which services were requested by the citizens, and how the observer affected the encounter. Part 4, Victimization Survey Data, examined citizen attitudes about the police and crime in their neighborhoods. The data were obtained through telephone interviews conducted by trained interviewers. These interviews followed a standard questionnaire designed by the project leaders. Variables include perceived risk of victimization, evaluations of the delivery of police services, household victimization occurring in the previous year, actions taken by citizens in response to crime, and demographic characteristics of the neighborhood.

These data are part of NACJD's Fast Track Release and are distributed as they there received from the data depositor. The files have been zipped by NACJD for release, but not checked or processed except of the removal of direct identifiers. Users should refer to the accompany readme file for a brief description of the files available with this collections and consult the investigator(s) if further information is needed. This study interviewed young men living in New York City about their experiences being stopped by the police on the street or in their cars. It examined how experience with the police as well as general evaluations of police policies, practices and behaviors in the respondent's neighborhood shaped views about police legitimacy, and law related behavior, such as compliance with the law and cooperation with legal authorities.

This study 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.

The purpose of this study was to synthesize the extant problem-oriented policing evaluation literature and assess the effects of problem-oriented policing on crime and disorder. Several strategies were used to perform an exhaustive search for literature fitting the eligibility criteria. Researchers performed a keyword search on an array of online abstract databases, reviewed the bibliographies of past reviews of problem-oriented policing (POP), performed forward searches for works that have cited seminal problem-oriented policing studies, performed hand searches of leading journals in the field, searched the publication of several research and professional agencies, and emailed the list of studies meeting the eligibility criteria to leading policing scholars knowledgeable in the the area of problem-oriented policing to ensure relevant studies had not been missed. Both Part 1 (Pre-Post Study Data, n=52) and Part 2 (Quasi-Experimental Study Data, n=19) include variables in the following categories: reference information, nature and description of selection site, problems, etc., nature and description of selection of comparison group or period, unit of analysis, sample size, methodological type, description of the POP intervention, statistical test(s) used, reports of significance, effect size/power, and conclusions drawn by the authors.

This data collection investigates the nature of law enforcement by recording police behavior in problematic situations, primarily disturbances and traffic stops. The data collection contains two files. The first consists of information on disturbance encounters. Disturbance variables include type of disturbance, manner of investigation, designation of police response, several situational variables such as type of setting, number of victims, bystanders, suspects, and witnesses, demeanor of participants toward the police, type of police response, and demeanor of police toward participants. The second file contains data on traffic offenses. The variables include manner of investigation, incident code, officers' description of the incident, condition of the vehicle stopped, police contact with the passengers of the vehicle, demeanor of passengers toward the police, demeanor of police toward the passengers, and resolution of the situation. The data were collected based on field observation, using an instrument for recording observations.