This data collection was designed to evaluate the implementation of community policing initiatives for three police departments in Jefferson County, West Virginia: the Ranson Town Police Department, the West Virginia State Police (Jefferson County Detachment), and the Jefferson County Sheriff's Department. The evaluation was undertaken by the Free Our Citizens of Unhealthy Substances Coalition (FOCUS), a county-based group of citizens who represented all segments of the community, including businesses, churches, local law enforcement agencies, and local governments. The aim was to find answers to the following questions: (1) Can community policing have any detectable and measurable impact in a predominantly rural setting? (2) Did the police department do what they said they would do in their funding application? (3) If they were successful, what factors supported their efforts and were key to their success? and (4) If they were not successful, what problems prevented their success? The coalition conducted citizen surveys to evaluate how much of an impact community policing initiatives had in their county. In January 1996, research assistants conducted a baseline survey of 300 households in the county. Survey responses were intended to gauge residents' fear of crime and to assess how well the police were performing their duties. After one year, the coalition repeated its survey of public attitudes, and research assistants interviewed another 300 households. The research assumption was that any change in fear of crime or assessment of police performance could reasonably be attributed to these new community policing inventions. Crime reporting variables from the survey included which crime most concerned the respondent, if the respondent would report a crime he or she observed, and whether the respondent would testify about the crime in court. Variables pertaining to level of concern for specific crimes include how concerned respondents were that someone would rob or attack them, break into or vandalize their home, or try to sexually attack them/someone they cared about. Community involvement variables covered participation in community groups or activities, neighborhood associations, church, or informal social activities. Police/citizen interaction variables focused on the number of times respondents had called to report a problem to the police in the last two years, how satisfied they were with how the police handled the problem, the extent to which this police department needed improvement, whether children trusted law enforcement officers, whether police needed to respond more quickly to calls, whether the police needed improved relations with the community, and in the past year whether local police performance had improved/gotten worse. Specific crime information variables include whether the crime occurred in the respondent's neighborhood, whether he/she was the victim, if crime was serious in the respondent's neighborhood versus elsewhere, whether the respondent had considered moving as a result of crime in the neighborhood, and how personal safety had changed in the respondent's neighborhood. Variables relating to community policing include whether the respondent had heard the term "community policing" in the past year, from what source, and what community policing activities the respondent was aware of. Demographic variables include job self-classification, racial/ethnic identity, length of residency, age, gender, martial status, educational status, and respondent's town of residence.

This study sought to examine community policing from a street-level officer's point of view. Active community police officers and sheriff's deputies from law enforcement agencies were interviewed about their opinions, experiences with, and attitudes toward community policing. For the study 90 rank-and-file community policing officers from 30 law enforcement agencies throughout the United States were selected to participate in a 40- to 60-minute telephone interview. The survey was comprised of six sections, providing information on: (1) demographics, including the race, gender, age, job title, highest level of education, and union membership of each respondent, (2) a description of the community policing program and daily tasks, with questions regarding the size of the neighborhood in terms of geography and population, work with citizens and community leaders, patrol methods, activities with youth/juveniles, traditional police duties, and agency and supervisor support of community policing, (3) interaction between community policing and non-community policing officers, (4) hours, safety, and job satisfaction, (5) police training, and (6) perceived effectiveness of community policing.

These data were collected to analyze the impact of community-oriented policing (COP) on job assignments of police officers in Ohio. The study compared the self-reported job tasks of police officers in 1981 to those in 1996 to determine if job tasks had changed over time, if they differed between officers in departments pursuing community policing, or if they differed between officers assigned as "community policing" officers and those having more traditional assignments. The 1981 Ohio Peace Officer Task Analysis Survey was conducted to measure police officer tasks. A total of 1,989 police officers from over 300 Ohio police agencies responded to that survey. Recognizing that community policing had not yet begun to enjoy popularity when the first sample of officers was questioned in 1981 and that the job of policing and the training needs of peace officers had changed over the past 15 years, the Ohio Office of Criminal Justice Services again conducted a task analysis survey of a sample of police officers throughout the state in 1996. The 1996 survey instrument included 23 items taken directly from the earlier survey. These 23 items are the only variables from the 1981 survey that are included in this dataset, and they form the basis of the study's comparisons. A total of 1,689 officers from 229 police departments responded to the 1996 survey. Additionally, while the 1996 Peace Officer Task Analysis survey was in the field, the local police agencies included in the survey sample were asked to complete a separate agency survey to determine if they had a community policing program. A total of 180 departments returned responses to this agency survey. Background questions for the 1981 and 1996 task analysis surveys included police officers' age, race, sex, and job satisfaction. Items concerning police officers' job tasks covered frequency of conducting field searches of arrested persons, handcuffing suspects, impounding property, participating in raids, patrolling on foot, giving street directions, mediating family disputes, and engaging in school visits. The 1996 agency questionnaire gathered data on whether the police department had a COP program or a mission statement that emphasized community involvement, whether the COP program had an actual implementation date and a full-time supervisor, whether the respondents were currently assigned as COP officers, and whether the department's COP officers had had supplemental training.

This study, funded under the Measuring What Matters Program, was conducted to identify general neighborhood strengthening, or community building, processes and police contributions to them. The purpose of the study, also known as the Police-Community Interaction Project (PCIP), was to conceive, identify, or define recognizable patterns of interaction and to find ways to treat these as quantities that vary in amount and can be shown to fluctuate over time or across places. To that end, researchers conducted surveys of block clubs, neighborhood associations, and umbrella groups to gauge the issues that were important to them, steps they were taking to address these issues, and the ways in which they interacted with the police. Researchers also attended the meetings and events held by the Westside Cooperative Organization (WESCO), an umbrella group, and gathered coded data about the meetings, events and issues discussed. Specific variables in the study include demographic variables about the blocks, neighborhoods, and districts represented by the organizations, descriptive variables on the organizations themselves, variables describing issues of importance to the organizations and steps those organizations were taking to address the issues, variables to describe the interaction between the organizations and police, and variables describing police involvement in community activities.

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.

This study sought to evaluate the Madison, Wisconsin, Police Department's creation of a new organizational design (both structural and managerial) that was intended to support community-oriented and problem-oriented policing. One-sixth of the organization serving approximately one-sixth of the community was used as a test site for the new community policing approach. This Experimental Police District (EPD) was charged with implementing "quality policing," which emphasized quality of service delivery, quality of life in the community, and quality of life in the workplace. For the first part of the program evaluation, attitude changes among officers working in the EPD were compared with those of officers working in the rest of the police department. Part 1, Commissioned Personnel Data, Wave 1, contains responses from 269 commissioned personnel surveyed in December 1987, before the creation of the EPD. Part 2, Commissioned Personnel Data, Wave 2, consists of responses from 264 police officers who completed a Wave 2 survey in December 1988, and Part 3, Commissioned Personnel Data, Wave 3, supplies responses from 230 police officers who completed a Wave 3 survey in December 1989. Although the analysis was to be based on a panel design, efforts were made to survey all commissioned personnel during each survey administration period. Police personnel provided their assessments on how successfully quality leadership had been implemented, the extent to which they worked closely with and received feedback from other officers, the amount of their interaction with detectives, the amount of time available for problem-solving, ease of arranging schedules, safety of working conditions, satisfaction with working conditions, type of work they performed, their supervisor, commitment to the department, attitudes related to community policing and problem-solving, perception of their relationship with the community, views of human nature, attitudes toward change, attitudes toward decentralization, and demographic information. As the second part of the program evaluation, attitude changes among residents served by the EPD were compared with those of residents in the rest of the city. These data are presented in Part 4, Residents Data, Waves 1 and 2. Data for Wave 1 consist of personal interviews with a random sample of 1,166 Madison residents in February and March 1988, prior to the opening of the EPD station. During the second wave, Wave 1 respondents were interviewed by telephone in February and March 1990. Residents provided their perceptions of police presence, frequency and quality of police-citizen contacts, estimates of the magnitude of various problems in their neighborhoods, evaluation of the problem-solving efforts of the police, perception of neighborhood conditions, levels of fear of crime, personal experience of victimization, knowledge of victimization of other residents, and demographic information.

This study was conducted to explore the ways that enable the Ada County Sheriff's Office (ACSO) to examine its behavior in five areas that embody its adoption of community policing elements: (1) periodic assessments of citizens' perceptions of crime and police services, (2) substation policing, (3) patrol based in problem-oriented identification and resolution, (4) performance evaluation in a community-oriented policing (COP)/problem-oriented policing (POP) environment, and (5) the building of community partnerships. The researchers strived to obtain both transitive and recursive effects. One of the goals of this project was to facilitate the ACSO's efforts toward self-reflection, and by doing so, become a learning organization. In order to do this, data were collected, via survey, from both citizens of Ada County and from deputies employed by the ACSO. The citizen survey was a random, stratified telephone survey, using CATI technology, administered to 761 Ada County residents who received patrol services from the ACSO. The survey was designed to correspond to a similar survey conducted in 1997 (DEVELOPING A PROBLEM-ORIENTED POLICING MODEL IN ADA COUNTY, IDAHO, 1997-1998 [ICPSR 2654]) in the same area regarding similar issues: citizens' fear of crime, citizens' satisfaction with police services, the extent of public knowledge about and interest in ideas of community policing, citizens' police service needs, sheriff's office service needs and their views of the community policing mandate. The deputy survey was a self-enumerated questionnaire administered to 54 deputies and sergeants of the ACSO during a pre-arranged, regular monthly training. This survey consisted of four sections: the deputies' perception of crime problems, rating of the deputy performance evaluation, ethical issues in policing, and departmental relations.

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.

For this study, two different projects with an overlap of purpose made use of the same data, which were based on a national sample of 695 police departments. One project conducted background research for a guidebook on call management for community policing. The other focused on the use of computer-aided dispatch (CAD) systems in community policing. Survey questions focused on the types of CAD systems, call management strategies, and community policing activities employed by each of the departments. Variables include types of CAD data used, use of different call management strategies, problem solving measures used, resource allocation measures used, community involvement/satisfaction measures used, support for special units, methods used for management accountability, and involvement in community policing activities.

The purpose of the Project on Policing Neighborhoods (POPN) was to provide an in-depth description of how the police and the community interact with each other in a community policing (CP) environment. Research was conducted in Indianapolis, Indiana, in 1996 and in St. Petersburg, Florida, in 1997. Several research methods were employed: systematic observation of patrol officers (Parts 1-4) and patrol supervisors (Parts 5-14), in-person interviews with patrol officers (Part 15) and supervisors (Parts 16-17), and telephone surveys of residents in selected neighborhoods (Part 18). Field researchers accompanied their assigned patrol or supervising officer during all activities and encounters with the public during the shift. Field researchers noted when various activities and encounters with the public occurred during these "ride-alongs," who was involved, and what happened. In the resulting data files coded observation data are provided at the ride level, the activity level (actions that did not involve interactions with citizens), the encounter level (events in which officers interacted with citizens), and the citizen level. In addition to encounters with citizens, supervisors also engaged in encounters with patrol officers. Patrol officers and patrol supervisors in both Indianapolis and St. Petersburg were interviewed one-on-one in a private interviewing room during their regular work shifts. Citizens in the POPN study beats were randomly selected for telephone surveys to determine their views about problems in their neighborhoods and other community issues. Administrative records were used to create site identification data (Part 19) and data on staffing (Part 20). This data collection also includes data compiled from census records, aggregated to the beat level for each site (Part 21). Census data were also used to produce district populations for both sites (Part 22). Citizen data were aggregated to the encounter level to produce counts of various citizen role categories and characteristics and characteristics of the encounter between the patrol officer and citizens in the various encounters (Part 23). Ride-level data (Parts 1, 5, and 10) contain information about characteristics of the ride, including start and end times, officer identification, type of unit, and beat assignment. Activity data (Parts 2, 6, and 11) include type of activity, where and when the activity took place, who was present, and how the officer was notified. Encounter data (Parts 3, 7, and 12) contain descriptive information on encounters similar to the activity data (i.e., location, initiation of encounter). Citizen data (Parts 4, 8, and 13) provide citizen characteristics, citizen behavior, and police behavior toward citizens. Similarly, officer data from the supervisor observations (Parts 9 and 14) include characteristics of the supervising officer and the nature of the interaction between the officers. Both the patrol officer and supervisor interview data (Parts 15-17) include the officers' demographics, training and knowledge, experience, perceptions of their beats and organizational environment, and beliefs about the police role. The patrol officer data also provide the officers' perceptions of their supervisors while the supervisor data describe supervisors' perceptions of their subordinates, as well as their views about their roles, power, and priorities as supervisors. Data from surveyed citizens (Part 18) provide information about their neighborhoods, including years in the neighborhood, distance to various places in the neighborhood, neighborhood problems and effectiveness of police response to those problems, citizen knowledge of, or interactions with, the police, satisfaction with police services, and friends and relatives in the neighborhood. Citizen demographics and geographic and weight variables are also included. Site identification variables (Part 19) include ride and encounter numbers, site beat (site, district, and beat or