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

The purpose of this data collection was to investigate the effects of changes in police evidence procedures and the effects of providing feedback to officers on felony case charge reductions or dismissals due to evidentiary problems. The data were designed to permit an experimental assessment of the effectiveness of two police evidence collection programs implemented on April 1, 1985. One of these was an investigative and post-arrest procedural guide. The other was an individualized feedback report prepared by prosecutors for police officers. The officer file includes information on each officer's sex and race, length of police service, and assignment changes during the study period. Data on the offender and the case files include time of arrest, information on arresting officer, original investigating officer and principal investigating officer, offense and victim characteristics, arrestee characteristics, available evidence, case processing information, and arrestee's criminal history.

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 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.

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 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.

These data were collected to examine the relationships among crime rates, residents' attitudes, physical deterioration, and neighborhood structure in selected urban Baltimore neighborhoods. The data collection provides both block- and individual-level neighborhood data for two time periods, 1981-1982 and 1994. The block-level files (Parts 1-6) include information about physical conditions, land use, people counts, and crime rates. Parts 1-3, the block assessment files, contain researchers' observations of street layout, traffic, housing type, and general upkeep of the neighborhoods. Part 1, Block Assessments, 1981 and 1994, contains the researchers' observations of sampled blocks in 1981, plus selected variables from Part 3 that correspond to items observed in 1981. Nonsampled blocks (in Part 2) are areas where block assessments were done, but no interviews were conducted. The "people counts" file (Part 4) is an actual count of people seen by the researchers on the sampled blocks in 1994. Variables for this file include the number, gender, and approximate age of the people seen and the types of activities they were engaged in during the assessment. Part 5, Land Use Inventory for Sampled Blocks, 1994, is composed of variables describing the types of buildings in the neighborhood and their physical condition. Part 6, Crime Rates and Census Data for All Baltimore Neighborhoods, 1970-1992, includes crime rates from the Baltimore Police Department for aggravated assault, burglary, homicide, larceny, auto theft, rape, and robbery for 1970-1992, and census information from the 1970, 1980, and 1990 United States Censuses on the composition of the housing units and the age, gender, race, education, employment, and income of residents. The individual-level files (Parts 7-9) contain data from interviews with neighborhood leaders, as well as telephone surveys of residents. Part 7, Interviews with Neighborhood Leaders, 1994, includes assessments of the level of involvement in the community by the organization to which the leader belongs and the types of activities sponsored by the organization. The 1982 and 1994 surveys of residents (Parts 8 and 9) asked respondents about different aspects of their neighborhoods, such as physical appearance, problems, and crime and safety issues, as well as the respondents' level of satisfaction with and involvement in their neighborhoods. Demographic information on respondents, such as household size, length of residence, marital status, income, gender, and race, is also provided in this file.

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 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.

This survey collected descriptive information from municipal police departments and sheriffs offices across the United States to determine whether the departments had implemented community policing, how their investigative functions were organized, and the ways in which their investigative organizational structure may have been modified to accommodate a community policing approach. The research project involved a national mail survey of municipal police departments and sheriffs offices in all jurisdictions with populations of more than 50,000 and 100 or more sworn officers. The survey was mailed in the late fall of 1997. Data contain responses from 405 municipal departments and 196 sheriffs offices. Questionnaires were similar but were modified depending on whether they were sent to municipal or sheriffs agencies. Data generated by the questionnaires provide descriptive information about the agencies, including agency type, state, size of population served, number of full-time and part-time sworn and civilian personnel, number of auxiliary and rescue personnel, number of detectives, whether the sworn personnel were represented by a bargaining unit, and if the agency was accredited. Respondents reported whether community policing had been implemented and, if so, identified various features that described community policing as it was structured in their agency, including year implementation began, number of sworn personnel with assignments that included community policing activities, and if someone was specifically responsible for overseeing community policing activities or implementation. Also elicited was information about the organization of the investigative function, including number of sworn personnel assigned specifically to the investigative/detective function, the organizational structure of this function, location and assignment of investigators or the investigative function, specialization of detectives/investigators, their pay scale compared to patrol officers, their relationship with patrol officers, and their chain-of-command. Finally, respondents reported whether the investigative structure or function had been modified to accommodate a community policing approach, and if so, the year the changes were first implemented.