The purpose of this data collection was to establish a current name and address listing of state and local government prosecution and civil attorney agencies and to obtain information about agency function, jurisdiction, employment, funding, and attorney compensation arrangements. The data for each agency include information for any identifiable local police prosecutors. Excluded from the study were private law firms that perform legal services periodically for a government and are compensated by retainers and fees. Variables cover agency functions and jurisdiction, agency funding, number and types of employees, compensation and employment restrictions for attorneys, agency's geographical jurisdiction, number of branch offices, and number of branch office employees.

The Prosecutor's Management and Information System (PROMIS) is a computer-based management information system for public prosecution agencies. PROMIS was initially developed with funds from the United States Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA) to cope with the problems of a large, urban prosecution agency where mass production operations had superseded the traditional practice of a single attorney preparing and prosecuting a given case from inception to final disposition. The combination of massive volumes of cases and the assembly-line fragmentation of responsibility and control had created a situation in which one case was indistinguishable from another and the effects of problems at various stages in the assembly line on ultimate case disposition went undetected and uncorrected. One unique feature of PROMIS that addresses these problems is the automated evaluation of cases. Through the application of a uniform set of criteria, PROMIS assigns two numerical ratings to each case: one signifying the gravity of the crime through a measurement of the amount of harm done to society, and the other signifying the gravity of the prior criminal record of the accused. These ratings make it possible to select the more important cases for intensive, pre-trial preparation and to assure even-handed treatment of cases of like gravity. A complementary feature of PROMIS is the automation of reasons for decisions made or actions taken along the assembly line. Reasons for dismissing cases prior to trial on their merits can be related to earlier cycles of postponements for various reasons and to the reasoning behind intake and screening decisions. The PROMIS data include information about the defendant, case characteristics and processes, charge, sentencing and continuance processes, and the witnesses/victims involved with a case. PROMIS was first used in 1971 in the United States Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia. To enhance the ability to transfer the PROMIS concepts and software to other communities, LEAA awarded a grant to the Institute for Law and Social Research (INSLAW) in Washington, DC. The New Orleans PROMIS data collection is a product of this grant.

These data were generated by the Prosecutor's Management Information System (PROMIS), a computer-based management information system for public prosecution agencies, and contain information on all cases and defendants brought to the Superior Court Division of the United States Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia. The data were prepared for public release by the Institute for Law and Social Research, Washington, DC. The data contain selected variables, including type and gravity of the crime, a score reflecting the defendant's past record, and detailed records of the administration of each case. The 1974 data have only sentencing information.

This data collection provides statistical information on how prosecutors and the courts disposed of criminal cases involving adults arrested for felony crimes in an individual urban jurisdiction, St. Louis. The cases in the data file represent cases initiated in 1982, defined as screened, or filed in 1982. The collection includes disposition data on felonies for which an initial court charge was filed (cases filed) and for those felony arrests that were ultimately indicted or bound over to the felony court for disposition (cases indicted). It does not include information on all felony arrests declined for prosecution. It is, with a few exceptions, extracted from the defendant, case, charge and sentence records.

The Law Enforcement Assistance Administration File (PROFILE) System was designed for the automated storage and retrieval of information describing programs sponsored by the Bureau of Justice Statistics. The two types of data elements used to describe the projects in this file are basic data and program descriptors. The basic data elements include the title of the grant, information regarding the location of the grantee and the project, critical funding dates, the government level and type of grantee, financial data, the name of the project director, indication of the availability of reports, and identification numbers. The program descriptor elements form the program classification system and describe the key characteristics of the program. Key characteristics include subject of the program, primary and secondary activity, whether the program covered a juvenile or adult problem, and what specific crimes, clients, staff, program strategies, agencies, equipment, or research methods were to be used or would be affected by the project.

The purpose of this study was to provide a current listing of all felony courts in this country and to provide a universe from which a sample of courts could be selected based on felony caseload. The study includes information on all state felony courts in the United States, including the number of cases filed and disposed by conviction, acquittal, dismissal, or other means. Court administrators were asked to indicate the manner in which cases filed and disposed were counted, such as by defendant, charge, or indictment information. The total number of cases disposed during the period was also collected for juvenile delinquents and for traffic offenses (moving violations) where applicable. Finally, data were gathered on whether felonies reduced to misdemeanors were included in the felony count and whether lower courts in the jurisdiction accepted guilty pleas to felonies.

CrimeMapTutorial is a step-by-step tutorial for learning crime mapping using ArcView GIS or MapInfo Professional GIS. It was designed to give users a thorough introduction to most of the knowledge and skills needed to produce daily maps and spatial data queries that uniformed officers and detectives find valuable for crime prevention and enforcement. The tutorials can be used either for self-learning or in a laboratory setting. The geographic information system (GIS) and police data were supplied by the Rochester, New York, Police Department. For each mapping software package, there are three PDF tutorial workbooks and one WinZip archive containing sample data and maps. Workbook 1 was designed for GIS users who want to learn how to use a crime-mapping GIS and how to generate maps and data queries. Workbook 2 was created to assist data preparers in processing police data for use in a GIS. This includes address-matching of police incidents to place them on pin maps and aggregating crime counts by areas (like car beats) to produce area or choropleth maps. Workbook 3 was designed for map makers who want to learn how to construct useful crime maps, given police data that have already been address-matched and preprocessed by data preparers. It is estimated that the three tutorials take approximately six hours to complete in total, including exercises.

The data contain records of defendants in criminal cases filed in United States District Court before or during fiscal year 2011 and still pending as of year-end. The data were constructed from the Administrative Office of the United States District Courts' (AOUSC) criminal file. Defendants in criminal cases may be either individuals or corporations. There is one record for each defendant in each case filed. Included in the records are data from court proceedings and offense codes for up to five offenses charged at the time the case was filed. (The most serious charge at termination may differ from the most serious charge at case filing, due to plea bargaining or action of the judge or jury.) In a case with multiple charges against the defendant, a "most serious" offense charge is determined by a hierarchy of offenses based on statutory maximum penalties associated with the charges. The data file contains variables from the original AOUSC files as well as additional analysis variables, or "SAF" variables, that denote subsets of the data. These SAF variables are related to statistics reported in the Compendium of Federal Justice Statistics, Tables 4.1-4.5 and 5.1-5.6. Variables containing identifying information (e.g., name, Social Security number) were replaced with blanks, and the day portions of date fields were also sanitized in order to protect the identities of individuals. These data are part of a series designed by the Urban Institute (Washington, DC) and the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Data and documentation were prepared by the Urban Institute.

The Appeals Court Database Project was designed to create an extensive dataset to facilitate the empirical analysis of the votes of judges and the decisions of the United States Courts of Appeals. The data in this collection comprise the first phase of this project. A random sample of cases from each circuit for each year between 1925-1988 was coded for the nature of the issues presented, the statutory, constitutional, and procedural bases of the decision, the votes of the judges, and the nature of the litigants. The variables are divided into four sections: basic case characteristics, participation, issues, and judges and votes. There is a separate data file (Part 2) containing the number of cases with published decisions for each circuit/year between 1925 and 1990. These data are necessary to weight the variables in the main data file (Part 1).

Investigator(s): National Center for State Courts, Court Statistics and Information Management Project This data collection provides comparable measures of state appellate and trial court caseloads by type of case for the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. Court caseloads are tabulated according to generic reporting categories developed by the Court Statistics and Technology Committee of the Conference of State Court Administrators. These categories describe differences in the unit of count and the point of count when compiling each court's caseload. Major areas of investigation include: (1) case filings in state appellate and trial courts, (2) case dispositions in state appellate and trial courts, and (3) appellate opinions. Within each of these areas of investigation, cases are separated by main case type. Types include civil cases, capital punishment cases, other criminal cases, juvenile cases, administrative agency appeals, and several other types. Years Produced: Updated annually