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 purpose of the study was to implement a "platform-based" methodology for collecting data about police organizations and the communities they serve with the goals of generating in-depth standardized information about police organizations, personnel and practices and to help move policing in the direction of evidence-based "learning-organizations" by providing judicious feedback to police agencies and policy makers. The research team conducted three web-based Law Enforcement Organizations (LEO) surveys of sworn and civilian law enforcement employees (LEO Survey A Data, n=22,765; LEO Survey B Data, n=15,825; and LEO Survey C Data, n=16,483). The sample was drawn from the 2007 Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics (LEMAS) database. Agencies with 100 to 3,000 sworn police personnel were eligible for participation. To collect data for the Police-Community Interaction (PCI) survey (PCI Data, n=16,659), each week department employees extracted names and addresses of persons who had recent contact with a police officer because of a reported crime incident, traffic accident or traffic stop. Typically, the surveys were completed within two to four weeks of the encounter.

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. The study involved a three-year evaluation of two efforts to target crime stemming from the Southern Border of the United States - one which funded greater participation by local officers on four FBI-led multi-jurisdictional task forces (MJTFs) and another that created a new multi-jurisdictional team. As part of this evaluation, researchers documented the level of inter-agency collaboration and communication when the project began, gathered information regarding the benefits and challenges of MJTF participation, measured the level of communication and collaboration, and tracked a variety of outcomes specific to the funded MJTFs, as well as three comparison MJTFs. Multiple methodologies were used to achieve these goals including surveys of task forces, law enforcement stakeholders, and community residents; law enforcement focus groups; program observations; and analysis of archival data related to staffing costs; task force activities; task force target criminal history; and prosecution outcomes. The study is comprised of several data files in SPSS format: Imperial County Law Enforcement Stakeholder Survey Data (35 cases and 199 variables) Imperial County Resident Survey (402 cases and 70 variables) Imperial Task Force Survey (6 cases and 84 variables) Prosecution Outcome Data (1,973 cases and 115 variables) San Diego County Resident Survey (402 cases and 69 variables) San Diego Law Enforcement Stakeholder Survey (460 cases and 353 variables) San Diego Task Force Survey (18 cases and 101 variables) Staff and Cost Measures Data (7 cases and 61 variables) Criminal Activity Data (110 cases and 50 variables) Additionally, Calls for Service Data, Countywide Arrest Data, and Data used for Social Network Analysis are available in Excel format.

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.

These data are part of NACJD's Fast Track Release and are distributed as they are 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 accompany readme file for a brief description of the files available with this collection and consult the investigator(s) if further information is needed. The purpose of this study is to examine the prevalence of police practitioner-research partnerships in the United States and examine the factors that prevent or facilitate development and sustainability of these partnerships. This study used a mixed method approach to examine the relationship between law enforcement in the United States and researchers. A nationally-representative sample of law enforcement agencies were randomly selected and given a survey in order to capture the prevalence of police practitioner-researcher partnerships and associated information. Then, representatives from 89 separate partnerships were interviewed, which were identified through the national survey. The primary purpose of these interviews was to gain insight into the barriers and facilitators of police and practitioner relationships as well as the benefits of this partnering. Lastly four case studies were conducted on model partnerships that were identified during interviews with practitioners and researchers.

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 research examined the reliability of the Federal Bureau of Investigation's National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) arrests data. Data on crime incidents, including data on whether an arrest was made or a summons issued, are collected from hundreds of law enforcement agencies (LEAs) across the country and then combined by the FBI into a national data set that is frequently used by researchers. This study compared arrest data in a sample of cases from NIBRS data files with arrest and summons data collected on the same cases directly from LEAs. The dataset consists of information collected from the Massachusetts NIBRS database combined with data from LEAs through a survey and includes data on arrests, summons, exceptional clearances, applicable statutes and offense names, arrest dates, and arrestees' sex, race, ethnicity and age for a sample of assault incidents between 2011 and 2013 from the NIBRS. The collection contains one SPSS data file (n=480; 32 variables). Qualitative data are not available as part of this collection.

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 directly examined the nature and characteristics of cases prosecuted in the federal courts by analyzing prosecutorial decisions to proceed with charges (or not) once an arrest is initiated, and to investigate any adjustment from the arresting offense to the charging offense. These decisions were analyzed to document their correlates and identify variation across case type. The collection contains 1 SPSS data file (2002-10-Arrest-cases--FINAL-ANALYSIS.sav (n=794,807; 43 variables)) and 1 SPSS syntax file.

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. For this study, researchers conducted an experimental evaluation of a training program aimed at promoting the use of procedural justice by officers in the Seattle Police Department (SPD). After identifying eligible officers using a specially designed High Risk Circumstance (HRC) model, researchers arranged non-disciplinary supervisory meetings for participants in which procedural justice behaviors were modeled. Participating officers were then asked to fill out comment cards about the experience. Using the control and engagement groups, researchers evaluated the impact that procedural justice training had on a number of outcomes including arrests, warnings and citations, use of force, and citizen complaints. In addition to participant comment cards, researchers assessed outcomes by analyzing the administrative data collected by the Seattle Police Department.

These data are part of NACJDs 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. The two central objectives of this project were (1) to evaluate the effect on crime of a targeted patrol strategy mounted by the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department (SLMPD) and (2) to evaluate the researcher-practitioner partnership that underlay the policing intervention. The study addressed the following research questions: Do intensified police patrols and enforcement in crime hot spots result in larger reductions in firearm assaults and robberies than in similar areas subject to routine police activity? Do specific enforcement tactics decrease certain type of crime? Which enforcement tactics are most effective? Does video surveillance reduce crime? How does the criminal justice system respond to firearm crime? Do notification meetings reduce recidivism? Does community unrest increase crime? Did crime rates rise following the Ferguson Killing? To answer these questions, researchers used a mixed methods data collection plan, including interviews with local law enforcement, surveillance camera footage, and conducting ride-alongs with officers.

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 arrestee DNA laws (laws that allowed testing of arrestees DNA pre-adjudication), their implementation in the field and their subsequent effects on agency operations as well as their success in aiding investigations in the 28 states that have these laws. The study investigated five specific questions: What states have passed legislation authorizing the collection of DNA from arrestees? How do the laws and policies regarding collecting DNA from arrestees differ by state? How have the courts ruled on these new laws? How have arrestee DNA laws been implemented in each state? What has been the impact of requiring DNA collection from arrestees on state crime laboratories and other involved agencies? What evidence is available to determine the effects of collecting DNA from arrestees on public safety or other criminal justice outcomes? To answer these questions, researchers used a mixed methods data collection plan, including reviewing relevant statutes and case law, interviewing state and federal Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) laboratory staff and other forensic experts, and collecting descriptive data from state laboratories.

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. The study contains data from a survey of 480 large (200+ sworn officers) state and local law enforcement agencies, and 63 additional smaller county and municipal agencies that experienced violent extremism. These data were collected as part of a project to perform a comprehensive assessment of challenges and opportunities when developing partnerships between police and communities to counter violent extremism. Qualitative data collected as a part of this project are not included in this release. This collection includes one tab-delimited data file: "file6-NIJ-2012-3163-Survey-Responses.csv" with 194 variables and 382 cases.