Abstract (en): This data collection contains data from censuses of publicly funded crime laboratories in 2009. The data were collected to examine change and stability in the operations of crime laboratories serving federal, state, and local jurisdictions. The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) first surveyed forensic crime laboratories in 1998, focusing solely on agencies that performed DNA analysis. The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) funded the 1998 study as part of its DNA Laboratory Improvement Program. The BJS' National Study of DNA Laboratories was repeated in 2001. An expanded version of the data collection, called the Census of Publicly Funded Forensic Crime Laboratories, was first conducted among all forensic crime laboratories in 2002. For the 2009 study, data were collected from 2010 to 2011 on the organization, functions, budget, staffing, workload, and performance expectations of the nation's forensic crime laboratories operating in 2009. A total of 397 of the 411 eligible crime laboratories operating in 2009 responded to the census, including at least 1 laboratory from every state. The nation's publicly funded forensic crime laboratories performed a variety of forensic services in 2009, including DNA testing and controlled substance identification for federal, state, and local jurisdictions. The 2009 Census of Publicly Funded Forensic Crime Laboratories obtained detailed information on the types of forensic requests received by these laboratories and the resources needed to complete them. The census also collected data on crime laboratory budgets, personnel, accreditations, and backlogged cases. ICPSR data undergo a confidentiality review and are altered when necessary to limit the risk of disclosure. ICPSR also routinely creates ready-to-go data files along with setups in the major statistical software formats as well as standard codebooks to accompany the data. In addition to these procedures, ICPSR performed the following processing steps for this data collection: Checked for undocumented or out-of-range codes.. Response Rates: A shorter form with basic census items was sent to 12 nonresponding labs in a final effort to improve response rates. Overall, 97 percent (or 397) of the 411 eligible labs submitted responses to the 2009 census, including 375 through the automated web system and 22 by mail, fax, or email. Datasets:DS1: 2009 Census File Publicly funded federal, state, and local forensic crime laboratories currently operating in United States. Smallest Geographic Unit: United States No sampling was done because all available crime laboratories operating in the United States were contacted. The census population frame and questionnaire were developed by BJS and the Urban Institute with input from the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors (ASCLD), as well as researchers and practitioners in the forensic science field. The data collection instrument was pretested on a small sample of labs representing facilities of different sizes and governmental affiliations. The Urban Institute conducted the census through a mailed questionnaire and a web-based data collection interface. Follow-up phone calls and emails were made to nonrespondents and labs that submitted incomplete questionnaires. In addition, ASCLD encouraged labs to participate through announcements in its newsletter. A shorter form with basic census items was sent to 12 nonresponding labs in a final effort to improve response rates. Overall, 97 percent (or 397) of the 411 eligible labs submitted responses to the 2009 census, including 375 through the automated web system and 22 by mail, fax, or email. 2018-01-26 An updated data set was added to the archive for ICPSR 34340 (Census of Publicly Funded Forensic Crime Laboratories, 2009).Several variables were updated for lab VA04-406 including: The forensic biology (D16), forensic biology casework (D16_CW), and total requests (D_TOT). Funding insitution(s): United States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. Bureau of Justice Statistics. self-enumerated questionnaire

This dataset comprises all incidents reported to the Ada County Dispatch Center that were responded to by the Boise Police Department. It includes details about the date, type, general location and response time for each incident.The fact that an incident was reported to Ada County Dispatch does not necessarily mean a crime was committed or that an arrest occurred. Data is based on initial information provided to Ada County Dispatch, and therefore may be inaccurate. This dataset does not include crime data, case records, arrest information, final case determination or any other incident outcome data.To explore dashboards based on this dataset, please visit: https://www.cityofboise.org/government/data-transparency/data-and-dashboards/police-data-and-dashboards/.Field Definitions:Incident Number - Unique identifier of the incident.Response Date Time - The date and time the incident was reported to Ada County Dispatch. Time is stored in UTC, but when viewing on the Open Data site, a correction is applied to show in local time zone. When downloading the data, the time zone will be UTC.Jurisdiction Agency - The agency that has jurisdiction in the area an incident occurs. For example, if an incident occurs in eastern Meridian, a Boise police officer may be asked to respond if she is the closest to the scene of the incident. This incident would be included in the dataset because it was responded to by the Boise Police Department; however, the “Jurisdiction Agency” field would read Meridian Police Department because the incident occurred within Meridian’s jurisdiction.Final Priority - Indicates the urgency or priority of police incident, where “3” is the highest priority and an emergency, and “1” is the lowest priority and least urgent response.Call Source - "Public” indicates an incident was reported to dispatch by a member of the public. “Officer” indicates the incident was initiated by a police officer. For example, if a police officer witnesses an incident in progress it would be coded as “Officer.”Call Type - Indicates whether an incident was reported via 911 or not. “Non-911” incidents include those reported to non-emergency dispatch or those initiated by a police officer.Incident Category - Indicates the type of incident that occurred. There are 13 categories including:Community Assistance - A broad range of incident types including noise complaints, building or vehicle alarms, abandoned vehicles and complaints of suspicious suspects.Crash - Includes injury and non-injury crashes as well as hit-and-run incidents.Domestic Violence - Includes domestic battery, threats of violence and general domestic disputes.Emergency Management - Includes all incidents related to emergencies including flooding, hazardous material spills and assistance on fires.Graffiti - Any writing or drawing on a surface without permission.Mental Health - Includes requests for Police to check on the welfare of a person, and reports of suicidal person or a person in crisis.NCO\PO Violation - Any violation of a restraining order such as a "No Contact Order" or a "Protection Order", often related to domestic violence.Other - More than 40 different incident types ranging from a request to follow-up on a previous call, to boating or parking violations.Property Crimes - Includes theft, fraud, vandalism and burglary.Sex Crimes - Includes sexual assault, rape and indecent exposure.Society Crimes - A broad range of incident types including illegal fireworks, illegal dumping, illegal camping, and liquor or drug violations.Traffic - Any traffic incident (reckless driving, speeding, etc.) that does not involve a crash.Violent Crimes - A broad range of incident types including reports of assault, armed robbery, shootings, fights and kidnappings.Census Tract - A geographic area used by the Census Bureau. A Census Tract is roughly the size of a neighborhood and typically has between 2,500 and 8,000 residents.Census GEOID - A geographic identity code used by the Census Bureau to identify different areas. This dataset uses an 11-digit code that combines a 5-digit county code with a 6-digit census tract code.Neighborhood Association - Names the neighborhood association in which the incident occurred. If an incident occurs outside the boundaries of a neighborhood association, this field has a null value.First Assigned First Arrived Duration (sec) - The period of time (in seconds) between when dispatch assigns an officer to respond to an incident, and when the first officer arrives on scene. This could also be called the police travel time. This field may show as null or zero if the incident was initiated by an officer.First Assigned First Arrived Duration (hh:mm:ss) - The period of time (hh:mm:ss) between when dispatch assigns an officer to respond to an incident, and when the first officer arrives on scene. This could also be called the police travel time. This field may show as null or zero if the incident was initiated by an officer.Call Received First Assigned Duration (sec) - The period of time (in seconds) between when dispatch receives a call for service, and when they assign a police officer to respond. This could also be called the call time. This field may show as null or zero if the incident was initiated by an officer.Call Received First Assigned Duration (hh:mm:ss) - The period of time (hh:mm:ss) between when dispatch receives a call for service, and when they assign a police officer to respond. This could also be called the call time. This field may show as null or zero if the incident was initiated by an officer.Call Received First Arrived Duration (sec) - The period of time (in seconds) between when dispatch receives a call for service, and when the first officer arrives on scene. This field may show as null or zero if the incident was initiated by an officer.Call Received First Arrived Duration (hh:mm:ss) - The period of time (hh:mm:ss) between when dispatch receives a call for service, and when the first officer arrives on scene. This field may show as null or zero if the incident was initiated by an officer.First Assigned Last Cleared Duration (sec) (hh:mm:ss) - The period of time (in seconds) between when dispatch assigns an officer to respond to an incident, to when the final police officer leaves the scene of the incident.First Assigned Last Cleared Duration (hh:mm:ss) - The period of time (hh:mm:ss) between when dispatch assigns an officer to respond to an incident, to when the final police officer leaves the scene of the incident.Call Received Second Arrived Duration (sec)- The period of time (in seconds) between when dispatch receives a call for service, and when the second officer arrives on scene. This field may show as null or zero if the incident was initiated by an officer.Call Received Second Arrived Duration (hh:mm:ss) - The period of time (hh:mm:ss) between when dispatch receives a call for service, and when the second officer arrives on scene. This field may show as null or zero if the incident was initiated by an officer.

Abstract (en): To obtain current baseline information about the workload and operations of the nation's forensic crime laboratories, the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) conducted its first census of publicly funded forensic crime laboratories from 2003 to 2004. Data were collected on the organization, functions, budget, staffing, workload, and performance expectations of the nation's publicly funded federal, state, and local forensic crime laboratories currently operating. ICPSR data undergo a confidentiality review and are altered when necessary to limit the risk of disclosure. ICPSR also routinely creates ready-to-go data files along with setups in the major statistical software formats as well as standard codebooks to accompany the data. In addition to these procedures, ICPSR performed the following processing steps for this data collection: Standardized missing values.; Checked for undocumented or out-of-range codes.. Response Rates: 87 percent Publicly funded federal, state, and local forensic crime laboratories currently operating in United States. No sampling was done because all available crime laboratories operating in the United States were contacted. BJS awarded a grant to the University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC) to undertake the census. UIC partnered with the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors (ASCLD) and the UIC Survey Research Laboratory (SRL) to administer the census. The survey instrument was designed by project staff with input from BJS staff and the ASCLD advisory committee. The survey was pre-tested with 10 laboratories representing different sized facilities. ASCLD provided UIC with a mailing list of 469 facilities that self-identified as crime laboratories. Advance letters were mailed to all laboratories followed by telephone screening. A total of 39 laboratories were removed from the list because callers either determined the facility was not a crime laboratory, was a duplicate listing, or contained faulty contact information. Following the initial mailing of 430 surveys and a second round, 218 facilities completed the survey. Twelve labs were determined to be ineligible. Following extensive follow-up efforts, it was discovered that the list contained many facilities that did not meet the project definition of a crime laboratory: "A laboratory that employs one or more full-time scientists whose principal function is the examination of physical evidence for law enforcement agencies and that provides reports and testimony to courts of law with respect to such evidence." The population subsequently dropped to 351 eligible laboratories. Completed surveys were obtained from 281 laboratories. In a final effort to improve response, UIC and BJS developed a reduced length survey instrument that collected basic information about laboratory operations. In conjunction with additional telephone calls and e-mails, another 25 laboratories responded to the shorter survey, for an overall response rate of 87 percent (306/351). Funding insitution(s): United States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. Bureau of Justice Statistics (2002-BJ-CX-K011). self-enumerated questionnaire

Abstract

A strong evidence base is needed to understand the socioeconomic implications of the COVID-19 pandemic for the Solomon Islands. High Frequency Phone Surveys (HFPS) are designed to collect data on the evolving implications of the COVID-19 pandemic over several years. This data is the second of at least five planned rounds of mobile surveys. The first round of survey was already completed in late June 2020. Round 2 interviewed 2,882 households across the country in December 2020 and early January 2021, on topics including awareness of COVID-19, employment, and income, coping strategies, and public trust and security.

Geographic coverage

Urban and rural areas of Solomon Islands.

Analysis unit

Households, Individuals

Universe

Respondents aged 18 and over.

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

As the objective of the survey was to measure changes as the pandemic progresses, Round Two data collection sought to re-contact all 2,665 households contacted in Round One. The protocols for re-contact were a maximum of 3 attempts per caller shift, spaced between 1.5 and 2.5 hours apart depending on whether the phone was busy or there was no answer, and 15 attempts in total. Of the Round One households, 1,048 were successfully re-contacted. In Round One, Honiara was over-represented in the World Bank HFPS (constituting 32.8 percent of the survey sample). All other provinces were deemed under-represented, with the largest differences being for Makira-Ulawa, which represented 3.9 percent of the survey sample compared to 7.2 percent of the population in the census, and Guadalcanal, which represented 14.3 percent of the survey sample compared to 21.4 percent of the population in the census. Urban areas constituted almost half (49.2 percent) of the survey sample, compared to a quarter (25.6 percent) of the census. To reach the target sample size of at least 2500 households, 1,833 replacement households were added to the World Bank survey. The target geographic distribution for the survey was based on the population distribution across provinces from the preliminary 2019 census results. According to the population census, Honiara constituted almost one quarter (18.0 percent) of the total population. Compensating factors for these differences were developed and included in the re-weighting calculations.

The majority of these were replaced through Random Digit Dialing, but the project did attempt to leverage contact information from ward-level focal points for the Rural Development Project (RDP) in provinces underrepresented in Round One. Of the 145 RDP contacts provided to the call center, 41 were reached, who in turn provided 379 numbers which were attempted as part of regular call schedule. Overall, the sample size achieved for the second round of the HFPS was 2,882 households.

Due to the limited sample sizes outside of Honiara, most results are disaggregated into only three geographic regions: Honiara, other urban areas, and rural areas. For more information on sampling, please refer to the report provided in the External Resources.

Mode of data collection

Computer Assisted Telephone Interview [cati]

Cleaning operations

At the end of data collection, the dataset was cleaned by the World Bank team. This included formatting, and correcting results based on monitoring issues, enumerator feedback and survey changes. Data was edited using STATA. The data is presented in two data sets: household data set and individual data set. The total number of observations in the household data set is 2,882 and is 4,279 in the individual data set. The individual data set contains employment information for some household members. The household data set contains information about public services, income, coping strategies, and awareness of COVID-19.

Response rate

Re-contact was attempted with all households from the World Bank Round Two HFPS sample, by phone, for follow up interviews for the UNICEF SIAS. Up to 5 re-contact call attempts were made per house, resulting in 1530 households being interviewed successfully including households without children. Of these households, a total of 1197 had at least one child (aged 0 to 14 years of age). While the goal was to recontact at least 1500 households with at least one child in the household, this was not possible due to lower than hoped for response rate. Given the time elapsed between the Round Two HFPS and the UNICEF SIAS, the response rate may have suffered because of some households changing phone numbers.

Response rate for returning households: 39.32%

Abstract

The objectives of the Smallholder Household Survey in Cote d'Ivoire were to: - Generate a clear picture of the smallholder sector at the national level, including household demographics, agricultural profile, and poverty status and market relationships; - Segment smallholder households in Cote d'Ivoire according to the most compelling variables that emerge; - Characterize the demand for financial services in each segment, focusing on customer needs, attitudes and perceptions related to both agricultural and financial services; and, - Detail how the financial needs of each segment are currently met, with both informal and formal services, and where there may be promising opportunities to add value.

Geographic coverage

National coverage

Analysis unit

Households and individual household members

Universe

The universe for the survey consists of smallholder households defined as households with the following criteria: 1) Household with up to 5 hectares OR farmers who have less than 50 heads of cattle, 100 goats/sheep/pigs, or 1,000 chickens; AND 2) Agriculture provides a meaningful contribution to the household livelihood, income, or consumption.

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

The smallholder household survey in Cote d’Ivoire is a nationally-representative survey, with a target sample size of 3,000 smallholder households. The sample was designed to provide reliable survey estimates at the national level.

Sampling Frame In preparation for the 2014 population census, the country was divided into 22,600 census enumeration areas (EAs). For the ongoing 2015 agricultural census, the National Statistical Office (INS) has identified 18,321 EAs that contain agricultural households. The sampling frame for the smallholder survey is the list of these enumeration areas (EAs) containing agricultural households.

Sample allocation and selection In order to take nonresponse into account, the target sample size was increased to 3,333 households assuming a nonresponse rate of 10%. The total sample size was first allocated to the zones based on their population counts using the power allocation method. Within each zone, the resulting sample was then distributed to urban and rural areas in proportion to their population. Given that EAs were the primary sampling units and 15 households were selected in each EA, a total of 223 EAs were selected. The sample for the smallholder survey is a stratified multistage sample. Stratification was achieved by separating each zone into urban and rural areas. The urban/rural classification is based on the 2014 population census. Therefore, 6 strata were created, and the sample was selected independently in each stratum.

In the first stage, EAs were selected as primary sampling units with probability proportional to size, the size being the population count in the EAs. A household listing operation was conducted in all selected EAs to identify smallholder households and to provide a frame for selecting smallholder households to be included in the sample. In the second stage, 15 smallholders were sampled in each EA with equal probability.

In each sampled household, the household questionnaire was administered to the head of the household, the spouse, or any knowledgeable adult household member to collect information about household characteristics. The multiple respondent questionnaire was administered to all adult members in each sampled household to collect information on their agricultural activities, financial behaviors, and mobile money use. In addition, in each sampled household only one household member was selected using the Kish grid and was administered the single respondent questionnaire.

The full description of the sample design can be found in the user guide for this data set.

Sampling deviation

After the selection of the EAs and the printing of the EA maps, it was necessary to reduce the number of EAs to be listed to 212 for budgetary reasons. Therefore, 212 EAs were randomly selected among the previously 223 sampled EAs and were finally included in the survey sample.

The smallholder survey in Cote d’Ivoire is the fifth survey in the series, following the surveys in Mozambique, Uganda, Tanzania and Bangladesh. Fieldwork in the first countries experienced a lot of failed call backs where identified eligible households and household members could not be interviewed during the time allocated to fieldwork in each country. As a result, the final sample size fell slightly short of the target. For this reason, in Cote d’Ivoire the number of households selected in each EA was increased from 15 to 17 following the household listing operation in all sampled EAs.

Mode of data collection

Computer Assisted Personal Interview [capi]

Research instrument

To capture the complexity of smallholder households, the smallholder household survey was divided into three questionnaires: 1) The Household questionnaire; 2) the Multiple Respondent questionnaire; and 3) the Single respondent questionnaire. It was designed in this way to capture the complete portrait of the smallholder household, as some members of the household may work on other agricultural activities independently and without the knowledge of others.

The household questionnaire collected information on the following: • Basic household members’ individual characteristics (age, gender, education attainment, schooling status, relationship with the household head). • Whether each household member contributes to the household income or participates in the household’s agricultural activities. This information was later used to identify all household members eligible for the other two questionnaires. • Household assets and dwelling characteristics.

Both the Multiple and Single Respondent questionnaires collected different information on the following: • Agricultural practices—farm information such as size, crop types, livestock, decision-making, farming association, and markets. • Household economics—employment, income, expenses, shocks, borrowing and saving habits, and investments.

The Single respondent questionnaire also collected the following information: • Mobile phones—attitudes toward phones, use, access, ownership, desire, and importance. • Financial services—attitudes toward financial products and services such as banking and mobile money, including ownership, usage, access and importance.

The questionnaires were translated into French and then pretested. After the pretest, debriefing sessions were held with the pretest field staff and the questionnaires were modified based on the observations from the pretest. After the questionnaires were finalized, a script was developed to support data collection on mobile phones. The script was tested and validated before it was use in the field.

Cleaning operations

The data files were checked for completeness, inconsistencies and errors by InterMedia and corrections were made as necessary and where possible.

Response rate

The user guide to the data set provides detailed tables on household and household member response rates for the Cote d’Ivoire smallholder household survey. A total of 3,415 households were selected for the survey, of which 3,109 were found to be occupied during data collection. Of these, 3,019 were successfully interviewed, yielding a household response rate of 97.1 percent.

In the interviewed households, 6,659 eligible household members were identified for the Multiple Respondent questionnaire. Interviews were completed with 5,706 eligible household members, yielding a response rate of 85.7 percent for the Multiple Respondent questionnaire.

Among the 3,019 eligible household members selected for the Single Respondent questionnaire, 2,949 were successfully interviewed yielding a response rate of 97.7 percent.

Sampling error estimates

The sample design for the smallholder household survey was a complex sample design featuring clustering, stratification and unequal probabilities of selection. For key survey estimates, sampling errors taking into account the design features were produced using either the SPSS Complex Sample module or STATA based on the Taylor series approximation method.

2011-2020 Supervisorial District Boundaries in polygon format. The Coordinates for this dataset are State Plane Coordinate System, Zone 5, NAD 1983 Feet. Census blocks were the original base. The data was then adjusted to align better with the Assessor Parcel Data (CDDATA), creeks, and roads. This adjustment came after the County Surveyor wrote up the legal description to follow property boundaries. These boundaries are updated every 10 years after the decennial census. September 6th, 2011 – Item B-1 on the agenda:Hearing to consider ordinance establishing the new Supervisorial District Boundaries under Redistricting pursuant to Elections Code Sections 21500-21506; All Districts. (ITEM INTRODUCED AUGUST 23, 2011.) (RECOMMEND APPROVAL AND INSTRUCT CHAIRPERSON TO SIGN.)In the corresponding minutes it is stated under item B-1 “the Board directs staff to prepare an ordinance reflecting redistricting plans under Option B-2 for introduction on Tuesday, September 13, 2011 and a hearing on Tuesday, September 20, 2011.”September 13th, 2011 – Item A-23 (not listed on agenda)In corresponding minutes it is stated under item A-23 “Introduction of an Ordinance establishing the New Supervisorial District Boundaries under Redistricting pursuant to Elections Code Sections 21500-21506, as revised by your Board on September 6, 2011; All Districts, Pulled for separate action.”Also includes attached documents:Agenda Item TransmittalOption B2 MapOption B2 InsetsThereafter, on motion of Supervisor Bruce S. Gibson, seconded by Supervisor James R. Patterson, and on the following roll call vote:AYES: Supervisors: Bruce S. Gibson, James R. Patterson, Chairperson Adam HillNOES: Supervisors: Frank Mecham, Paul A. TeixeiraAbsent: NoneThe Board sets Tuesday, September 20, 2011 at 9:00 A.M. as the date for a public hearing to adopt an ordinance establishing the new Supervisorial District boundaries under Redistricting pursuant to Elections Code Sections 21500-21506 and directs the Clerk to give notice of hearing date.September 20th, 2011 – Item C-2 on the agenda:Hearing to consider an ordinance establishing the new Supervisorial District boundaries under Redistricting, pursuant to Elections Code Sections 21500-21506 as revised by your Board on September 6, 2011; All Districts. (ITEM INTRODUCED SEPTEMBER 13, 2011.)In the corresponding minutes, it is stated under item C-2 that the ordinance was adopted.