In the United States between 2005 and 2020, of the 42 nonfederal police officers convicted following their arrest for murder due to an on-duty shooting, only five ended up being convicted of murder. The most common offense these officers were convicted of was the lesser charge of manslaughter, with 11 convictions.

As of July 2022, three charges were filed against police officers who had killed a fleeing suspect in the United States, and no convictions. As of that date, 202 people who were fleeing were killed by police.

This study was an outcome evaluation of the effects of the Duluth Domestic Abuse Intervention Project Training Model for Law Enforcement Response on police officer attitudes toward domestic violence. Data on the effectiveness of the training were collected by means of an attitude survey of law enforcement officers (Part 1). Additionally, two experimental designs (Part 2) were implemented to test the effects of the Duluth model training on (1) time spent by police officers at the scene of a domestic violence incident, and (2) the number of convictions. Variables for Part 1 include the assigned research group and respondents' level of agreement with various statements, such as: alcohol is the primary cause of family violence, men are more likely than women to be aggressive, only mentally ill people batter their families, mandatory arrest of offenders is the best way to reduce repeat episodes of violence, family violence is a private matter, law enforcement policies are ineffective for preventing family violence, children of single-parent, female-headed families are abused more than children of dual-parent households, and prosecution of an offender is unlikely regardless of how well a victim cooperates. Index scores calculated from groupings of various variables are included as well as whether the respondent found training interesting, relevant, well-organized, and useful. Demographic variables for each respondent include race, gender, age, and assignment and position in the police department. Variables for Part 2 include whether the domestic violence case occurred before or after training, to which test group the case belongs, the amount of time in minutes spent on the domestic violence scene, and whether the case resulted in a conviction.

The number of people killed by police while fleeing has risen since 2015. In 2015, there were *** people killed by police while they were fleeing, which increased to *** people in 2021. As of *********, *** people who were fleeing were killed by police. Despite this, criminal convictions for police officers who kill fleeing individuals remain low.

description: This is the City of Raleigh Police Incident Data from 2005-present. Each row represents a report made by the police officer, but not all reports may have resulted in arrests or convictions. This dataset updates the previous day's records daily by 11am. The locations provided with this dataset DO NOT reflect the exact locations where the incidents occurred. The locations provided represent a randomized location within the general neighborhood area where the incident was reported. To protect the privacy of victims and their families further, the Raleigh Police Department (RPD) has redacted all location information associated with incidents involving sexual assault, child abuse, juvenile incidents, domestic abuse and other related incidents. The column heading "LCR DESC" represents the description of Incident Type. The column heading "LCR" is the local code used by police to categorize the Incident Type Years covered: 2005 - present day. This data is collected and presented according to the Summary Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) standard set by the FBI. Find out more about the standards here: https://ucr.fbi.gov/ucr-program-data-collections#National & detailed information about Summary UCR method here: https://ucr.fbi.gov/nibrs/summary-reporting-system-srs-user-manual; abstract: This is the City of Raleigh Police Incident Data from 2005-present. Each row represents a report made by the police officer, but not all reports may have resulted in arrests or convictions. This dataset updates the previous day's records daily by 11am. The locations provided with this dataset DO NOT reflect the exact locations where the incidents occurred. The locations provided represent a randomized location within the general neighborhood area where the incident was reported. To protect the privacy of victims and their families further, the Raleigh Police Department (RPD) has redacted all location information associated with incidents involving sexual assault, child abuse, juvenile incidents, domestic abuse and other related incidents. The column heading "LCR DESC" represents the description of Incident Type. The column heading "LCR" is the local code used by police to categorize the Incident Type Years covered: 2005 - present day. This data is collected and presented according to the Summary Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) standard set by the FBI. Find out more about the standards here: https://ucr.fbi.gov/ucr-program-data-collections#National & detailed information about Summary UCR method here: https://ucr.fbi.gov/nibrs/summary-reporting-system-srs-user-manual

Each record in this dataset shows information about an arrest executed by the Chicago Police Department (CPD). Source data comes from the CPD Automated Arrest application. This electronic application is part of the CPD CLEAR (Citizen Law Enforcement Analysis and Reporting) system, and is used to process arrests Department-wide.

A more-detailed version of this dataset is available to media by request. To make a request, please email dataportal@cityofchicago.org with the subject line: Arrests Access Request. Access will require an account on this site, which you may create at https://data.cityofchicago.org/signup. New data fields may be added to this public dataset in the future. Requests for individual arrest reports or any other related data other than access to the more-detailed dataset should be directed to CPD, through contact information on that site or a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request.

The data is limited to adult arrests, defined as any arrest where the arrestee was 18 years of age or older on the date of arrest. The data excludes arrest records expunged by CPD pursuant to the Illinois Criminal Identification Act (20 ILCS 2630/5.2).

Department members use charges that appear in Illinois Compiled Statutes or Municipal Code of Chicago. Arrestees may be charged with multiple offenses from these sources. Each record in the dataset includes up to four charges, ordered by severity and with CHARGE1 as the most severe charge. Severity is defined based on charge class and charge type, criteria that are routinely used by Illinois court systems to determine penalties for conviction. In case of a tie, charges are presented in the order that the arresting officer listed the charges on the arrest report. By policy, Department members are provided general instructions to emphasize seriousness of the offense when ordering charges on an arrest report.

Each record has an additional set of columns where a charge characteristic (statute, description, type, or class) for all four charges, or fewer if there were not four charges, is concatenated with the | character. These columns can be used with the Filter function's "Contains" operator to find all records where a value appears, without having to search four separate columns.

Users interested in learning more about CPD arrest processes can review current directives, using the CPD Automated Directives system (http://directives.chicagopolice.org/directives/). Relevant directives include:

• Special Order S06-01-11 – CLEAR Automated Arrest System: describes the application used by Department members to enter arrest data. • Special Order S06-01-04 – Arrestee Identification Process: describes processes related to obtaining and using CB numbers. • Special Order S09-03-04 – Assignment and Processing of Records Division Numbers: describes processes related to obtaining and using RD numbers. • Special Order 06-01 – Processing Persons Under Department Control: describes required tasks associated with arrestee processing, include the requirement that Department members order charges based on severity.

This project provided the first large-scale examination of the police response to intimate partner violence and of the practice known as "dual arrest." The objectives of the project were: (1) to describe the prevalence and context of dual arrest in the United States, (2) to explain the variance in dual arrest rates throughout the United States, (3) to describe dual arrest within the full range of the police response to intimate partner violence, (4) to analyze the factors associated with no arrest, single arrest, and dual arrest, (5) to examine the reasons why women are arrested in intimate partner cases, and (6) to describe how the criminal justice system treats women who have been arrested for domestic violence. Data for the project were collected in two phases. In Phase I, researchers examined all assault and intimidation cases in the year 2000 National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) database (NATIONAL INCIDENT-BASED REPORTING SYSTEM, 2000 [ICPSR 3449]) to investigate the extent to which dual arrest is occurring nationwide, the relationship between incident and offender characteristics, and the effect of state laws on police handling of these cases for all relationship types. Because the NIBRS dataset contained a limited number of incident-specific variables that helped explain divergent arrest practices, in Phase II, researchers collected more detailed information on a subset of NIBRS cases from 25 police departments of varying sizes across four states. This phase of the study was restricted to intimate partner and other domestic violence cases. Additional data were collected for these cases to evaluate court case outcomes and subsequent re-offending. This phase also included an assessment of how closely department policy reflected state law in a larger sample of agencies within five states. The data in Part 1 (Phase I Data) contain 577,862 records from the NIBRS. This includes information related to domestic violence incidents such as the most serious offense against the victim, the most serious victim injury, the assault type, date of incident, and the counts of offenses, offenders, victims, and arrests for the incident. The data also include information related to the parties involved in the incident including demographics for the victim(s) and arrestee(s) and the relationship between victim(s) and arrestee(s). There is also information related to the jurisdiction in which the incident occurred such as population, urban/rural classification, and whether the jurisdiction is located in a metropolitan area. There are also variables pertaining to whether a weapon was used, the date of arrest, and the type of arrest. Also included are variables regarding the police department such as the number of male and female police officers and civilians employed. The data in Part 2 (Phase II Data) contain 4,388 cases and include all of the same variables as those in Part 1. In addition to these variables, there are variables such as whether the offender was on the scene when the police arrived, who reported the incident, the exact nature of injuries suffered by the involved parties, victim and offender substance use, offender demeanor, and presence of children. Also included are variables related to the number of people including police and civilians who were on the scene, the number of people who were questioned, whether there were warrants for the victim(s) or offender(s), whether citations were issued, whether arrests were made, whether any cases were prosecuted, the number of charges filed and against whom, and the sentences for prosecuted cases that resulted in conviction. The data in Part 3 (Police Department Policy Data) contain 282 cases and include variables regarding whether the department had a domestic violence policy, what the department's arrest policy was, whether a police report needed to be made, whether the policy addressed mutual violence, whether the policy instructed how to determine the primary aggressor, and what factors were taken into account in making a decision to arrest. There is also information related to the proportion of arrests involving intimate partners, the proportion of arrests involving other domestics, the proportion of arrests involving acquaintances, and the proportion of arrests involving strangers.

Until 1993 Victoria Police used documents known as Crime Reports to record and analyse information about crimes, victims of crimes and perpetrators of crimes. The practice of centrally receiving and processing crime reports probably commenced in 1933 when the Information Bureau was established as Victoria Police's central information processing and storage service. Prior to July 1983 Crime Reports were known as Criminal Offence and Modus Operandi Reports (C.O. and M.O. Reports).

Whenever a crime of any type was reported to Victoria Police a Crime Report was completed by the police officer receiving the report. The Crime Report was submitted to the Information Bureau, the section responsible for storing and collating criminal information. A number of different types of forms were used to record this information, but all were collectively known as Crime Reports.

- A Minor Offence Report was used for offences against statute which were considered to be of a less serious nature. These included indecent language, drunk in a public place and some traffic matters.

- A Crime Report (Non Arrest) form was used in instances where the offender was not arrested and charged, either because the offender was not known or because further investigations needed to be made before charges could be laid.

- A Crime Report (Arrest) form was used where a person was arrested for the crime.

- A Supplementary Report was used to submit additional information about the crime obtained after the initial report had been forwarded. They were often used for recording the name of a person later charged with the crime, for recording that a suspect had been cleared or for amending or adding to a list of property stolen or damaged.

- Some common crimes had specific crime report forms. These included theft of a motor car and theft of a bicycle.

- Property Reports were used in conjunction with other crime reports to record details of stolen property and property reported as lost. Reports of lost property, although not related to a crime, were processed and filed with crime reports.

Information Recording Systems

Once a crime report was received at the Information Bureau it was numbered in an annual single number sequence. A number of information systems were then updated on the basis of the information in the report:

- Details about the victim were recorded on a Victims' Index. This would enable the crime report to be retrieved if it was relevant to a crimes compensation case, an insurance claim or if the police wished to contact the victim as part of a later investigation. It also enabled police to establish whether the crime was part of a pattern or series of crimes (for example if several houses in a street were burgled on the same day). Until 1987 the Victims' Index was a series of cards arranged in alphabetical order of the victim's surname. Thereafter details of crime reports were entered into the Force's PATROL mainframe computer system and access via the victim's name could be gained from this system.

- The report was crime coded (ie coded according to the type of crime) and information about the crime and modus operandi of the offender were extracted and later classified.

- Where the crime involved property, details of the property would be recorded by the Property Tracing Section.

- Where a person was charged as a result of the crime, details of the alleged offender and the charges were recorded by the Criminal Records Section.

- Statistical information about crime was also compiled from Crime Reports.

After this information was extracted the Crime Report was filed according to its annual single number.

Content of Crime Reports

The details recorded on a Crime Report varied according to the particular type of report. Generally the following details were recorded:

- a description of the offence;
- the location of the offence;
- the police sub-district in which the offence occurred;
- the time and date of the offence;
- the name and address of the victim;
- a description of any property stolen or damaged;
- a brief description of the incident;
- the name, rank, registered number and station of the officer compiling the report;
- the names of any witnesses or persons to whom the police had spoken whilst investigating the offence;
- the names and addresses of any suspects or, if charges were laid, of the person(s) charged;
- details of any vehicles associated with the suspects;
- where charges were laid a physical description of the alleged offender(s);
- minor offence reports generally record the result of the subsequent court hearing.

Subsequent Systems

In 1993 Victoria Police introduced the Law Enforcement Assistance Program (LEAP). The function of the crime reports and most of the information systems which they support are now managed electronically by LEAP.

Records Extant

Crime Reports for the period 1975 to 1993 were held by the Public Record Office until these were returned to the Police as temporary value records in October 2000.

Criminal Offence and Modus Operandi Reports for the years 1970 and 1974 were copied onto microfilm and are held by Victoria Police.

Criminal Offence and Modus Operandi Reports created prior to 1975 were no longer extant at the time of the transfer of the 1975 - 1993 records to PROV.

The objective of this survey is to collect baseline information on police personnel and expenditures to enable detection of historical trends as well as permit comparisons at the provincial/territorial and municipal levels. This survey collects data from police services across Canada under the authority of the Statistics Act, Revised Statutes of Canada, 1985, Chapter S-19. All municipal, provincial and federal police services in Canada are surveyed. Respondents provide the number of police officers employed by the service (full-time equivalents), categorized by rank (senior officers, non-commissioned officers, and constables) and by sex. Information on hirings, departures, and eligibility to retire is provided, as are data on the years of service, age, level of education at time of hire, and Aboriginal and visible minority status of police officers, and the official and non-official languages they speak. Police services also report their number of civilian employees, categorized by job type and by sex. Other questions collect data on operating expenditures broken down into salaries/wages, benefits, and other operating expenditures. Data from this survey provide information on total expenditures on policing and the number of officers in each province and in Canada as a whole, as well as the number of officers per 100,000 population. The data are intended for police services, for officials with responsibility for police budgets, for policy-makers with policing-related responsibilities, and for members of the general public.

This study examined the role of stalking in domestic violence crime reports produced by the Colorado Springs Police Department (CSPD). It provided needed empirical data on the prevalence of stalking in domestic violence crime reports, risk factors associated with intimate partner stalking, and police responses to reports of intimate partner stalking. The study was conducted jointly by the Justice Studies Center (JSC) at the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs and the Denver-based Center for Policy Research (CPR). JSC staff generated the sample and collected the data, and CPR staff processed and analyzed the data. The sample was generated from CSPD Domestic Violence Summons and Complaint (DVSC) forms, which were used by CSPD officers to investigate crime reports of victims and suspects who were or had been in an intimate relationship and where there was probable cause to believe a crime was committed. During January to September 1999, JSC staff reviewed and entered information from all 1998 DVSC forms into a computerized database as part of the evaluation process for Domestic Violence Enhanced Response Team (DVERT), a nationally recognized domestic violence prevention program. A subfile of reports initiated during April to September 1998 was generated from this database and formed the basis for the study sample. The DVSC forms contained detailed information about the violation including victim and suspect relationship, type of violation committed, and specific criminal charges made by the police officer. The DVSC forms also contained written narratives by both the victim and the investigating officer, which provided detailed information about the events precipitating the report, including whether the suspect stalked the victim. The researchers classified a domestic violence crime report as having stalking allegations if the victim and/or police narrative specifically stated that the victim was stalked by the suspect, or if the victim and/or police narrative mentioned that the suspect engaged in stalking-like behaviors (e.g., repeated following, face-to-face confrontations, or unwanted communications by phone, page, letter, fax, or e-mail). Demographic variables include victim-suspect relationship, and age, race, sex, and employment status of the victim and suspect. Variables describing the violation include type of violation committed, specific criminal charges made by the police officer, whether the alleged violation constituted a misdemeanor or a felony crime, whether a suspect was arrested, whether the victim sustained injuries, whether the victim received medical attention, whether the suspect used a firearm or other type of weapon, whether items were placed in evidence, whether the victim or suspect was using drugs and/or alcohol at the time of the incident, number and ages of children in the household, whether children were in the home at the time of the incident, and whether there was a no-contact or restraining order in effect against the suspect at the time of the incident.

In 2023, murder and manslaughter charges had the highest crime clearance rate in the United States, with 57.8 percent of all cases being cleared by arrest or so-called exceptional means. Motor vehicle theft cases had the lowest crime clearance rate, at 8.2 percent. What is crime clearance? Within the U.S. criminal justice system, criminal cases can be cleared (or closed) one of two ways. The first is through arrest, which means that at least one person has either been arrested, charged with an offense, or turned over to the court for prosecution. The second way a case can be closed is through what is called exceptional means, where law enforcement must have either identified the offender, gathered enough evidence to arrest, charge, and prosecute someone, identified the offender’s exact location, or come up against a circumstance outside the control of law enforcement that keeps them from arresting and prosecuting the offender. Crime in the United States Despite what many people may believe, crime in the United States has been on the decline. Particularly in regard to violent crime, the violent crime rate has almost halved since 1990, meaning that the U.S. is safer than it was almost 30 years ago. However, due to the FBI's recent transition to a new crime reporting system in which law enforcement agencies voluntarily report crime data, it is possible that figures do not accurately reflect the total amount of crime in the country.

Content

This dataset contains three tables, each as a separate file. Each row corresponds to either

1. an arrest/criminal citation
2. an incident (which may or may not have a corresponding arrest/citation), or
3. a charge that was filed

See the corresponding tables for more information on fields, foreign keys, etc

File Names

Files contain either Arrest data, Incident data, or Charge data. Files with the _All suffix are consolidated files that contain all time periods with consistent column names. The time-specific files are as-is as provided by SJPD and contain some column name inconsistencies

Arrests

The "Arrest" datasets contain entries for SJPD stops ("arrests"). This includes booking, where the subject is placed in jail pending arraignment, and also criminal citations, where the subject is not booked, but rather assigned a court date by the officer and promises to appear. The CURRENT STATUS field distinguishes between these two types of arrests

Due to limitations in their internal Record Management System, not all arrests have the arresting officer listed. This issue is being addressed, and recent arrests are more likely to have this field available

Acknowledgements

This dataset was provided directly from San Jose Police Department via a request under the California Public Records Act

Photo by Alex Young on Unsplash

In 2022, the number of people convicted of violence against enforcement authorities in Russia was 8,261. This constituted an increase of nearly 10 percent from the previous year. Comparatively, only 463 police officers were convicted of brutality against Russian civilians in 2022.

Description: Pursuant to the Sex Offender and Child Murderer Community Notification Law, 730 ILCS 152/101,et seq., the Chicago Police Department maintains a list of sex offenders residing in the City of Chicago who are required to register under the Sex Offender Registration Act, 730 ILCS 150/2, et seq. To protect the privacy of the individuals, addresses are shown at the block level only and specific locations are not identified. The data are extracted from the CLEAR (Citizen Law Enforcement Analysis and Reporting) system developed by the Department. Although every effort is made to keep this list accurate and current, the city cannot guarantee the accuracy of this information. Offenders may have moved and failed to notify the Chicago Police Department as required by law. If any information presented in this web site is known to be outdated, please contact the Chicago Police Department at srwbmstr@chicagopolice.org, or mail to Sex Registration Unit, 3510 S Michigan Ave, Chicago, IL 60653. Disclaimer: This registry is based upon the legislature's decision to facilitate access to publicly available information about persons convicted of specific sexual offenses. The Chicago Police Department has not considered or assessed the specific risk of re-offense with regard to any individual prior to his or her inclusion within this registry, and has made no determination that any individual included within the registry is currently dangerous. Individuals included within this registry are included solely by virtue of their conviction record and Illinois law. The main purpose of providing this data on the internet is to make the information more available and accessible, not to warn about any specific individual.

Anyone who uses information contained in the Sex Offender Database to commit a criminal act against another person is subject to criminal prosecution. Data Owner: Chicago Police Department. Frequency: Data is updated daily. Related Applications: CLEARMAP (http://j.mp/lLluSa).

This dataset was developed by Dillon Isaacson for use with the Esri Police Transparency Solution. This a redacted version of the RMS Charge dataset, which is an internal BPD dataset coming from the New World Law Enforcement Records Management System (LERMS) and consists of one count per charge per case/incident. A case/incident is the report that a crime took place, either reported via the public or witnessed by an officer. The Charge(s) in a case reflect what laws were broken in commission of a crime. This data is created as one point per charge. Locations of crimes have been moved to the nearest Ada County street centerline from where the incident occurred. Crimes of a sexual nature have had their locations and address information removed to protect the privacy of the victims. These records still have Patrol Area and Reporting District attributes, so the general locations and trends for these crimes can still be determined. This dataset is designed to reflect a rolling 5-6 year period. Crimes occurring in the last 9 days are withheld from the data because these data are preliminary and very likely to change. Therefore, the time range of the data will be from January 1st of the calendar year 5 years ago, up to 10 days before today’s date. For example, if you are viewing the data on September 10th, 2023, the range of data will be January 1st, 2018, to August 31st, 2023. On the first day of each year, the oldest year of records will be removed from this dataset, although it can still be requested via a Public Records Request.Field Descriptions:ChargeID - Unique identifier for charges in a case. Populated by New World Law Enforcement Records Management System (LERMS).DRNumber - Case Number, can have multiple charges per case.IncidentType - The type of incident that occurred for a caseCrimeCode - Alphanumeric code crime codeCrimeCodeDescription - OffenseCrimeCodeGroup - A grouping of crimes based on Offense codes, found starting on page 10 of the UCR Manual.CrimeType - Impact of crime, options include Person, Property, or Society Crimes.IncidentAddress - Address where incident occurred. Specific addresses have been replaced with block-level addresses or street intersections.City - City where Incident OccurredDistrict - BPD Reporting District where the crime occurred. Police reporting districts are the smallest division of territorial boundaries used by law enforcement to deploy manpower, organize officers below their senior commanders, and to track reported crimes, accidents, and calls for service. Reporting districts typically encompass a few square blocks.PatrolArea - BPD Patrol Areas where the crime occurred. Police areas are the second to largest division of territorial boundaries used by law enforcement to deploy manpower, organize officers below their senior commanders, and to track reported crimes, accidents, and calls for service.LocationScene - Type of location where incident occurred. Examples include Gym, Residence/Home, Hotel/Motel.ChargeGroup - Link created between Statute/Charge and NIBRS Crime CodesChargeSubGroup - Subgrouping for things like Domestic Assault or Commercial TheftChargeDescription - Descriptions of Charge Code that aligns with statute.ChargeCode - Statute Code of crime committed.Severity - Severity of crime committed such as Felony or Misdemeanor.OccurredDateTime - Datetime when the incident of the case occurred.Occurred_DW - Day of the Week from OccurredDateTimeOccurred_HR - Numeric Hour from OccurredDateTimeOccurred_MO - Numeric Month from OccurredDateTimeOccurred_DM - Numeric Day of Month from OccurredDateTimeOccurred_YR - Numeric Year from OccurredDateTime

Description: Pursuant to the Sex Offender and Child Murderer Community Notification Law, 730 ILCS 152/101,et seq., the Chicago Police Department maintains a list of sex offenders residing in the City of Chicago who are required to register under the Sex Offender Registration Act, 730 ILCS 150/2, et seq. To protect the privacy of the individuals, addresses are shown at the block level only and specific locations are not identified. The data are extracted from the CLEAR (Citizen Law Enforcement Analysis and Reporting) system developed by the Department. Although every effort is made to keep this list accurate and current, the city cannot guarantee the accuracy of this information. Offenders may have moved and failed to notify the Chicago Police Department as required by law. If any information presented in this web site is known to be outdated, please contact the Chicago Police Department at srwbmstr@chicagopolice.org, or mail to Sex Registration Unit, 3510 S Michigan Ave, Chicago, IL 60653. Disclaimer: This registry is based upon the legislature's decision to facilitate access to publicly available information about persons convicted of specific sexual offenses. The Chicago Police Department has not considered or assessed the specific risk of re-offense with regard to any individual prior to his or her inclusion within this registry, and has made no determination that any individual included within the registry is currently dangerous. Individuals included within this registry are included solely by virtue of their conviction record and Illinois law. The main purpose of providing this data on the internet is to make the information more available and accessible, not to warn about any specific individual.

Anyone who uses information contained in the Sex Offender Database to commit a criminal act against another person is subject to criminal prosecution. Data Owner: Chicago Police Department. Frequency: Data is updated daily. Related Applications: CLEARMAP (http://j.mp/lLluSa).

This dataset represents all arrests that occurred in the last 24 hours as recorded by the Norfolk Police Department. This dataset is updated daily.

In 2022, acquittals for police officers convicted of brutality under Section 3 of Article 286 of the Criminal Code of Russia were issued in nearly five percent of cases. That was 24 times more often than the share of such verdicts for all articles of the Criminal Code. Almost 70 percent of the convicts from national enforcement authorities avoided a real sentence by being given a suspended sentence or fine.

These data were collected to evaluate the Demand Reduction Program, a program initiated in Maricopa County, Arizona, in 1989 to combat drug abuse. A consortium of municipal, county, state, and federal law enforcement agencies developed the program, which stressed user accountability. The Demand Reduction Program had two objectives: (1) to create community-wide awareness of the severity of the drug problem and to alert drug users to the increased risk of legal sanctions, and (2) to adopt a zero-tolerance position of user accountability through an emphasis on increased and coordinated law enforcement activities directed against individual offenders and special treatment programs in lieu of prosecution. Part 1 of the collection, Demand Reduction Program Data, provides information on prosecutor's disposition, arrest date, submitted charges, filed charges, prior charges, disposition of charges, drugs offender used in last three months, information on prior drug treatment, type of attorney, and arrestee's age at arrest, sex, marital status, income, and living arrangement. Part 2 is a Citizen Survey conducted in January 1990, ten months after the implementation of the Demand Reduction Program. Adult residents of Maricopa County were asked in telephone interviews about their attitudes toward drug use, tax support for drug treatment, education, and punishment, their knowledge of the Demand Reduction Program, and demographic information. Parts 3 and 4 supply data from surveys of Maricopa County police officers, conducted in March 1990 and April 1991, to measure attitudes regarding the Demand Reduction Program with respect to (1) police effort, (2) inter-agency cooperation, (3) the harm involved in drug use, and (4) support for diversion to treatment. The two police surveys contained identically-worded questions, with only a small number of different questions asked the second year. Variables include officer's rank, years at rank, years in department, shift worked, age, sex, ethnicity, education, marital status, if officer was the primary or secondary wage earner, officer's perception of and training for the Demand Reduction Program, and personal attitudes toward drug use. Part 5 provides arrest data from the Maricopa County Task Force, which arrested drug users through two methods: (1) sweeps of public and semi-public places, and (2) "reversals," where drug sellers were arrested and replaced by police officers posing as drug sellers, who then arrested the drug buyers. Task Force data include arrest date, operation number, operation beginning and ending date, operation type, region where operation was conducted, charge resulting from arrest, Demand Reduction Program identification number, and arrestee's sex, race, and date of birth.

In 1980, the National Institute of Justice awarded a grant to the Cornell University College of Human Ecology for the establishment of the Center for the Study of Race, Crime, and Social Policy in Oakland, California. This center mounted a long-term research project that sought to explain the wide variation in crime statistics by race and ethnicity. Using information from eight ethnic communities in Oakland, California, representing working- and middle-class Black, White, Chinese, and Hispanic groups, as well as additional data from Oakland's justice systems and local organizations, the center conducted empirical research to describe the criminalization process and to explore the relationship between race and crime. The differences in observed patterns and levels of crime were analyzed in terms of: (1) the abilities of local ethnic communities to contribute to, resist, neutralize, or otherwise affect the criminalization of its members, (2) the impacts of criminal justice policies on ethnic communities and their members, and (3) the cumulative impacts of criminal justice agency decisions on the processing of individuals in the system. Administrative records data were gathered from two sources, the Alameda County Criminal Oriented Records Production System (CORPUS) (Part 1) and the Oakland District Attorney Legal Information System (DALITE) (Part 2). In addition to collecting administrative data, the researchers also surveyed residents (Part 3), police officers (Part 4), and public defenders and district attorneys (Part 5). The eight study areas included a middle- and low-income pair of census tracts for each of the four racial/ethnic groups: white, Black, Hispanic, and Asian. Part 1, Criminal Oriented Records Production System (CORPUS) Data, contains information on offenders' most serious felony and misdemeanor arrests, dispositions, offense codes, bail arrangements, fines, jail terms, and pleas for both current and prior arrests in Alameda County. Demographic variables include age, sex, race, and marital status. Variables in Part 2, District Attorney Legal Information System (DALITE) Data, include current and prior charges, days from offense to charge, disposition, and arrest, plea agreement conditions, final results from both municipal court and superior court, sentence outcomes, date and outcome of arraignment, disposition, and sentence, number and type of enhancements, numbers of convictions, mistrials, acquittals, insanity pleas, and dismissals, and factors that determined the prison term. For Part 3, Oakland Community Crime Survey Data, researchers interviewed 1,930 Oakland residents from eight communities. Information was gathered from community residents on the quality of schools, shopping, and transportation in their neighborhoods, the neighborhood's racial composition, neighborhood problems, such as noise, abandoned buildings, and drugs, level of crime in the neighborhood, chances of being victimized, how respondents would describe certain types of criminals in terms of age, race, education, and work history, community involvement, crime prevention measures, the performance of the police, judges, and attorneys, victimization experiences, and fear of certain types of crimes. Demographic variables include age, sex, race, and family status. For Part 4, Oakland Police Department Survey Data, Oakland County police officers were asked about why they joined the police force, how they perceived their role, aspects of a good and a bad police officer, why they believed crime was down, and how they would describe certain beats in terms of drug availability, crime rates, socioeconomic status, number of juveniles, potential for violence, residential versus commercial, and degree of danger. Officers were also asked about problems particular neighborhoods were experiencing, strategies for reducing crime, difficulties in doing police work well, and work conditions. Demographic variables include age, sex, race, marital status, level of education, and years on the force. In Part 5, Public Defender/District Attorney Survey Data, public defenders and district attorneys were queried regarding which offenses were increasing most rapidly in Oakland, and they were asked to rank certain offenses in terms of seriousness. Respondents were also asked about the public's influence on criminal justice agencies and on the performance of certain criminal justice agencies. Respondents were presented with a list of crimes and asked how typical these offenses were and what factors influenced their decisions about such cases (e.g., intent, motive, evidence, behavior, prior history, injury or loss, substance abuse, emotional trauma). Other variables measured how often and under what circumstances the public defender and client and the public defender and the district attorney agreed on the case, defendant characteristics in terms of who should not be put on the stand, the effects of Proposition 8, public defender and district attorney plea guidelines, attorney discretion, and advantageous and disadvantageous characteristics of a defendant. Demographic variables include age, sex, race, marital status, religion, years of experience, and area of responsibility.