My da|ra Login

Detailed view

metadata language: English

Use of Computerized Crime Mapping by Law Enforcement in the United States, 1997-1998

Version
v2
Resource Type
Dataset : survey data
Creator
  • Mamalian, Cynthia A. (United States Department of Justice. National Institute of Justice. Crime Mapping Research Center)
  • LaVigne, Nancy G. (United States Department of Justice. National Institute of Justice. Crime Mapping Research Center)
  • Groff, Elizabeth (United States Department of Justice. National Institute of Justice. Crime Mapping Research Center)
Other Title
  • Version 2 (Subtitle)
Publication Date
2001-02-16
Funding Reference
  • United States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. National Institute of Justice
Language
English
Free Keywords
crime mapping; geographic information systems; information use; law enforcement agencies
Description
  • Abstract

    As a first step in understanding law enforcement agencies' use and knowledge of crime mapping, the Crime Mapping Research Center (CMRC) of the National Institute of Justice conducted a nationwide survey to determine which agencies were using geographic information systems (GIS), how they were using them, and, among agencies that were not using GIS, the reasons for that choice. Data were gathered using a survey instrument developed by National Institute of Justice staff, reviewed by practitioners and researchers with crime mapping knowledge, and approved by the Office of Management and Budget. The survey was mailed in March 1997 to a sample of law enforcement agencies in the United States. Surveys were accepted until May 1, 1998. Questions asked of all respondents included type of agency, population of community, number of personnel, types of crimes for which the agency kept incident-based records, types of crime analyses conducted, and whether the agency performed computerized crime mapping. Those agencies that reported using computerized crime mapping were asked which staff conducted the mapping, types of training their staff received in mapping, types of software and computers used, whether the agency used a global positioning system, types of data geocoded and mapped, types of spatial analyses performed and how often, use of hot spot analyses, how mapping results were used, how maps were maintained, whether the department kept an archive of geocoded data, what external data sources were used, whether the agency collaborated with other departments, what types of Department of Justice training would benefit the agency, what problems the agency had encountered in implementing mapping, and which external sources had funded crime mapping at the agency. Departments that reported no use of computerized crime mapping were asked why that was the case, whether they used electronic crime data, what types of software they used, and what types of Department of Justice training would benefit their agencies.
  • Abstract

    Computerized crime mapping technology enables law enforcement agencies to analyze and correlate data sources to create a detailed snapshot of crime incidents and related factors within a community or other geographic area. In particular, it enables agencies to target resources for more effective crime control strategies, identify likely suspects, evaluate the results of interventions, and more efficiently and effectively allocate officers to geographic areas in which they are needed. While interest in this technology within the law enforcement community appears to be growing, until recently little data existed on how widely computerized crime mapping was used, in what capacity, and what influenced an agency's implementation of a geographic information system (GIS). As a first step in understanding law enforcement agencies' use and knowledge of crime mapping, the Crime Mapping Research Center of the National Institute of Justice conducted a nationwide crime mapping survey to determine which agencies were using GIS, how they were using it, and, among agencies that were not using GIS, the reasons for that choice.
  • Abstract

    The survey instrument was developed by National Institute of Justice staff, reviewed by practitioners and researchers with crime mapping knowledge, and cleared by the Office of Management and Budget. All agencies with 50 or more sworn officers were contacted by telephone to obtain the name of the crime analyst or other appropriate person to whom the survey should be addressed. All other surveys were sent to the attention of the agency chief. The survey was mailed in March 1997 to a sample of law enforcement agencies in the United States. Agencies that did not respond to the first mailing were sent a second survey. Surveys were accepted until May 1, 1998. It took responding agencies an estimated average of 33 minutes to answer the survey, including time to review instructions, gather needed data, and complete and review the collection of information.
  • Abstract

    Questions asked of all respondents included type of agency, population of community, number of personnel, types of crimes for which the agency kept incident-based records, types of crime analyses conducted, and whether the agency performed computerized crime mapping. Those agencies that reported using computerized crime mapping were asked which staff conducted the mapping, types of training their staff received in mapping, types of software and computers used, whether the agency used a global positioning system, types of data geocoded and mapped, types of spatial analyses performed and how often, use of hot spot analyses, how mapping results were used, how maps were maintained, whether the department kept an archive of geocoded data, what external data sources were used, whether the agency collaborated with other departments, what types of Department of Justice training would benefit the agency, what problems the agency had encountered in implementing mapping, and which external sources had funded crime mapping at the agency. Departments that reported no use of computerized crime mapping were asked why that was the case, whether they used electronic crime data, what types of software they used, and what types of Department of Justice training would benefit their agencies.
  • Methods

    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: Performed consistency checks.; Standardized missing values.; Performed recodes and/or calculated derived variables.; Checked for undocumented or out-of-range codes..
  • Methods

    Presence of Common Scales: Several Likert-type scales were used.
  • Methods

    Response Rates: The response rate after two mailings was 72 percent.
  • Table of Contents

    Datasets:

    • DS1: Dataset
Temporal Coverage
  • 1997 / 1998
    Time period: 1997--1998
  • 1997-03 / 1998-05
    Collection date: 1997-03--1998-05
Geographic Coverage
  • United States
Sampled Universe
All law enforcement agencies in the United States.
Sampling
Stratified random sampling.
Note
2008-04-18 The variable ORI was updated with data that had previously been labeled as missing. These updated data were obtained from hard copies of the original survey forms.2006-09-21 A restricted version of the data was created to include the variable ORI. The public release version was updated with the new LRECL, with the variable ORI included, but masked.2005-11-04 On 2005-03-14 new files were added to one or more datasets. These files included additional setup files as well as one or more of the following: SAS program, SAS transport, SPSS portable, and Stata system files. The metadata record was revised 2005-11-04 to reflect these additions. Funding insitution(s): United States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. National Institute of Justice.
Availability
Delivery
One or more files in this study are not available for download due to special restrictions; consult the study documentation to learn more on how to obtain the data.
Alternative Identifiers
  • 2878 (Type: ICPSR Study Number)
Relations
  • Is previous version of
    DOI: 10.3886/ICPSR02878.v3
  • Is new version of
    DOI: 10.3886/ICPSR02878.v1
Publications
  • Demir, Serhat. Diffusion of Police Technology Across Time and Space and the Impact of Technology Use on Police Effectiveness and its Contribution to Decision-Making. Dissertation, Kent State University. 2009.
  • Mamalian, Cynthia A., LaVigne, Nancy G., Groff, Elizabeth. The Use of Computerized Crime Mapping by Law Enforcement: Survey Results, Final Report. Washington, DC: United States Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice. 2001.
  • La Vigne, Nancy G., Wartell, Julie. Crime Mapping Case Studies: Successes in the Field. Washington, DC: Police Executive Research Forum. 2000.
  • Mamalian, Cynthia A., LaVigne, Nancy G.. Use of Computerized Crime Mapping by Law Enforcement Survey Results. Research Preview.NCJ 184387, Washington, DC: United States Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice. 1999.
  • La Vigne, Nancy G., Wartell, Julie. Crime Mapping Case Studies: Successes in the Field. Washington, DC: Police Executive Research Forum. 1998.

Update Metadata: 2015-08-05 | Issue Number: 3 | Registration Date: 2015-06-30

Mamalian, Cynthia A.; LaVigne, Nancy G.; Groff, Elizabeth (2001): Use of Computerized Crime Mapping by Law Enforcement in the United States, 1997-1998. Version 2. Version: v2. ICPSR - Interuniversity Consortium for Political and Social Research. Dataset. https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR02878.v2