LEMAS Attachments Revised

2016 LEMAS OMB Attachments
Attachment 1: 2016 LEMAS Instrument
Attachment 2: Authorizing Legislation Title 42
Attachment 3: LEMAS Items and Domains
Attachment 4: LEMAS Publications
Attachment 5: 60-day notice
Attachment 6: 30-day notice
Attachment 7: Survey Invitation Letter
Attachment 8: LEMAS Flyer
Attachment 9: BJS Confidentiality Assurances
Attachment 10: PERF Letter of Support
Attachment 11: POC Update Form
Attachment 12: Respondent thank you
Attachment 13: First reminder - email
Attachment 14: Second reminder - letter
Attachment 15: Third reminder - email
Attachment 16: Telephone scripts
Attachment 17: Fifth reminder - email
Attachment 18: Final reminder - letter/End of study message

RETURN
TO

OMB No. 1121-0240: Approval Expires XX/XX/201X
RTI INTERNATIONAL
2016 LAW ENFORCEMENT MANAGEMENT
Form CJ-44
RESEARCH OPERATONS CENTER
AND STATISTICS (LEMAS) SURVEY 2016 SURVEY OF STATE AND LOCAL
ATTN: DATA CAPTURE
LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES
5265 CAPITAL BOULEVARD
U.S. Department of Justice
RALEIGH, NC 27616-2925
Bureau of Justice Statistics
https://TBD
Telephone: TBD (toll-free)
Fax: TBD
Email: TBD

In correspondence about this survey, please refer to the number at the top left of this box. (Please correct any error in name and mailing address in the box below. If the
label is correct, please check the box in the bottom right hand corner.)

Agency ID:
Password:
Name:
Title:
Agency:
The label is correct

INFORMATION SUPPLIED BY
NAME
TELEPHONE Area Code

TITLE
Number

Extension

FAX

Area Code

Number

EMAIL ADDRESS

Completion and Return Instructions


Unless otherwise noted, please answer all questions using June 30, 2016 as a reference.



Please do not leave any items blank. If the answer to a question is unknown or not available, write “DK” in the space provided. If the
answer is not applicable, write “NA” in the space provided. If the answer to a question is none or zero, write “0” in the space provided.



There are four ways to submit this survey:
o
Online at https://TBD Please use the Agency ID and Password listed above to access the survey on the secure, encrypted website.
This method allows for the ability to save partial data and return at a later time. If you or another staff member needs to access the
survey multiple times, please only “submit” the survey once it is complete.
o
Mail the survey to RTI International (RTI) in the enclosed postage-paid envelope
o
Fax each page of the survey to XXX-XXX-XXXX (toll free)
o
Scan and email the survey to [email protected]



Please submit your completed questionnaire by XX XX, 2016.



If you have questions about the survey, items on the questionnaire, or how to submit completed responses, please contact the Survey Team at
RTI by email at [email protected] or call the Help Line at XXX-XXX-XXXX (toll free). The Help Line is available from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
(EST). When communicating about the survey, please reference your Agency ID.



If you have general comments or suggestions for improving the survey, please contact Shelley S. Hyland, LEMAS Program Manager, Bureau
of Justice Statistics, by phone at 202-616-1706 or by email at [email protected].



Please retain a copy of your completed survey for one year. Questionnaires completed through the online option can be printed for your
records.



The Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, as amended (42 USC 3732), authorizes this information collection. Although this
survey is voluntary, we need your participation to make the results comprehensive, accurate, and timely. We greatly appreciate your
assistance.
Burden Statement
Federal agencies may not conduct or sponsor an information collection, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information, unless it
displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 3 hours per response,
including time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the
collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate, or any other aspects of this collection of information, including suggestions for
reducing this burden, to the Director, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 810 Seventh Street NW, Washington, DC 20531 .

AGENCY ID: ___________
4. Enter the number of FULL-TIME personnel according to their

Section I: Descriptive Information

PRIMARY job responsibility as of June 30, 2016. Count each fulltime staff person only once. If a person performs more than one function,
enter that person’s count in the job category in which s/he spent most of
her/his time. If none, enter ‘0’

Unless otherwise noted, please answer all questions using June
30, 2016, as a reference.
1. Enter the number of AUTHORIZED full-time paid agency
positions and ACTUAL full-time and part-time paid agency
employees as of June 30, 2016. Full-time employees are those
regularly scheduled for 35 or more hours per week. If none,
enter '0.'
AUTHORIZED
full-time paid
positions

Sworn

Nonsworn

a. Administration -- Chief of
police or sheriff, assistants
and other personnel who
work in administrative
capacity. Include finance,
personnel and internal
affairs.

ACTUAL
paid agency
employees
Full-time

Limited/no
arrest
powers

Part-time

a. Sworn personnel
with general
arrest powers

b. Field operations – Police
officers, deputies, detectives,
inspectors, supervisors, and
other personnel providing
direct law enforcement
services. Include traffic,
patrol, investigations and
special operations.

b. Officers/deputies
with limited or
no arrest powers
(e.g., jail or
court officers in
some agencies)

1. Patrol/field officers only
2. Detectives/investigators
only

c. Non-sworn
employees

c. Technical support –
Dispatchers, records clerks,
data processors, and other
personnel providing support
services other than
administrative. Include
communications, fleet
management and training.

d. TOTAL (sum of
lines ‘a’ through
‘c’)
2. Of the total number of FULL-TIME SWORN personnel
with general arrest powers (as entered in 1.a, column 2),
enter the number of each of the following: (Personnel may
be counted more than once. If none, enter '0.')

d. Jail-related duties –
Correctional officers, guards,
and other support personnel
who primarily work in the
jail.

a. Uniformed officers with
REGULARLY ASSIGNED DUTIES
that include responding to citizen
calls/requests for service

e. Court related duties –
Bailiffs, security guards,
process servers, etc.

b. Community Policing or Relations
Officers, or other sworn personnel
specifically designated to engage in
community policing activities

f. Other (e.g., crossing guards,
parking enforcement, etc.)

c. School Resource Officers, School Liaison
Officers, or other general sworn personnel
whose primary duties are related to school
safety (exclude crossing guards)

5. Enter your agency's total operating budget for the fiscal year
that included June 30, 2016. If the budget is not available,
provide an estimate and check the box below. Include jails
administered by your agency. Do NOT include building
construction costs or major equipment purchases.

3. As of June 30, 2016, how many RESERVE or
AUXILIARY OFFICERS did your agency have? Enter the
full-time and part-time numbers below. If none, enter '0.'
Full-time

$

Part-time

,

,

,

Please mark here if this figure is an estimate 

a. Sworn

Please indicate the date range of your agency’s fiscal
year that included June 30, 2016:

b. Limited/no arrest
powers

Start

c. Non-sworn

End
mm

2

dd

mm

dd

AGENCY ID: ___________
6. Enter the total estimated value of money, goods, and
property received by your agency from an ASSET
FORFEITURE program during the fiscal year that
included June 30, 2016. If data are not available, provide an
estimate and check the box below. Include federal, state and
local funds. If no money, goods or property were received,
enter '0’.

11. Which of the following screening techniques are used
by your agency in selecting new officer recruits?
Yes

No

a. Background investigation





b. Credit history check





c. Criminal history check





d. Driving record check





e. Social media check





Yes

No

f. Personal interview





g. Personality/Psychological inventory





h. Polygraph exam





i. Psychological interview





j. Voice stress analyzer





 Four-year college degree required

k. Written aptitude test





 Two-year college degree required

l. Analytical/problem-solving ability
assessment





Yes

No

m. Assessment of understanding diverse
cultural populations





n. Mediation/conflict management skills
assessment





Yes

No

o. Drug test





p. Medical exam





q. Vision test





r. Physical agility/fitness test





$

,

,

Background/record checks

,

Please mark here if this figure is an estimate 

Personal attributes

Section II: Personnel
Unless otherwise noted, please answer all questions using June
30, 2016, as a reference.
7a. Indicate your agency's minimum education requirement
which new officer recruits must have at hiring or within
two years of hiring. Mark only 1 response.

 Some college but no degree required

Community relations skills

(Total credit hours required: ________ )
 High school diploma or equivalent required
 No formal education requirement (SKIP to Question 8)
7b. Does your agency consider MILITARY SERVICE as an
exemption to this minimum education requirement?
 Yes

Physical attributes

 No

8. Does your agency require a new officer recruit to be a U.S.
citizen before hire?
 Yes

 No

9. How many total hours of ACADEMY training and FIELD
training (e.g., with FTO) are required of your agency's
new officer recruits? Include law enforcement training only.
Include both state/POST requirements plus additional agency
requirements. If no training of that type is required, enter '0’.

12. Enter the number of FULL-TIME agency personnel who
were bi- or multilingual as of June 30, 2016. Full-time
employees are those regularly scheduled for 35 or more hours
per week. If none, enter ‘0’.

Total Hours

a. Sworn

a. Academy training

b. Limited/no arrest powers

b. Field training

c. Non-sworn

10. On average, how many hours of IN-SERVICE training
are required annually for your agency's NONPROBATIONARY field/patrol officers? Include law
enforcement training only. Include both state/POST
requirements plus additional agency requirements. If no inservice training is required, enter ‘0’.
Average annual hours per officer

3

AGENCY ID: ___________
13. Enter the number of FULL-TIME SWORN personnel who were

15. Enter the SEX, RACE and HISPANIC ORIGIN of the chief

HIRED or SEPARATED during the fiscal year including June 30,
2016 by RACE, HISPANIC ORIGIN and SEX. The TOTAL rows
should have the same values. If none, enter ‘0’.

executive (i.e., Chief of Police, Sheriff, Commissioner) for the pay
period that included June 30, 2016.

a.  Male
New Hires

 Female

Separations
b. 








a. White, non-Hispanic
b. Black or African
American, non-Hispanic
c. Hispanic or Latino
d. American Indian or
Alaska Native, nonHispanic

White, non-Hispanic
Black or African American, non-Hispanic
Hispanic or Latino
American Indian or Alaskan Native, non-Hispanic
Asian, non-Hispanic
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, non-Hispanic
Two or more races
Not known

16. Enter the number of FULL-TIME SWORN personnel by RACE,
HISPANIC ORIGIN and SEX who held the following
supervisory positions for the pay period that included June 30,
2016. If a position does not exist in your agency, enter ‘N/A’. If none,
enter ‘0’.

e. Asian, non-Hispanic
f. Native Hawaiian or
other Pacific Islander,
non-Hispanic

Intermediate
supervisor
(below chief executive
and above sergeant or
first-line supervisor)

g. Two or more races
h. Not known
i. TOTAL (sum ‘a’ to ‘h’)

a. White, non-Hispanic

j. Male

b. Black or African
American, non-Hispanic

k. Female

c. Hispanic or Latino

l. TOTAL (sum ‘j’ and
‘k’)

Sergeant or
equivalent
first-line
supervisor

d. American Indian or
Alaska Native, nonHispanic

14. Enter the number of FULL-TIME SWORN personnel by

e. Asian, non-Hispanic

RACE, HISPANIC ORIGIN and SEX for the pay period that
included June 30, 2016. If none, enter ‘0’.
Male

f. Native Hawaiian or
other Pacific Islander,
non-Hispanic

Female

a. White, non-Hispanic

g. Two or more races

b. Black or African
American, non-Hispanic

h. Not known
i. TOTAL (sum ‘a’ to ‘h’)

c. Hispanic or Latino
j. Male
d. American Indian or Alaska
Native, non-Hispanic

k. Female

e. Asian, non-Hispanic

l. TOTAL (sum ‘j’ and
‘k’)

f. Native Hawaiian or other
Pacific Islander, nonHispanic

17.

Is collective bargaining authorized for your agency’s employees?
All

Some

None

a. Sworn







b. Limited/no arrest powers







c. Non-sworn







g. Two or more races
h. Not known
i. TOTAL (sum ‘a’ to ‘h’)

4

AGENCY ID: ___________
22. During the fiscal year including June 30, 2016, what
proportion of agency personnel received at least eight
hours of community policing training (e.g., problem
solving, SARA, or community partnerships)? Mark one
choice per line. If your agency did not conduct training for a
particular type of employee, please mark 'None.' If your
agency did not have a particular type of employee for the
specified time period, please mark 'N/A.'

Section III: Operations
18. Enter the total number of calls for service (e.g., 911 calls,
non-emergence calls, alarm or other source) received and
dispatched by your agency during the fiscal year including
June 30, 2016. If none, enter ‘0’. If data are not available,
provide an estimate and check the corresponding box.
Total Number

Estimate?

a. Calls/requests for service
received
b. Calls/requests for service
resulting in dispatch of
officer(s) or use of on-site
unit

None

N/A


a. New officer recruits









b. In-service sworn
personnel







a. Automobile



As
Needed


b. Motorcycle







c. Foot







d. Horse







e. Bicycle







f. Human transporter (e.g.,
Segway)







g. Manned aviation (e.g.,
airplane or helicopter)







h. Marine (e.g., boat)

23. As of June 30, 2016, how many FULL-TIME SWORN
personnel with primary responsibility for patrol/field
duties (reported in 4.b.1, column 1) were encouraged to
engage in SARA-type problem solving projects? If none,
enter ‘0’.













No

Full-time patrol/field officers



24. As of June 30, 2016, how many FULL-TIME SWORN
personnel with primary responsibility for patrol/field
duties (reported in 4.b.1, column 1) were assigned to
specific geographic areas/beats? If none, enter ‘0’.
Full-time patrol/field officers
25. During the fiscal year including June 30, 2016, did your
agency have a problem-solving partnership or written
agreement with any of the following?

i. Other (please specify):
_____________________

Some



19. During the fiscal year including June 30, 2016, did your
agency use the following TYPES OF PATROL?
Regularly

All

Section IV: Community Policing
20. As of June 30, 2016, did your agency’s mission statement
include a community policing component?
 Yes
 No

21. During the fiscal year including June 30, 2016, which of
the following did your agency do?
No

a. Maintain a written community policing plan





b. Use technology to support the analysis of
community problems





c. Conduct a citizen police academy





No

a. Advocacy groups





b. Business groups





c. Other local law enforcement agencies





d. Neighborhood associations





e. University or research group





f. Other (please specify):
__________________________________





26. During the fiscal year including June 30, 2016, did your
agency conduct or sponsor a formal survey of local
residents on crime experiences, fear of crime, or
satisfaction with police?

 N/A – agency does not have a mission statement

Yes

Yes

 Yes

5

 No

AGENCY ID: ___________
27. During the fiscal year including June 30, 2016, did your
agency use information from a survey of citizens for any
of the following?

31. As of June 30, 2016, which of the following types of
WEAPONS or ACTIONS were authorized for use by your
agency’s FULL-TIME SWORN personnel?

 Agency did not conduct or sponsor a citizen survey at
any time (skip to 28)
Yes

No

a. Prioritizing crime/disorder problems





b. Allocating resources to neighborhoods





c. Evaluating officer or agency performance





d. Training development





e. Informing agency policies and procedures





Authorized for:

Section V: Equipment
28. Does your agency supply or give a cash allowance to its
FULL-TIME SWORN personnel to purchase the following?
Mark all that apply in each row.
Agency
supplies

Agency
provides
cash
allowance

Neither
(officer
provides)









b. Backup
sidearm









c. Body
armor









d. Uniform









Some
sworn

Not
authorized

a. Open hand techniques







b. Closed hand techniques







c. Takedown techniques (e.g.,
straight arm bar)







d. Hold or neck restraint (e.g.,
carotid hold)







e. Leg hobble or other restraints
(not including handcuffs)







f. OC spray/foam







g. Chemical agent projectile
(e.g., CS/tear gas, OC pellets)







h. Baton







i. Blunt force projectile (e.g.,
bean bag, rubber bullets)













k. Explosives







l. Other (please specify):
___________________________







j.

Equipment
not
authorized

a. Primary
sidearm

All
sworn

Conducted energy device
(e.g., Taser, stun gun,
Stinger)

32. As of June 30, 2016, does your agency require written
documentation when the following types of WEAPONS or
ACTIONS are used by your agency’s FULL-TIME SWORN?

29. Which types of sidearms are authorized for use by your
agency’s FULL-TIME SWORN personnel? Mark all that
apply in each row.

Yes

No

N/A

a. Open hand techniques







b. Closed hand techniques







c. Takedown techniques (e.g., straight arm
bar)







d. Hold or neck restraint (e.g., carotid hold)







e. Leg hobble or other restraints (not
including handcuffs)







On-duty
primary
sidearm

On-duty
backup
sidearm

Offduty

Equipment
not
authorized

a. Semiautomatic









f. OC spray/foam







b. Revolver









g. Chemical agent projectile (e.g., CS/tear
gas, OC pellets)







h. Baton







i. Blunt force projectile (e.g., bean bag,
rubber bullets)







 Semi-automatic rifle (e.g., AR-15)

j. Display of conducted energy device
(e.g., Taser flashing)







 Manual rifle

k. Use of conducted energy device







 Shotgun (any type)

l. Explosives







 Other (please specify):

m. Display of firearm







n. Discharge of a firearm







30. Which types of secondary firearms does your agency issue
to FULL-TIME SWORN personnel or authorize for use?
Mark all that apply.
 Fully automatic rifle (e.g., M-16)

_________________________________________
 N/A – no secondary firearms authorized

6

AGENCY ID: ___________
33. Does your agency REQUIRE uniformed field/patrol officers
to wear protective body armor while in the field?
 Yes - all the time
 Yes - in some circumstances
 No

Section VI: Technology
37. As of June 30, 2016, did your agency maintain a website for
any of the following?
 Agency did not maintain a website (skip to 38)

34. Does your agency REQUIRE uniformed field/patrol officers
to wear their seat belt while driving or riding in an agency
vehicle?
 Yes - all the time
 Yes - in some circumstances
 No
35. During the fiscal year including June 30, 2016, did your
agency operate any of the following types of motorized
vehicles or equipment?
Yes

No

a. Marked cars





b. Other marked vehicles (e.g., SUV,
truck, or van)





c. Unmarked cars





d. Other unmarked vehicles (e.g., SUV,
truck, or van)





e. Armored military-type vehicles (e.g.,
MRAP, tank, BearCat or other SWAT
carrier)





f. All-terrain vehicles (ATVs)



g. Motorcycles

Yes

No

a. Providing direct access to crime statistics/data





b. Providing direct access to stop (i.e., motor
vehicle or street/field) statistics/data





c. Providing direct access to arrest statistics/data





d. Enabling citizens to report crimes or problems





e. Enabling citizens to ask questions and/or
provide feedback





f. Enabling citizens to file complaints about
police behavior or actions





38. As of June 30, 2016, did your agency use any of the
following social media channels to communicate with the
public?
Yes

No

a. Twitter





b. Facebook, Google+, or similar service





c. Blogs







d. YouTube or other video sharing service









e. Mass communication/notification system (e.g.
Nixle)





h. Boats





i. Manned aviation (e.g., airplane or
helicopter)





j. Unmanned aerial drones





k. Other (please specify):
_________________________________





39. As of June 30, 2016, did your agency use computers for
any of the following functions?

36. During the fiscal year including June 30, 2016, how
many of the following types of video cameras were
operated by your agency on a REGULAR basis? If none,
enter ‘0’.

Yes

No

a. Crime analysis (including crime mapping or
hotspot identification)





b. Social network analysis





c. Intelligence gathering





d. Inter-agency information transmission





e. Automated booking





Total Number
40. As of June 30, 2016, what was the PRIMARY method
for transmitting criminal incident reports from the field
to your agency’s record management system? Mark only
one response.

a. Fixed-site surveillance in public areas
b. Mobile surveillance
c. In patrol cars







d. On police officers (e.g. body-worn
cameras)
e. On weapons
f. On aerial drones

Paper report
Voice (cellphone, telephone, recording, radio)
In-car fixed laptop/tablet
Mobile laptop/tablet or phone
Other (please specify):
_________________________________________

7

AGENCY ID: ___________
41. As of June 30, 2016, did your agency use any of the
following technologies on a REGULAR basis?

44. As of June 30, 2016, did your agency maintain its own
computerized files with any of the following information?

Yes

No

a. Automated Fingerprint Identification System
(AFIS)





b. Facial recognition



c. License plate readers (LPR)

Yes

No

a. Arrests







b. Calls for service









c. Civilian complaints





d. Infrared (thermal) imagers





d. Criminal incident reports





e. Electrical/engine disruption





e. Firearms recovered, seized or found





f. Stolen vehicle tracking (e.g., LoJack)





f. Gangs





g. Tire deflation devices





g. Informants





h. Gunshot detection (e.g., Shotspotter)





h. Intelligence related to terrorist activity





i. Firearm tracing (e.g., eTrace)





i. Motor vehicle stops





j. Ballistic imaging (e.g., NIBN, IBIS)





j. Motor vehicle accidents





k. GPS





k. Pawn shop data





l. Protective orders





m. Stolen property





n. Street/field stops





o. Use of force incidents





42. As of June 30, 2016, did your agency’s field/patrol officers
have direct access to the following types of information using
in-field vehicle-mounted or mobile computers?
 Agency did not use in-field computers (skip to 43)
Yes

No

p. Video surveillance





a. Motor vehicle records





q. Warrants





b. Driving records





c. Criminal history records





d. Warrants





e. Protection orders





f. Inter-agency information system





g. Address history (e.g., repeat calls for service)





h. Crime statistics/mapping





Section VII: Policies and Procedures
Unless otherwise noted, please answer all questions using
June 30, 2016, as a reference.
45. Which of the following best describes your agency’s
written policy for pursuit driving? Mark only one
response.
 Prohibition (prohibits all pursuits)
 Discouragement (discourages all pursuits but does
not prohibit)
 Restrictive (restricts decisions of officers to specific
criteria such as type of offense or speed)
 Judgmental (leaves decision to officer’s discretion)
 N/A- Agency does not have a written policy
pertaining to vehicle pursuits

43. As of June 30, 2016, did your agency have an operational
computer-based personnel performance
monitoring/assessment system (e.g., Early Warning or
Early Intervention System) for monitoring or
responding to problematic officer behavior?
 Yes

 No

8

AGENCY ID: ___________
46. Does your agency have written policy or procedural
directives on the following?
Officer conduct

Yes

No

a. Use of deadly force/firearm discharge





b. Use of less-lethal force





c. Code of conduct and appearance





d. Maximum work hours allowed





e. Off-duty conduct





Yes

No

f. Mentally ill persons





g. Homeless persons





h. Domestic disputes





i. Juveniles





Procedural

Yes

No

j. In-custody deaths





k. Racial profiling/unbiased policing





l. Civilian complaints





m. Strip searches





n. Acts of terrorism





o. Active shooter





p. Stop and frisk





q. Foot pursuits





r. Motor vehicle stops





s. Investigation of employee misconduct





t. Prisoner transport





u. Mass demonstrations





v. Reporting use of force





w. Body-worn cameras





x. Social media





y. Cultural awareness training





Dealing with special populations/situations

48. Is there a civilian complaint review board or agency in your
jurisdiction that reviews complaints against officers in your
agency?
 Yes

49. Does the civilian complaint review board or agency have
independent investigative authority with subpoena
powers?
 Yes- For all complaint cases
 Yes- Only for certain complaint types
 No
50. Does your agency have a written policy requiring that
civilian complaints about USE OF FORCE receive
separate investigation outside the chain of command where
the accused officer is assigned?
 Yes

47. As of June 30, 2016, does your agency require an external
investigation in the following situations? Only include
investigations conducted by another law enforcement or criminal
investigative body. Do NOT include civilian reviews.
Yes

No

a. Use of force resulting in a subject
sustaining serious bodily injury





b. Use of force resulting in a subject’s death





c. In-custody death not due to use of force
(e.g., suicide, intoxication or accident)





d. Discharge of a firearm at or in the
direction of a person





 No (skip to 51)

9

 No

AGENCY ID: ___________

Section VIII: Special Problems/Tasks
51. As of June 30, 2016, how did your agency address the following problems/tasks? Mark the most appropriate box for each
problem/task listed below. Mark only one box per row.

Type of problem/task

a. Bias/hate crime
b. Bomb/explosive disposal
c. Child abuse / endangerment
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.

Crime prevention
Community policing
Crime analysis
Cybercrime
Domestic violence
Drug education in schools

j. Drug enforcement
k. Environmental crimes
l. Financial crimes
m. Firearms
n. Gangs
o. Human trafficking
p.
q.
r.
s.
t.
u.

Impaired drivers (DUI/DWI)
Internal affairs
Juvenile crimes
Missing children
Repeat offenders
Research and planning

v. School safety
w. Special operations (e.g. SWAT)
x. Terrorism/homeland security
y. Victim assistance

(1)
Agency HAS
specialized unit
with personnel
assigned FULLTIME to address
this problem/task






Agency DOES NOT HAVE a specialized unit
with full-time personnel
(3)
(2)
Agency
(4)
Agency has
addresses this
Agency does
designated
problem/task,
not formally
personnel to
but does not
address this
address this
have designated
problem/task
problem/task
personnel
















(5)
Agency’s
jurisdiction
does not
have this
problem
(N/A)






























































































































10

§ 3723

TITLE 42—THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE

Subsec. (c)(3). Pub. L. 98–473, § 604(b)(2)(B), substituted
‘‘chapter’’ for ‘‘subchapter’’.
Subsec. (c)(4) to (7). Pub. L. 98–473, § 604(b)(2)(C), (F),
redesignated pars. (5) to (8) as (4) to (7), respectively,
and struck out former par. (4) relating to evaluation of
programs and projects under other subchapters of this
chapter to determine their impact upon criminal and
civil justice systems and achievement of purposes and
policies of this chapter and for dissemination of information.
Subsec. (c)(8). Pub. L. 98–473, § 604(b)(2)(D)(i), (ii), (F),
redesignated par. (10) as (8) and, in par. (8) as so designated, struck out ‘‘nationality priority grants under
subchapter V of this chapter and’’ after ‘‘for funding
as’’ and substituted ‘‘subchapter V of this chapter’’ for
‘‘subchapter VI of this chapter’’. Former par. (8) redesignated (7).
Subsec. (c)(9). Pub. L. 98–473, § 604(b)(2)(E), (F), redesignated par. (11) as (9), and struck out former par. (9)
relating to a biennial report to President and Congress
on state of justice research.
Subsec. (c)(10), (11). Pub. L. 98–473, § 604(b)(2)(F), redesignated pars. (10) and (11) as (8) and (9), respectively.
EFFECTIVE DATE OF 2002 AMENDMENT
Amendment by Pub. L. 107–296 effective 60 days after
Nov. 25, 2002, see section 4 of Pub. L. 107–296, set out as
an Effective Date note under section 101 of Title 6, Domestic Security.
EFFECTIVE DATE OF 1984 AMENDMENT
Amendment by Pub. L. 98–473 effective Oct. 12, 1984,
see section 609AA(a) of Pub. L. 98–473, set out as an Effective Date note under section 3711 of this title.
REPORT ON DRUG-TESTING TECHNOLOGIES
Pub. L. 107–273, div. B, title II, § 2201, Nov. 2, 2002, 116
Stat. 1793, provided that:
‘‘(a) REQUIREMENT.—The National Institute of Justice
shall conduct a study of drug-testing technologies in
order to identify and assess the efficacy, accuracy, and
usefulness for purposes of the National effort to detect
the use of illicit drugs of any drug-testing technologies
(including the testing of hair) that may be used as alternatives or complements to urinalysis as a means of
detecting the use of such drugs.
‘‘(b) REPORT.—Not later than 2 years after the date of
enactment of this Act [Nov. 2, 2002], the Institute shall
submit to Congress a report on the results of the study
conducted under subsection (a).’’
ANTI-STALKING LEGISLATION EVALUATION, MODEL
DEVELOPMENT, DISSEMINATION AND REPORT
Pub. L. 102–395, title I, § 109(b), Oct. 6, 1992, 106 Stat.
1842, directed Attorney General, acting through Director of National Institute of Justice, to evaluate existing and proposed anti-stalking legislation in the
States, develop model anti-stalking legislation that is
constitutional and enforceable, prepare and disseminate to State authorities the findings made as a result
of such evaluation, and report to Congress the findings
and the need or appropriateness of further action by
the Federal Government by Sept. 30, 1993.

§ 3723. Authority for 100 per centum grants
A grant authorized under this subchapter may
be up to 100 per centum of the total cost of each
project for which such grant is made. The Institute shall require, whenever feasible, as a condition of approval of a grant under this subchapter, that the recipient contribute money,
facilities, or services to carry out the purposes
for which the grant is sought.
(Pub. L. 90–351, title I, § 203, as added Pub. L.
96–157, § 2, Dec. 27, 1979, 93 Stat. 1174.)
PRIOR PROVISIONS
A prior section 3723, Pub. L. 90–351, title I, § 203, June
19, 1968, 82 Stat. 199; Pub. L. 91–644, title I, § 3(a)–(c),

Page 5020

Jan. 2, 1971, 84 Stat. 1881; Pub. L. 93–83, § 2, Aug. 6, 1973,
87 Stat. 198; Pub. L. 93–415, title V, § 542, Sept. 7, 1974,
88 Stat. 1142; Pub. L. 94–503, title I, § 105, Oct. 15, 1976,
90 Stat. 2408; Pub. L. 95–115, § 9(b), Oct. 3, 1977, 91 Stat.
1061, provided for establishment of State planning agencies, prior to the general amendment of this chapter by
Pub. L. 96–157.

§ 3724. Repealed. Pub. L. 98–473, title II, § 604(c),
Oct. 12, 1984, 98 Stat. 2079
Section, Pub. L. 90–351, title I, § 204, as added Pub. L.
96–157, § 2, Dec. 27, 1979, 93 Stat. 1174, provided for a National Institute of Justice Advisory Board, including
the establishment and composition of the Board, rules
respecting organization and procedure, term of office,
duties of the Board, and delegation of powers and duties to the Director.
Prior sections 3724 to 3726 were omitted in the general
revision of this chapter by Pub. L. 96–157.
Section 3724, Pub. L. 90–351, title I, § 204, June 19, 1968,
82 Stat. 199; Pub. L. 91–644, title I, § 3(d), Jan. 2, 1971, 84
Stat. 1881; Pub. L. 93–83, § 2, Aug. 6, 1973, 87 Stat. 199;
Pub. L. 94–503, title I, § 106, Oct. 15, 1976, 90 Stat. 2410,
related to maximum percentage of Federal grant funds
in expenses incurred by States.
Section 3725, Pub. L. 90–351, title I, § 205, June 19, 1968,
82 Stat. 199; Pub. L. 93–83, § 2, Aug. 6, 1973, 87 Stat. 199;
Pub. L. 94–503, title I, § 107, Oct. 15, 1976, 90 Stat. 2410,
related to allocation of funds and reallocation of unused funds.
Section 3726, Pub. L. 90–351, title I, § 206, as added
Pub. L. 94–503, title I, § 108, Oct. 15, 1976, 90 Stat. 2411,
related to advisory review of comprehensive statewide
plans by States.
EFFECTIVE DATE OF REPEAL
Repeal effective Oct. 12, 1984, see section 609AA(a) of
Pub. L. 98–473, set out as an Effective Date note under
section 3711 of this title.

SUBCHAPTER III—BUREAU OF JUSTICE
STATISTICS
§ 3731. Statement of purpose
It is the purpose of this subchapter to provide
for and encourage the collection and analysis of
statistical information concerning crime, juvenile delinquency, and the operation of the criminal justice system and related aspects of the
civil justice system and to support the development of information and statistical systems at
the Federal, State, and local levels to improve
the efforts of these levels of government to
measure and understand the levels of crime, juvenile delinquency, and the operation of the
criminal justice system and related aspects of
the civil justice system. The Bureau shall utilize
to the maximum extent feasible State governmental organizations and facilities responsible
for the collection and analysis of criminal justice data and statistics. In carrying out the provisions of this subchapter, the Bureau shall give
primary emphasis to the problems of State and
local justice systems.
(Pub. L. 90–351, title I, § 301, as added Pub. L.
96–157, § 2, Dec. 27, 1979, 93 Stat. 1176; amended
Pub. L. 98–473, title II, § 605(a), Oct. 12, 1984, 98
Stat. 2079.)
PRIOR PROVISIONS
A prior section 3731, Pub. L. 90–351, title I, § 301, June
19, 1968, 82 Stat. 199; Pub. L. 91–644, title I, § 4(1)–(4), Jan.
2, 1971, 84 Stat. 1882; Pub. L. 93–83, § 2, Aug. 6, 1973, 87
Stat. 199; Pub. L. 94–503, title I, §§ 109, 128(b), Oct. 15,

Page 5021

TITLE 42—THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE

1976, 90 Stat. 2411, 2424, related to purposes and categories of grants for law enforcement and criminal justice purposes, prior to the general amendment of this
chapter by Pub. L. 96–157.
AMENDMENTS
1984—Pub. L. 98–473 struck out ‘‘(including white-collar crime and public corruption)’’ after ‘‘information
concerning crime’’ and ‘‘(including crimes against the
elderly, white-collar crime, and public corruption)’’
after ‘‘levels of crime’’.
EFFECTIVE DATE OF 1984 AMENDMENT
Amendment by Pub. L. 98–473 effective Oct. 12, 1984,
see section 609AA(a) of Pub. L. 98–473, set out as an Effective Date note under section 3711 of this title.

§ 3732. Bureau of Justice Statistics
(a) Establishment
There is established within the Department of
Justice, under the general authority of the Attorney General, a Bureau of Justice Statistics
(hereinafter referred to in this subchapter as
‘‘Bureau’’).
(b) Appointment of Director; experience; authority; restrictions
The Bureau shall be headed by a Director appointed by the President, by and with the advice
and consent of the Senate. The Director shall
have had experience in statistical programs. The
Director shall have final authority for all
grants, cooperative agreements, and contracts
awarded by the Bureau. The Director shall be responsible for the integrity of data and statistics
and shall protect against improper or illegal use
or disclosure. The Director shall report to the
Attorney General through the Assistant Attorney General. The Director shall not engage in
any other employment than that of serving as
Director; nor shall the Director hold any office
in, or act in any capacity for, any organization,
agency, or institution with which the Bureau
makes any contract or other arrangement under
this Act.
(c) Duties and functions of Bureau
The Bureau is authorized to—
(1) make grants to, or enter into cooperative
agreements or contracts with public agencies,
institutions of higher education, private organizations, or private individuals for purposes
related to this subchapter; grants shall be
made subject to continuing compliance with
standards for gathering justice statistics set
forth in rules and regulations promulgated by
the Director;
(2) collect and analyze information concerning criminal victimization, including crimes
against the elderly, and civil disputes;
(3) collect and analyze data that will serve
as a continuous and comparable national social indication of the prevalence, incidence,
rates, extent, distribution, and attributes of
crime, juvenile delinquency, civil disputes,
and other statistical factors related to crime,
civil disputes, and juvenile delinquency, in
support of national, State, tribal, and local
justice policy and decisionmaking;
(4) collect and analyze statistical information, concerning the operations of the criminal justice system at the Federal, State, tribal, and local levels;

§ 3732

(5) collect and analyze statistical information concerning the prevalence, incidence,
rates, extent, distribution, and attributes of
crime, and juvenile delinquency, at the Federal, State, tribal, and local levels;
(6) analyze the correlates of crime, civil disputes and juvenile delinquency, by the use of
statistical information, about criminal and
civil justice systems at the Federal, State,
tribal, and local levels, and about the extent,
distribution and attributes of crime, and juvenile delinquency, in the Nation and at the
Federal, State, tribal, and local levels;
(7) compile, collate, analyze, publish, and
disseminate uniform national statistics concerning all aspects of criminal justice and related aspects of civil justice, crime, including
crimes against the elderly, juvenile delinquency, criminal offenders, juvenile delinquents, and civil disputes in the various States
and in Indian country;
(8) recommend national standards for justice
statistics and for insuring the reliability and
validity of justice statistics supplied pursuant
to this chapter;
(9) maintain liaison with the judicial
branches of the Federal Government and State
and tribal governments in matters relating to
justice statistics, and cooperate with the judicial branch in assuring as much uniformity as
feasible in statistical systems of the executive
and judicial branches;
(10) provide information to the President,
the Congress, the judiciary, State, tribal, and
local governments, and the general public on
justice statistics;
(11) establish or assist in the establishment
of a system to provide State, tribal, and local
governments with access to Federal informational resources useful in the planning, implementation, and evaluation of programs under
this Act;
(12) conduct or support research relating to
methods of gathering or analyzing justice statistics;
(13) provide for the development of justice
information systems programs and assistance
to the States, Indian tribes, and units of local
government relating to collection, analysis, or
dissemination of justice statistics;
(14) develop and maintain a data processing
capability to support the collection, aggregation, analysis and dissemination of information on the incidence of crime and the operation of the criminal justice system;
(15) collect, analyze and disseminate comprehensive Federal justice transaction statistics
(including statistics on issues of Federal justice interest such as public fraud and high
technology crime) and to provide technical assistance to and work jointly with other Federal agencies to improve the availability and
quality of Federal justice data;
(16) provide for the collection, compilation,
analysis, publication and dissemination of information and statistics about the prevalence,
incidence, rates, extent, distribution and attributes of drug offenses, drug related offenses
and drug dependent offenders and further provide for the establishment of a national clearinghouse to maintain and update a compre-

§ 3732

TITLE 42—THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE

hensive and timely data base on all criminal
justice aspects of the drug crisis and to disseminate such information;
(17) provide for the collection, analysis, dissemination and publication of statistics on the
condition and progress of drug control activities at the Federal, State, tribal, and local levels with particular attention to programs and
intervention efforts demonstrated to be of
value in the overall national anti-drug strategy and to provide for the establishment of a
national clearinghouse for the gathering of
data generated by Federal, State, tribal, and
local criminal justice agencies on their drug
enforcement activities;
(18) provide for the development and enhancement of State, tribal, and local criminal
justice information systems, and the standardization of data reporting relating to the collection, analysis or dissemination of data and
statistics about drug offenses, drug related offenses, or drug dependent offenders;
(19) provide for improvements in the accuracy, quality, timeliness, immediate accessibility, and integration of State and tribal
criminal history and related records, support
the development and enhancement of national
systems of criminal history and related
records including the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, the National
Incident-Based Reporting System, and the
records of the National Crime Information
Center, facilitate State and tribal participation in national records and information systems, and support statistical research for critical analysis of the improvement and utilization of criminal history records;
(20) maintain liaison with State, tribal, and
local governments and governments of other
nations concerning justice statistics;
(21) cooperate in and participate with national and international organizations in the
development of uniform justice statistics;
(22) ensure conformance with security and
privacy requirement of section 3789g of this
title and identify, analyze, and participate in
the development and implementation of privacy, security and information policies which
impact on Federal, tribal, and State criminal
justice operations and related statistical activities; and
(23) exercise the powers and functions set
out in subchapter VIII of this chapter.
(d) Justice statistical collection, analysis, and
dissemination
(1) In general
To ensure that all justice statistical collection, analysis, and dissemination is carried
out in a coordinated manner, the Director is
authorized to—
(A) utilize, with their consent, the services, equipment, records, personnel, information, and facilities of other Federal, State,
local, and private agencies and instrumentalities with or without reimbursement
therefor, and to enter into agreements with
such agencies and instrumentalities for purposes of data collection and analysis;
(B) confer and cooperate with State, municipal, and other local agencies;

Page 5022

(C) request such information, data, and reports from any Federal agency as may be required to carry out the purposes of this
chapter;
(D) seek the cooperation of the judicial
branch of the Federal Government in gathering data from criminal justice records;
(E) encourage replication, coordination
and sharing among justice agencies regarding information systems, information policy, and data; and
(F) confer and cooperate with Federal statistical agencies as needed to carry out the
purposes of this subchapter, including by entering into cooperative data sharing agreements in conformity with all laws and regulations applicable to the disclosure and use
of data.
(2) Consultation with Indian tribes
The Director, acting jointly with the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs (acting
through the Office of Justice Services) and the
Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, shall work with Indian tribes and tribal
law enforcement agencies to establish and implement such tribal data collection systems as
the Director determines to be necessary to
achieve the purposes of this section.
(e) Furnishing of information, data, or reports by
Federal agencies
Federal agencies requested to furnish information, data, or reports pursuant to subsection
(d)(1)(C) of this section shall provide such information to the Bureau as is required to carry out
the purposes of this section.
(f) Consultation with representatives of State,
tribal, and local government and judiciary
In recommending standards for gathering justice statistics under this section, the Director
shall consult with representatives of State, tribal, and local government, including, where appropriate, representatives of the judiciary.
(g) Reports
Not later than 1 year after July 29, 2010, and
annually thereafter, the Director shall submit
to Congress a report describing the data collected and analyzed under this section relating
to crimes in Indian country.
(Pub. L. 90–351, title I, § 302, as added Pub. L.
96–157, § 2, Dec. 27, 1979, 93 Stat. 1176; amended
Pub. L. 98–473, title II, § 605(b), Oct. 12, 1984, 98
Stat. 2079; Pub. L. 100–690, title VI, § 6092(a), Nov.
18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4339; Pub. L. 103–322, title
XXXIII, § 330001(h)(2), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat.
2139; Pub. L. 109–162, title XI, § 1115(a), Jan. 5,
2006, 119 Stat. 3103; Pub. L. 111–211, title II,
§ 251(b), July 29, 2010, 124 Stat. 2297.)
REFERENCES IN TEXT
This Act, referred to in subsecs. (b) and (c)(11), is Pub.
L. 90–351, June 19, 1968, 82 Stat. 197, known as the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968. For
complete classification of this Act to the Code, see
Short Title note set out under section 3711 of this title
and Tables.
PRIOR PROVISIONS
A prior section 3732, Pub. L. 90–351, title I, § 302, June
19, 1968, 82 Stat. 200; Pub. L. 93–83, § 2, Aug. 6, 1973, 87

Page 5023

TITLE 42—THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE

Stat. 201; Pub. L. 94–503, title I, § 110, Oct. 15, 1976, 90
Stat. 2412, related to establishment of State planning
agencies to develop comprehensive State plans for
grants for law enforcement and criminal justice purposes, prior to the general amendment of this chapter
by Pub. L. 96–157.
AMENDMENTS
2010—Subsec. (c)(3) to (6). Pub. L. 111–211,
§ 251(b)(1)(A), inserted ‘‘tribal,’’ after ‘‘State,’’ wherever
appearing.
Subsec. (c)(7). Pub. L. 111–211, § 251(b)(1)(B), inserted
‘‘and in Indian country’’ after ‘‘States’’.
Subsec. (c)(9). Pub. L. 111–211, § 251(b)(1)(C), substituted ‘‘Federal Government and State and tribal
governments’’ for ‘‘Federal and State Governments’’.
Subsec. (c)(10), (11). Pub. L. 111–211, § 251(b)(1)(D), inserted ‘‘, tribal,’’ after ‘‘State’’.
Subsec. (c)(13). Pub. L. 111–211, § 251(b)(1)(E), inserted
‘‘, Indian tribes,’’ after ‘‘States’’.
Subsec. (c)(17). Pub. L. 111–211, § 251(b)(1)(F), substituted ‘‘activities at the Federal, State, tribal, and
local’’ for ‘‘activities at the Federal, State and local’’
and ‘‘generated by Federal, State, tribal, and local’’ for
‘‘generated by Federal, State, and local’’.
Subsec. (c)(18). Pub. L. 111–211, § 251(b)(1)(G), substituted ‘‘State, tribal, and local’’ for ‘‘State and
local’’.
Subsec. (c)(19). Pub. L. 111–211, § 251(b)(1)(H), inserted
‘‘and tribal’’ after ‘‘State’’ in two places.
Subsec. (c)(20). Pub. L. 111–211, § 251(b)(1)(I), inserted
‘‘, tribal,’’ after ‘‘State’’.
Subsec. (c)(22). Pub. L. 111–211, § 251(b)(1)(J), inserted
‘‘, tribal,’’ after ‘‘Federal’’.
Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 111–211, § 251(b)(2), designated existing provisions as par. (1), inserted par. (1) heading,
substituted ‘‘To ensure’’ for ‘‘To insure’’, redesignated
former pars. (1) to (6) as subpars. (A) to (F), respectively, of par. (1), realigned margins, and added par. (2).
Subsec. (e). Pub. L. 111–211, § 251(b)(3), substituted
‘‘subsection (d)(1)(C)’’ for ‘‘subsection (d)(3)’’.
Subsec. (f). Pub. L. 111–211, § 251(b)(4)(B), inserted
‘‘, tribal,’’ after ‘‘State’’.
Pub. L. 111–211, § 251(b)(4)(A), which directed insertion
of ‘‘, tribal,’’ after ‘‘State’’ in heading, was executed
editorially but could not be executed in original because heading had been editorially supplied.
Subsec. (g). Pub. L. 111–211, § 251(b)(5), added subsec.
(g).
2006—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 109–162, § 1115(a)(1), inserted
after third sentence ‘‘The Director shall be responsible
for the integrity of data and statistics and shall protect
against improper or illegal use or disclosure.’’
Subsec. (c)(19). Pub. L. 109–162, § 1115(a)(2), amended
par. (19) generally. Prior to amendment, par. (19) read
as follows: ‘‘provide for research and improvements in
the accuracy, completeness, and inclusiveness of criminal history record information, information systems,
arrest warrant, and stolen vehicle record information
and information systems and support research concerning the accuracy, completeness, and inclusiveness of
other criminal justice record information;’’.
Subsec. (d)(6). Pub. L. 109–162, § 1115(a)(3), added par.
(6).
1994—Subsec. (c)(19). Pub. L. 103–322 substituted a
semicolon for period at end.
1988—Subsec. (c)(16) to (23). Pub. L. 100–690 added pars.
(16) to (19) and redesignated former pars. (16) to (19) as
(20) to (23), respectively.
1984—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 98–473, § 605(b)(1), inserted
provision requiring Director to report to Attorney General through Assistant Attorney General.
Subsec. (c)(13). Pub. L. 98–473, § 605(b)(2)(A), (C), added
par. (13) and struck out former par. (13) relating to provision of financial and technical assistance to States
and units of local government relating to collection,
analysis, or dissemination of justice statistics.
Subsec. (c)(14), (15). Pub. L. 98–473, § 605(b)(2)(C), added
pars. (14) and (15). Former pars. (14) and (15) redesignated (16) and (17), respectively.

§ 3732

Subsec. (c)(16). Pub. L. 98–473, § 605(b)(2)(A), (B), redesignated par. (14) as (16) and struck out former par. (16)
relating to insuring conformance with security and privacy regulations issued under section 3789g of this title.
Subsec. (c)(17). Pub. L. 98–473, § 605(b)(2)(B), redesignated par. (15) as (17). Former par. (17) redesignated
(19).
Subsec. (c)(18). Pub. L. 98–473, § 605(b)(2)(D), added par.
(18).
Subsec. (c)(19). Pub. L. 98–473, § 605(b)(2)(B), redesignated former par. (17) as (19).
Subsec. (d)(1). Pub. L. 98–473, § 605(b)(3)(A), inserted
‘‘, and to enter into agreements with such agencies and
instrumentalities for purposes of data collection and
analysis’’.
Subsec. (d)(5). Pub. L. 98–473, § 605(b)(3)(B)–(D), added
par. (5).
EFFECTIVE DATE OF 1984 AMENDMENT
Amendment by Pub. L. 98–473 effective Oct. 12, 1984,
see section 609AA(a) of Pub. L. 98–473, set out as an Effective Date note under section 3711 of this title.
CONSTRUCTION OF 2010 AMENDMENT
Pub. L. 111–211, title II, § 251(c), July 29, 2010, 124 Stat.
2298, provided that: ‘‘Nothing in this section [amending
this section and provisions set out as a note under section 534 of Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure]
or any amendment made by this section—
‘‘(1) allows the grant to be made to, or used by, an
entity for law enforcement activities that the entity
lacks jurisdiction to perform; or
‘‘(2) has any effect other than to authorize, award,
or deny a grant of funds to a federally recognized Indian tribe for the purposes described in the relevant
grant program.’’
[For definition of ‘‘Indian tribe’’ as used in section
251(c) of Pub. L. 111–211, set out above, see section 203(a)
of Pub. L. 111–211, set out as a note under section 2801
of Title 25, Indians.]
STUDY OF CRIMES AGAINST SENIORS
Pub. L. 106–534, § 5, Nov. 22, 2000, 114 Stat. 2557, provided that:
‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—The Attorney General shall conduct a study relating to crimes against seniors, in
order to assist in developing new strategies to prevent
and otherwise reduce the incidence of those crimes.
‘‘(b) ISSUES ADDRESSED.—The study conducted under
this section shall include an analysis of—
‘‘(1) the nature and type of crimes perpetrated
against seniors, with special focus on—
‘‘(A) the most common types of crimes that affect
seniors;
‘‘(B) the nature and extent of telemarketing,
sweepstakes, and repair fraud against seniors; and
‘‘(C) the nature and extent of financial and material fraud targeted at seniors;
‘‘(2) the risk factors associated with seniors who
have been victimized;
‘‘(3) the manner in which the Federal and State
criminal justice systems respond to crimes against
seniors;
‘‘(4) the feasibility of States establishing and maintaining a centralized computer database on the incidence of crimes against seniors that will promote the
uniform identification and reporting of such crimes;
‘‘(5) the effectiveness of damage awards in court actions and other means by which seniors receive reimbursement and other damages after fraud has been established; and
‘‘(6) other effective ways to prevent or reduce the
occurrence of crimes against seniors.’’
INCLUSION OF SENIORS IN NATIONAL CRIME
VICTIMIZATION SURVEY
Pub. L. 106–534, § 6, Nov. 22, 2000, 114 Stat. 2557, provided that: ‘‘Beginning not later than 2 years after the
date of enactment of this Act [Nov. 22, 2000], as part of

§ 3733

TITLE 42—THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE

each National Crime Victimization Survey, the Attorney General shall include statistics relating to—
‘‘(1) crimes targeting or disproportionately affecting seniors;
‘‘(2) crime risk factors for seniors, including the
times and locations at which crimes victimizing seniors are most likely to occur; and
‘‘(3) specific characteristics of the victims of crimes
who are seniors, including age, gender, race or ethnicity, and socioeconomic status.’’
CRIME VICTIMS WITH DISABILITIES AWARENESS
Pub. L. 105–301, Oct. 27, 1998, 112 Stat. 2838, as amended by Pub. L. 106–402, title IV, § 401(b)(10), Oct. 30, 2000,
114 Stat. 1739, provided that:
‘‘SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
‘‘This Act may be cited as the ‘Crime Victims With
Disabilities Awareness Act’.
‘‘SEC. 2. FINDINGS; PURPOSES.
‘‘(a) FINDINGS.—Congress finds that—
‘‘(1) although research conducted abroad demonstrates that individuals with developmental disabilities are at a 4 to 10 times higher risk of becoming
crime victims than those without disabilities, there
have been no significant studies on this subject conducted in the United States;
‘‘(2) in fact, the National Crime Victim’s Survey,
conducted annually by the Bureau of Justice Statistics of the Department of Justice, does not specifically collect data relating to crimes against individuals with developmental disabilities;
‘‘(3) studies in Canada, Australia, and Great Britain
consistently show that victims with developmental
disabilities suffer repeated victimization because so
few of the crimes against them are reported, and even
when they are, there is sometimes a reluctance by police, prosecutors, and judges to rely on the testimony
of a disabled individual, making individuals with developmental disabilities a target for criminal predators;
‘‘(4) research in the United States needs to be done
to—
‘‘(A) understand the nature and extent of crimes
against individuals with developmental disabilities;
‘‘(B) describe the manner in which the justice system responds to crimes against individuals with developmental disabilities; and
‘‘(C) identify programs, policies, or laws that hold
promises for making the justice system more responsive to crimes against individuals with developmental disabilities; and
‘‘(5) the National Academy of Science Committee
on Law and Justice of the National Research Council
is a premier research institution with unique experience in developing seminal, multidisciplinary studies
to establish a strong research base from which to
make public policy.
‘‘(b) PURPOSES.—The purposes of this Act are—
‘‘(1) to increase public awareness of the plight of
victims of crime who are individuals with developmental disabilities;
‘‘(2) to collect data to measure the extent of the
problem of crimes against individuals with developmental disabilities; and
‘‘(3) to develop a basis to find new strategies to address the safety and justice needs of victims of crime
who are individuals with developmental disabilities.
‘‘SEC. 3. DEFINITION OF DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITY.
‘‘In this Act, the term ‘developmental disability’ has
the meaning given the term in section 102 of the Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act
of 2000 [42 U.S.C. 15002].
‘‘SEC. 4. STUDY.
‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—The Attorney General shall conduct a study to increase knowledge and information
about crimes against individuals with developmental

Page 5024

disabilities that will be useful in developing new strategies to reduce the incidence of crimes against those individuals.
‘‘(b) ISSUES ADDRESSED.—The study conducted under
this section shall address such issues as—
‘‘(1) the nature and extent of crimes against individuals with developmental disabilities;
‘‘(2) the risk factors associated with victimization
of individuals with developmental disabilities;
‘‘(3) the manner in which the justice system responds to crimes against individuals with developmental disabilities; and
‘‘(4) the means by which States may establish and
maintain a centralized computer database on the incidence of crimes against individuals with disabilities
within a State.
‘‘(c) NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES.—In carrying
out this section, the Attorney General shall consider
contracting with the Committee on Law and Justice of
the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences to provide research for the study conducted under this section.
‘‘(d) REPORT.—Not later than 18 months after the date
of enactment of this Act [Oct. 27, 1998], the Attorney
General shall submit to the Committees on the Judiciary of the Senate and the House of Representatives a
report describing the results of the study conducted
under this section.
‘‘SEC. 5. NATIONAL CRIME VICTIM’S SURVEY.
‘‘Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment
of this Act, as part of each National Crime Victim’s
Survey, the Attorney General shall include statistics
relating to—
‘‘(1) the nature of crimes against individuals with
developmental disabilities; and
‘‘(2) the specific characteristics of the victims of
those crimes.’’

§ 3733. Authority for 100 per centum grants
A grant authorized under this subchapter may
be up to 100 per centum of the total cost of each
project for which such grant is made. The Bureau shall require, whenever feasible as a condition of approval of a grant under this subchapter, that the recipient contribute money,
facilities, or services to carry out the purposes
for which the grant is sought.
(Pub. L. 90–351, title I, § 303, as added Pub. L.
96–157, § 2, Dec. 27, 1979, 93 Stat. 1178.)
PRIOR PROVISIONS
A prior section 3733, Pub. L. 90–351, title I, § 303, June
19, 1968, 82 Stat. 201; Pub. L. 91–644, title I, § 4(5), (6),
Jan. 2, 1971, 84 Stat. 1883; Pub. L. 93–83, § 2, Aug. 6, 1973,
87 Stat. 201; Pub. L. 93–415, title V, § 543, Sept. 7, 1974,
88 Stat. 1142; Pub. L. 94–503, title I, § 111, Oct. 15, 1976,
90 Stat. 2413; Pub. L. 96–181, § 15(b), Jan. 2, 1980, 93 Stat.
1316, set out requirements of State plans in order to
qualify for grants for law enforcement and criminal
justice purposes, prior to the general amendment of
this chapter by Pub. L. 96–157.

§ 3734. Repealed. Pub. L. 98–473, title II, § 605(c),
Oct. 12, 1984, 98 Stat. 2080
Section, Pub. L. 90–351, title I, § 304, as added Pub. L.
96–157, § 2, Dec. 27, 1979, 93 Stat. 1178, provided for a Bureau of Justice Statistics Advisory Board, including establishment and composition of Board, rules respecting
organization and procedure, term of office, duties and
functions of Board, and delegation of powers and duties
to Director.
A prior section 3734, Pub. L. 90–351, title I, § 304, June
19, 1968, 82 Stat. 202; Pub. L. 93–83, § 2, Aug. 6, 1973, 87
Stat. 203; Pub. L. 94–503, title I, § 112, Oct. 15, 1976, 90
Stat. 2414, related to plans or applications for financial
assistance from local government units, prior to the
general revision of this chapter by Pub. L. 96–157.

Page 5025

TITLE 42—THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE
EFFECTIVE DATE OF REPEAL

Repeal effective Oct. 12, 1984, see section 609AA(a) of
Pub. L. 98–473, set out as an Effective Date note under
section 3711 of this title.

§ 3735. Use of data
Data collected by the Bureau shall be used
only for statistical or research purposes, and
shall be gathered in a manner that precludes
their use for law enforcement or any purpose relating to a private person or public agency other
than statistical or research purposes.
(Pub. L. 90–351, title I, § 304, formerly § 305, as
added Pub. L. 96–157, § 2, Dec. 27, 1979, 93 Stat.
1179; renumbered § 304, Pub. L. 98–473, title II,
§ 605(d), Oct. 12, 1984, 98 Stat. 2080; amended Pub.
L. 109–162, title XI, § 1115(b), Jan. 5, 2006, 119 Stat.
3104.)
PRIOR PROVISIONS
A prior section 304 of Pub. L. 90–351, as added by Pub.
L. 96–157, was classified to section 3734 of this title
prior to repeal by Pub. L. 98–473, title II, § 605(c), Oct.
12, 1984, 98 Stat. 2080.
Prior sections 3735 to 3739 were omitted in the general
amendment of this chapter by Pub. L. 96–157.
Section 3735, Pub. L. 90–351, title I, § 305, June 19, 1968,
82 Stat. 202; Pub. L. 91–644, title I, § 4(7), Jan. 2, 1971, 84
Stat. 1883; Pub. L. 93–83, § 2, Aug. 6, 1973, 87 Stat. 203, related to reallocation of funds.
Section 3736, Pub. L. 90–351, title I, § 306, June 19, 1968,
82 Stat. 202; Pub. L. 91–644, title I, § 4(8), Jan. 2, 1971, 84
Stat. 1883; Pub. L. 93–83, § 2, Aug. 6, 1973, 87 Stat. 203;
Pub. L. 94–503, title I, § 113, Oct. 15, 1976, 90 Stat. 2415,
related to allocation of funds.
Section 3737, Pub. L. 90–351, title I, § 307, June 19, 1968,
82 Stat. 202; Pub. L. 93–83, § 2, Aug. 6, 1973, 87 Stat. 204;
Pub. L. 94–503, title I, § 114, Oct. 15, 1976, 90 Stat. 2415,
related to priority programs and projects.
Section 3738, Pub. L. 90–351, title I, § 308, as added
Pub. L. 93–83, § 2, Aug. 6, 1973, 87 Stat. 204; amended Pub.
L. 94–503, title I, § 115, Oct. 15, 1976, 90 Stat. 2415, related
to Administration action upon State plans within prescribed time after date of submission.
Section 3739, Pub. L. 90–351, title I, § 309, as added
Pub. L. 94–503, title I, § 116, Oct. 15, 1976, 90 Stat. 2415,
related to assistance and grants to aid State antitrust
enforcement.
AMENDMENTS
2006—Pub. L. 109–162 substituted ‘‘private person or
public agency’’ for ‘‘particular individual’’.

SUBCHAPTER IV—ESTABLISHMENT OF
BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE
PRIOR PROVISIONS
A prior subchapter IV, consisting of sections 3741 to
3748, related to block grants by Bureau of Justice Assistance, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 100–690, title VI,
§ 6091(a), Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4328. For similar provisions, see part A (§ 3750 et seq.) of subchapter V of this
chapter.
Section 3741, Pub. L. 90–351, title I, § 401, as added
Pub. L. 98–473, title II, § 606, Oct. 12, 1984, 98 Stat. 2080;
amended Pub. L. 99–570, title I, § 1552(b)(1), Oct. 27, 1986,
100 Stat. 3207–46, related to establishment of Bureau of
Justice Assistance, appointment of Director, and authority and restrictions with regard to Director.
Section 3742, Pub. L. 90–351, title I, § 402, as added
Pub. L. 98–473, title II, § 606, Oct. 12, 1984, 98 Stat. 2080,
related to duties and functions of Director.
Section 3743, Pub. L. 90–351, title I, § 403, as added
Pub. L. 98–473, title II, § 606, Oct. 12, 1984, 98 Stat. 2081,
described grant program.
Section 3744, Pub. L. 90–351, title I, § 404, as added
Pub. L. 98–473, title II, § 606, Oct. 12, 1984, 98 Stat. 2082,

§ 3735

authorized Bureau to make financial assistance under
this subchapter available to States.
Section 3745, Pub. L. 90–351, title I, § 405, as added
Pub. L. 98–473, title II, § 606, Oct. 12, 1984, 98 Stat. 2082,
related to applications for assistance and contents of
applications.
Section 3746, Pub. L. 90–351, title I, § 406, as added
Pub. L. 98–473, title II, § 606, Oct. 12, 1984, 98 Stat. 2084,
related to review of applications.
Section 3747, Pub. L. 90–351, title I, § 407, as added
Pub. L. 98–473, title II, § 606, Oct. 12, 1984, 98 Stat. 2084,
related to allocation and distribution of funds.
Section 3748, Pub. L. 90–351, title I, § 408, as added
Pub. L. 98–473, title II, § 606, Oct. 12, 1984, 98 Stat. 2085,
related to designation of a State office to prepare applications and administer funds.
Another prior subchapter IV, consisting of sections
3741 to 3745, related to formula grant program, prior to
the general amendment of this subchapter by Pub. L.
98–473.
Section 3741, Pub. L. 90–351, title I, § 401, as added
Pub. L. 96–157, § 2, Dec. 27, 1979, 93 Stat. 1179, described
formula grant program.
Section 3742, Pub. L. 90–351, title I, § 402, as added
Pub. L. 96–157, § 2, Dec. 27, 1979, 93 Stat. 1181, related to
eligibility provisions for formula grants.
Section 3743, Pub. L. 90–351, title I, § 403, as added
Pub. L. 96–157, § 2, Dec. 27, 1979, 93 Stat. 1187, concerned
application requirements for formula grants.
Section 3744, Pub. L. 90–351, title I, § 404, as added
Pub. L. 96–157, § 2, Dec. 27, 1979, 93 Stat. 1188, provided
for review of applications for formula grants.
Section 3745, Pub. L. 90–351, title I, § 405, as added
Pub. L. 96–157, § 2, Dec. 27, 1979, 93 Stat. 1189, provided
for allocation and distribution of funds for formula
grants.
Another prior subchapter IV, consisting of sections
3741 to 3748 and 3750 to 3750d, related to training, education, research, demonstration, and special grants
prior to the general amendment of this chapter by Pub.
L. 96–157.
Section 3741, Pub. L. 90–351, title I, § 401, June 19, 1968,
82 Stat. 203; Pub. L. 93–83, § 2, Aug. 6, 1973, 87 Stat. 205,
set out the Congressional statement of purposes in
making provision for training, education, research,
demonstration, and special grants.
Section 3742, Pub. L. 90–351, title I, § 402, June 19, 1968,
82 Stat. 203; Pub. L. 93–83, § 2, Aug. 6, 1973, 87 Stat. 205;
Pub. L. 94–503, title I, § 117, Oct. 15, 1976, 90 Stat. 2416,
provided for creation of a National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice.
Section 3743, Pub. L. 90–351, title I, § 403, June 19, 1968,
82 Stat. 203; Pub. L. 93–83, § 2, Aug. 6, 1973, 87 Stat. 206,
related to limitations on size of grants and contributions requirements for grants.
Section 3744, Pub. L. 90–351, title I, § 404, June 19, 1968,
82 Stat. 204; Pub. L. 93–83, § 2, Aug. 6, 1973, 87 Stat. 207,
provided for Federal Bureau of Investigation law enforcement training programs.
Section 3745, Pub. L. 90–351, title I, § 405, June 19, 1968,
82 Stat. 204; Pub. L. 93–83, § 2, Aug. 6, 1973, 87 Stat. 207,
repealed Law Enforcement Assistance Act of 1965 and
provided for funds to continue projects started thereunder.
Section 3746, Pub. L. 90–351, title I, § 406, June 19, 1968,
82 Stat. 204; Pub. L. 91–644, title I, § 5(1), Jan. 2, 1971, 84
Stat. 1884; Pub. L. 93–83, § 2, Aug. 6, 1973, 87 Stat. 207,
provided for academic educational assistance.
Section 3747, Pub. L. 90–351, title I, § 407, formerly
§ 408, as added Pub. L. 91–644, title I, § 5(2), Jan. 2, 1971,
84 Stat. 1885; renumbered § 407, Pub. L. 93–83, § 2, Aug. 6,
1973, 87 Stat. 209, related to administration of training
programs for prosecuting attorneys.
Another prior section 3747, Pub. L. 90–351, title I, § 407,
as added Pub. L. 91–644, title I, § 5(2), Jan. 2, 1971, 84
Stat. 1885, related to Administration law enforcement
training program for enforcement personnel, prior to
the general amendment of this chapter by section 2 of
Pub. L. 93–83.
Section 3748, Pub. L. 90–351, title I, § 408, as added
Pub. L. 91–644, title I, § 5(2), Jan. 2, 1971, 84 Stat. 1885,

2016 LEMAS Survey Items and Trends
Item

Section I: Descriptive Information

Trend*

1

Enter the number of AUTHORIZED full‐time paid agency positions and ACTUAL full‐time 
and part‐time paid agency employees as of June 30, 2016.
Y

2

Of the total number of FULL‐TIME SWORN personnel with general arrest powers (as 
entered in 1.a, column 2), enter the number of each of the following:  

Y

5

As of June 30, 2016, how many RESERVE or AUXILIARY OFFICERS did your agency have? 
Enter the number of your FULL‐TIME SWORN and NON‐SWORN personnel according to 
their PRIMARY job responsibility.  
Enter your agency's total operating budget for the fiscal year that included June 30, 
2016. 

6

Enter the total estimated value of money, goods, and property received by your agency 
from an ASSET FORFEITURE program during the fiscal year that included June 30, 2016. Y

3
4

Item
7a
7b
8
9

10
11

Section II: Personnel

Justification for New Item/Expanded Options

Y
Y
Y

Trend

Justification for New Item/Expanded Options

Indicate your agency's minimum education requirement which new officer recruits must 
have at hiring or within two years of hiring.
Y
Does your agency consider MILITARY SERVICE as an exemption to this minimum 
education requirement?
Y
Does your agency require a new officer recruit to be a U.S. citizen before hire?
How many total hours of ACADEMY training and FIELD training (e.g., with FTO) are 
required of your agency's new officer recruits?
On average, how many hours of IN‐SERVICE training are required annually for your 
agency's NON‐PROBATIONARY field/patrol officers?
Which of the following screening techniques are used by your agency in selecting new 
officer recruits?

N

Added to address Task Force recommendation 2.5.1

Y

Y
Y

Enter the number of FULL‐TIME agency personnel who were bilingual as of June 30,2016. Y
Enter the number of FULL‐TIME SWORN personnel who were HIRED or SEPARATED 
during the fiscal year including June 30,2016 by RACE and SEX.
N
13
Enter the number of FULL‐TIME SWORN personnel by RACE and SEX for the pay period 
that included June 30,2016.
14
Y
Enter the SEX and RACE of the chief executive (i.e. Chief of Police, Sheriff, Commissioner) 
for your agency as of June 30, 2016.
P
15
Enter the number of FULL‐TIME SWORN personnel by RACE and SEX who held the 
following SUPERVISORY for the pay period that included June 30, 2016.
16
N
Is collective bargaining authorized for your agency's employees?
17
Y
Trend: Y‐Yes, N‐No, P‐Partial
12

Added to address Task Force recommendation 2.5.1

Sex can be trended with 2012 LEMAS; Race added to address Task Force 
recommendation 2.5.1
Added to address Task Force recommendation 2.5.1

2016 LEMAS Survey Items and Trends
Item

Section III: Operations

18

Enter the total number of calls for service (i.e., 911 calls, non‐emergence calls, alarm or 
other source) received and dispatched by your agency during the fiscal year including 
June 30, 2016.
Y
During the fiscal year including June 30, 2016, did your agency use the following types of 
patrol?
Y

19

Item

Section IV: Community Policing

Trend

Trend

27

As of June 30, 2016, did your agency’s mission statement include a community policing 
component?
During the fiscal period including June 30, 2016, which of the following did your agency 
do? 
During the 12‐month period ending July 31, 2016, what proportion of agency personnel 
received at least eight hours of community policing training (problem solving, SARA, 
community partnerships, etc.)? 
As of June 30, 2016, how many FULL‐TIME SWORN personnel with primary responsibility 
for patrol duties (reported in 4.b.1, column 1) were encouraged to engage in SARA‐type 
problem solving projects? 
As of June 30, 2016, how many FULL‐TIME SWORN personnel with primary responsibility 
for patrol duties (reported in 4.b.1, column 1) were assigned to specific geographic 
areas/beats?
During the fiscal year including June 30, 2016, did your agency have a problem‐solving 
partnership or written agreement with any of the following?  
During the fiscal year including June 30, 2016, did your agency conduct or sponsor a 
formal survey of local residents on crime experiences, fear or crime, OR satisfaction with 
police? 
During the fiscal year including June 30, 2016, did your agency use information from a 
survey of citizens for any of the following?

Y

Item

Section V: Equipment

Trend

20
21

22

23

24
25

26

Does your agency supply or give a cash allowance to its FULL‐TIME SWORN personnel to 
purchase the following? 
28
Which types of sidearms are authorized for use by your agency’s FULL‐TIME SWORN 
personnel? 
29
Which types of secondary firearms does your agency issue to FULL‐TIME SWORN 
personnel or authorize for use?
30
As of June 30, 2016, which of the following types of WEAPONS or ACTIONS were 
authorized for use by your agency’s FULL‐TIME SWORN personnel?
31
As of June 30, 2016, does your agency require written documentation when the 
following types of WEAPONS or ACTIONS are used?
32
Does your agency REQUIRE uniformed field/patrol officers to wear protective body 
armor while in the field? 
33
Does your agency REQUIRE uniformed field/patrol officers to wear their seat belt while 
driving or riding in an agency vehicle? 
34
Enter the total number of motorized vehicles operated by your agency as of June 30, 
2016.
35
During the fiscal period including June 30, 2016, how many of the following types of 
video cameras were operated by your agency on a REGULAR basis? 
36
Trend: Y‐Yes, N‐No, P‐Partial

Justification for New Item/Expanded Options

Justification for New Item/Expanded Options

Y
Y

Y

Y

Y
Y

Y

Justification for New Item/Expanded Options

Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Y

Added to assess Task Force recommendation 6.6

2016 LEMAS Survey Items and Trends
Item
37
38

Section VI: Technology

41

As of June 30, 2016, did your agency use computers for any of the following functions? 
As of June 30, 2016, what was the PRIMARY method for transmitting criminal incident 
reports from the field to your agency’s record management system?
During the fiscal year including June 30, 2016, did your agency use any of the following 
technologies on a REGULAR basis? 

42

As of June 30, 2016, did your agency’s field/patrol officers have direct access to the 
following types of information using in‐field vehicle‐mounted or mobile computers? 

39
40

Trend

During the fiscal year including June 30, 2016, did your agency maintain a website for 
any of the following? 
P
During the fiscal year including June 30, 2016, did your agency use any of following social 
media to communicate with the public? 
Y

Justification for New Item/Expanded Options
Includes new categories (stops and arrests) in order to assess Task Force 
recommendation 1.3.1

Y
Y
Y

Y

44

As of June 30, 2016, did your agency have an operational computer‐based personnel 
performance monitoring/assessment system (e.g., Early Warning or Early Intervention 
System) for monitoring or responding to problematic officer behavior?
Y
As of June 30, 2016, did your agency maintain its own computerized files with any of the 
following information? 
Y

Item

Section VII: Policies and Procedures

Trend

45

Which of the following best describes your agency’s written policy for pursuit driving?

Y

46

P

Additional policies added to assess Task Force recommendation 2.7.1 and 
2.13

N

Added to addess Task Force recommendation 2.2.2

50

Does your agency have a written policy or procedural directives on the following?
As of June 30, 2016, does your agency require an external investigation in the following 
situations? 
Is there a civilian complaint review board/agency in your jurisdiction that reviews 
complaints against officers in your agency? 
Does the civilian review board/agency have independent investigative authority with 
subpoena powers?
Does your agency have a written policy requiring that civilian complaints about USE OF 
FORCE receive separate investigation outside the chain of command where the accused 
officer is assigned?

Item

Section VIII: Special Problems/Tasks

43

47
48
49

51
As of June 30, 2016, how did your agency address the following problems/tasks?
Trend: Y‐Yes, N‐No, P‐Partial

Justification for New Item/Expanded Options

Y
Y

Y

Trend
Y

Justification for New Item/Expanded Options

LEMAS Publications, 1987‐2015
Authors
Ansari, Sami
Anzia, Sarah F.; Moe, Terry M.
Arslan, Metin
Baldwin, Neal C.
Baltaci, Halil
Barrick, Kelle; Hickman, Matthew J.; Strom, 
Kevin J.
Beckman, Karen A.
Bennett, Laura

Year
2013
2014
2010
2014
2010

Title
Publication Title
Estimating Crime Rates from Police Reports and Victim Surveys: Progressive and Convergence 
in Time Series Analyses
Public sector unions and the costs of government
Journal of Politics
The Effects of Community Policing on Crime and Crime Clearance Rates in Texas
Environmental Determinism and the Existence of Citizen Oversight of the Police
Crime Analysis: An Empirical Analysis of Its Effectiveness as a Crime Fighting Tool

2014 Representative policing and violence towards the police
2006 Community Policing and Changing Crime Rates: Does What Police Do Matter?
2015 Race and Gender in Policing: Are More Representative Departments More Effective?

Publisher

Volume

Start 
Issue no. page

End page

32

2

117

138

LFB Scholarly Publishing
The University of Texas at Dallas
University of Tennessee at Chattanooga
The University of Texas at Dallas

Policing
University of Maryland, College Park
Duke University

Bies, Katherine J.; Deporto, Isaiah M.; Long, 
Darryl G.; McKoy, Megan S.; Mukamal, Debbie 
A.; Sklansky, David A.

2015 Stuck in the '70s: The Demographics of California Prosecutors

Bishopp, Stephen A.; Worrall, John L.

2009 Do state asset forfeiture laws explain the upward trend in drug arrests?

Bond, Brenda J.; Gabriele, Kathryn R.
Briggs, Steven J.; Zhao, Jihong; Wilson, Steve; 
Ren, Ling

2016 Research and planning units: An innovation instrument in the 21st‐century police organization Criminal Justice Policy Review
The effect of collective bargaining on large police agency supplemental compensation policies: 
2008 1990‐2000
Police Practice and Research

9

3

227

238

Bromley, Max L.; Reaves, Brian A.

1998 Comparing campus and city police operational practices

Journal of Security Administration

21

2

41

54

Bromley, Max L.; Reaves, Brian A.
Brunet, James R.

1998 Comparing campus and municipal police: The human resource dimension
2005 Drug Testing in Law Enforcement Agencies: Social Control in the Public Sector

Policing

21

3

534

546

Burch, Andrea M.

331

355

Cave, Breanne; Telep, Cody W.; Grieco, Julie
Chalfin, Aaron; McCrary, Justin
Chalfin, Aaron; McCrary, Justin

2012 Sheriffs' Offices, 2007
Statistical Tables
Modeling isomorphism on policing innovation: The role of institutional pressures in adopting 
2014 community‐oriented policing
Crime and Delinquency
An Examination of the Convergence between Police Recording and Victim Reporting of Serious 
2004 Violent Crime, 1973‐2002
Rigorous evaluation research among US police departments: special cases or a representative 
2014 sample?
Police Practice and Research
2013 The Effect of Police on Crime: New Evidence from U.S. Cities, 1960‐2010
2013 Are U.S. cities underpoliced?: Theory and evidence

Chamlin, Mitchell B.; Sanders, Beth A.

2010 Macro social determinants of black police force size: Political mobilization and crime control

Policing

33

4

607

620

Chappell, Allison T.; MacDonald, John M.; 
Manz, Patrick W.

2006 The Organizational Determinants of Police Arrest Decisions

Crime and Delinquency

52

2

287

306

68

5

891

907

34

2

267

282

22

1

30

57

26
10

1
2

144
218

161
235

Burruss, George W.; Giblin, Matthew J.
Catalano, Shannan M.

Choi, KyuBeom
Dalehite, Esteban G.
D'Alessio, Steward J.; Eitle, David; Stolzenberg, 
Lisa
D'Alessio, Stewart J.; Stolzenberg, Lisa; Flexon, 
Jamie L.
D'Alessio, Stewart, J.; Eitle, David; Stolzenberg, 
Lisa

Stanford Law School, Stanford Criminal 
Justice Center
Journal of Crime and Justice

LFB Scholarly Publishing

2005 The Effects of Actual Punishment Levels on Perceptions of Punishment: A Multi‐Level Approach
Determinants of performance measurement: An investigation into the decision to conduct 
2008 citizen surveys
Public Administration Review
2005 Impact of serious crime, racial threat and economic inequality on private police size

60

National Bureau of Economic Research

18815

Florida State University

Weston Publishing

Davies, Heather J.

2005 Police Organizational Factors, the Racial Composition of the Police, and the Probability of Arrest Justice Quarterly
The Expanding Definition of Crime and Its Effect on the Individual: A Multilevel Modeling 
2010 Analysis
Understanding Variations in Murder Clearance Rates: The Influence of the Political 
2003 Environment

American University

DeCarlo, John; Jenkins, Michael J.

2015 Labor Unions, Management Innovation and Organizational Change in Police Departments

Springer International Publishing

del Carmen, Alejandro; Guevara, Lori
DeLone, Gregory J.

2003 Police officers on two‐officer units: A study of attitudinal responses toward a patrol experiment Policing
2007 Law enforcement mission statements post‐September 11
Police Quarterly

Dalton, Teresa A.

3

University of Missouri St. Louis

Social Science Research

2015 Are Drug Asset Forfeiture Laws Corrupting the Police?

NCJ 
238558

Bureau of Justice Statistics

Springer Briefs in Criminology

University of Denver

LEMAS Publications, 1987‐2015
Authors
Demir, Serhat
Dichter, Melissa E.; Marcus, Steven C.; 
Morabito, Melissa S.; Rhodes, Karin V.
Dorsey, Tina L.; Zawitz, Marianne W.; 
Middleton, Priscilla
Edson, Timothy C.
Eitle, David
Eitle, David; D'Alessio, Stewart J.; Stolzenberg, 
Lisa

Year

Title
Diffusion of Police Technology Across Time and Space and the Impact of Technology Use on 
2009 Police Effectiveness and its Contribution to Decision‐Making

Publication Title

2011 Explaining the IPV arrest decision: Incident, agency, and community factors

Criminal Justice Review

Publisher

Volume

Start 
Issue no. page

End page

36

1

22

39

51

4

573

597

17

2

103

126

26

3

528

561

42

1

23

41

17

1
NCJ 
234182

3

29

Kent State University

2004 Drugs and Crime Facts
Arrest Warrant Apprehension: Examining Characteristics of Expediency Using a Multilevel 
2014 Approach
The influence of mandatory arrest policies, police organizational characteristics, and situational 
2005 variables on the probability of arrest in domestic violence cases
Crime and Delinquency

Bureau of Justice Statistics
University of Massachusetts Lowell

Engbeck, John R.

2014 The effect of organizational and environmental factors on police misconduct
Police Quarterly
Revisiting the racial threat thesis: The role of police organizational characteristics in predicting 
2009 race‐specific drug arrest rates
Justice Quarterly
An Analysis of the Relationship Between Hate Crimes Reporting and Administrative Policies as 
2002 They Relate to Community Policing
Dynamics of Police Organizational Change, Learning‐Based Interactions, and Agency Innovation 
2010 and Cooperation within Community Policing

Fan, Amy Z.; Prescott, Marta R.; Zhao, Guixiang; 
Gotway, Carol A.; Galea, Sandro

Individual and community‐level determinants of mental and physical health after the 
2015 Deepwater Horizon oil spill: Findings from the Gulf States Population Survey

Journal of Behavioral Health 
Services and Research

Farrell, Amy

2014 Environmental and institutional influences on police agency responses to human trafficking
Improving Police Effectiveness and Transparency: National Information Needs on Law 
2008 Enforcement
Legitimacy and Law Enforcement: The Counterinsurgency Against Gang Crime in the United 
2012 States
Information technology, organization, and productivity in the public sector: Evidence from 
2010 police departments

Police Quarterly

Journal of Labor Economics

28

1

167

201

Criminal Justice and Behavior

40

269

Goldberg, Andrew L.; Reaves, Brian A.

1999 Sheriffs' Departments 1997: Executive Summary

Goldberg, Andrew L.; Reaves, Brian A.

2000 Sheriffs' Departments, 1997

3
NCJ 
245945
NCJ 
179011
NCJ 
173428

247

Giblin, Matthew J.

2013 Looking up: Explaining police promotional aspirations
Understanding Influence Across Justice Agencies: The Spread of 'Community Reforms' from 
2014 Law Enforcement to Prosecutor Organizations

266

279

Eitle, David; Monahan, Susanne
Elliott, Everett

Forst, Brian
Fox, James P., Jr.
Garicano, Luis; Heaton, Paul
Gau, Jacinta M.; Terrill, William; Paoline, 
Eugene A., III

Capella University

United States Department of Justice, Bureau 
of Justice Statistics
Georgetown University

Southern Illinois University
United States Department of Justice, Bureau 
of Justice Statistics
United States Deparment of Justice, Bureau 
of Justice Statistics

Graco, Warwick; Koesmarno, Warwick

2013 Configurations and couplings: An exploratory study

Advances in Data Mining: 
Applications and Theoretical 
Aspects

Greene, Helen Taylor; del Carmen, Alejandro

2002 Female police officers in Texas: Perceptions of colleagues and stress

Policing

Greenfeld, Lawrence A.; Smith, Steven K.
Gul, Zakir

West Virginia University

Gul, Zakir; Kule, Ahmet

1999 American Indians and Crime
2009 A Partial Test of the Intelligence‐Led Policing Model
Intelligence‐led policing: How the use of crime intelligence analysis translates in to the decision‐ International Journal of Security 
2013 making
and Terrorism

Gustafson, Joseph

2013 Diversity in municipal police agencies: A national examination of minority hiring and promotion Policing

Gustafson, Joseph L.
Gutierrez, Ricky S.
Gutierrez, Ricky Steven
Harmon, Rachel

2010 Diversity in Municipal Police Agencies: A National Examination of its Determinants and Effects
2003 Social Equity and the Funding of Community Policing
Building Bridges: Is the Architecture of Community Policing Flawed? A Policy Impact Analysis in 
2002 202 American Cities
2012 Why do we (still) lack data on policing?
Marquette Law Review

Hassell, Kimberly D.; Zhao, Jihong Solomon; 
Maguire, Edward R.

Structural arrangements in large municipal police organizations: Revisiting Wilson's theory of 
2003 local political culture

Policing

Springer

7987
25

2
NCJ 
173386

385

398

4

1

21

40

36

4

96

4

1119

1146

26

2

231

250

United States Department of Justice, Bureau 
of Justice Statistics
Kent State University

Northeastern University
LFB Scholarly Publishing
Washington State University

LEMAS Publications, 1987‐2015
Authors
Helms, Ronald

Title
Publication Title
Locally elected sheriffs and money compensation: A quantitative analysis of organizational and 
2008 environmental contingency explanations
Criminal Justice Review

Helms, Ronald; Gutierrez, Ricky S.

Federal subsidies and evidence of progressive change: A quantitative assessment of the effects 
2007 of targeted grants on manpower and innovation in large U. S. police agencies
Police Quarterly

Hickman, Matthew J.

2006 Citizen complaints about police use of force

Hickman, Matthew J.
Hickman, Matthew J.

Year

Publisher

Oxford University Press

Hickman, Matthew J.; Piquero, Alex R.
Hickman, Matthew J.; Reaves, Brian A.

2001 Community Policing in Local Police Departments, 1997 and 1999, Special Report

Bureau of Justice Statistics

Hickman, Matthew J.; Reaves, Brian A.

2001 Local Police Departments 1999

Bureau of Justice Statistics

Hickman, Matthew J.; Reaves, Brian A.

2003 Local Police Departments 2000

Bureau of Justice Statistics

Hickman, Matthew J.; Reaves, Brian A.

2002 Sheriffs' Offices 2000

Bureau of Justice Statistics

Hickman, Matthew J.; Reaves, Brian A.

2006 Sheriffs' Offices, 2003

Bureau of Justice Statistics

Hickman, Matthew J.; Reaves, Brian A.

2006 Local Police Departments, 2003

Bureau of Justice Statistics

Hickman, Matthew J; Reaves, Brian A.

2002 Local police and homeland security: Some baseline data

Holian, Matt
Holmes, Malcolm D.; Smith, Brad W.; Freng, 
Adrienne B.; Munoz, Ed A.
Hur, Yongbeom
Hur, Yongbeom

Start 
Issue no. page

End page

33

1

5

28

10

1
NCJ 
210296

87

107

433

448

73

10

15

1
NCJ 
184794
NCJ 
186478
NCJ 
196002
NCJ 
196534
NCJ 
211361
NCJ 
210118

3

27

83

85, 88

Bureau of Justice Statistics
The Oxford Handbook of Police 
and Policing
Police Chief

2014 Police administrative records as social science data
2006 Impact of the military reserve activation on police staffing
Organizational, administrative, and environmental correlates of complaints about police use of 
2009 force: Does minority representation matter?
Crime and Delinquency

Holcomb, Jefferson E.; Kovandzic, Tomislav V.; 
Williams, Marian R.

Volume

Police Chief

10

2011 Civil asset forfeiture, equitable sharing, and policing for profit in the United States
Journal of Criminal Justice
Compstat, community policing and the science of success: A market‐based approach to police 
2007 management
Economic Affairs

39

3

273

285

27

4

23

29

2008 Minority threat, crime control and police resource allocation in the southwestern United States Crime and Delinquency
Turnover, voluntary turnover, and organizational performance: Evidence from municipal police 
2014 departments
Policing
Racial diversity, is it a blessing to an organization? Examining its organizational consequences in  International Review of 
Administrative Sciences
2013 municipal police departments

54

1

128

152

37

1

79

1

149

164

Library of Congress, Congressional Research 
Service

James, Nathan; Council, Logan R.

2008 How Crime in the United States is Measured

Jenness, Valerie; Grattet, Ryken
Johnson, Brian D.; Ulmer, Jeffery T.; Kramer, 
John H.
Johnson, Richard R.

2005 The law‐in‐between: The effects of organizational perviousness on the policing of hate crime

Social Problems

52

3

337

359

2008 The social context of guidelines circumvention: The case of Federal District courts
2013 An examination of police department uniform color and police‐citizen aggression
Police Organizations: An Empirical Examination of American Sheriff's Offices and Municipal 
2008 Police Agencies
Neighborhood Racial/Ethnic Concentration, Social Disadvantage and Homicide Risk: An 
2008 Ecological Analysis of 10 U.S. Cities

Criminology
Criminal Justice and Behavior

46
40

3
2

737
228

783
244

Journal of Urban Health

85

5

662

676

Homicide Studies

13

1

3

20

25

3

472

506

Keith, Louis E.

2009 Reassessing political explanations for murders of police
2002 An Opportunity Model of Police Homicide Victimization
The creation of specialized police gang units: A macro‐level analysis of contingency, social 
2002 threat and resource dependency explanations
Significant Predictors of Forming Police‐Citizen Collaborative Partnerships: A Secondary Data 
2015 Analysis

Kennedy, William G.

2009 The Impact of Police Agency Size on Crime Clearance Rates

Jones, Matthew A.
Jones‐Webb, Rhonda; Wall, Melanie
Kaminski, Robert J.; Stucky, Thomas D.
Kaminski, Robert John
Katz, Charles M.; Maguire, Edward R.; Roncek, 
Dennis W.

Portland State University

State University of New York ‐ Albany
Policing
Capella University
University of North Carolina at Charlotte

LEMAS Publications, 1987‐2015
Authors

Year

Title

Kim, Hannah; Choo, Jaegul; Park, Haesun; 
Endert, Alex

2015 Interaxis: Steering scatterplot axes via observation‐level interaction

Kim, Pan Suk; Mengistu, Berhanu

1994 Women and minorities in the work force of law‐enforcement agencies

King, Ryan D.
King, William R.
King, William R.

2007 The context of minority group threat: Race, institutions and complying with Hate Crime law
2000 Measuring police innovation: Issues and measurement
1999 Time, constancy, and change in American municipal police organizations

King, William R.
King, William R.; Lab, Steven P.
Kunihama, Tsuyoshi

2009 Toward a life‐course perspective of police organizations
2000 Crime prevention, community policing, and training: Old wine in new bottles
2015
Nonparametric Bayes Analysis of Social Science Data

Publication Title

Publisher

IEEE Transactions on Visualization 
and Computer Graphics
American Review of Public 
Administration
Law and Society Review
Policing
Police Quarterly
Journal of Research in Crime and 
Delinquency
Police Practice and Research
Duke University

Volume

Start 
Issue no. page

24

2

161 ‐

41
23
2

1
3
3

189
303
338

224
317
364

46
1

2
2

213
241

244
252

21

38

End page

Langton, Lynn

2009 Aviation Units in Large Law Enforcement Agencies, 2007

Bureau of Justice Statistics

Langton, Lynn

2010 Women in Law Enforcement, 1987‐2008

Bureau of Justice Statistics

Langton, Lynn
Langworthy, Robert H.

2010 Gang Units in Large Local Law Enforcement Agencies, 2007
2002 LEMAS: A comparative organizational research platform

Justice Research and Policy

4

NCJ 
226672
NCJ 
230521
NCJ 
230071
1/2

Lee, Hoon; Jang, Hyunseok; Yun, Ilhong; Lim, 
Hyeyoung; Tushaus, David W.

An examination of police use of force utilizing police training and neighborhood contextual 
2010 factors: A multilevel analysis

Policing

33

4

681

702

Lemmer, Thomas J.

Loyola University Chicago

Lilley, David; Hinduja, Sameer
Lilley, David; Hinduja, Sameer

2005 Police Department Reorganization and Effectiveness in Addressing Gang Violence in Chicago
Organizational values and police officer evaluation: A content comparison between traditional 
2006 and community policing agencies
Police Quarterly
2007 Police officer performance appraisal and overall satisfaction
Journal of Criminal Justice

9
35

4
2

486
137

513
150

Lindsay, William

2009 Law Enforcement Performance Standards and Wages: A Test of the Efficiency Wage Hypothesis

Washington State University

Lombardo, Robert M.; Olson, David E.

Organizational approaches to drug law enforcement by local police departments in the United 
2009 States: Specialized drug units and participation in multi‐agency drug task forces
Justice Research and Policy

11

45

75

Lord, Vivian B.; Kuhns, Joseph B.; Friday, Paul C.

2009 Small city community policing and citizen satisfaction

Policing

32

4

574

594

Lott, John R., Jr.

2000 Does a helping hand put others at risk?  Affirmative action, police departments, and crime
The Structure and Procedures of Hostage/crisis Negotiation Units in United States Police 
1999 Organizations

Economic Inquiry

38

2

239

277

48

NCJ 
191052
4

592

618

14

3

547

576

Louden, Robert Joseph

Bureau of Justice Statistics

City University of New York
United States Department of Justice, Office 
of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile 
Justice and Delinquency Prevention

Lynch, James P.
MacDonald, John M.

2002 Trends in Juvenile Violent Offending: An Analysis of Victim Survey Data
2002 The effectiveness of community policing in reducing urban violence

OJJDP Juvenile Justice Bulletin
Crime and Delinquency

Maguire, Edward R.

1997 Structural change in large municipal police organizations during the community policing era

Justice Quarterly

Maguire, Edward R.
Maguire, Edward R.
Maguire, Edward R.

2003 Organizational Structure in American Police Agencies: Context, Complexity, and Control
2009 Police organizational structure and child sexual abuse case attrition
2002 Multiwave establishment surveys of police organizations

Policing
Justice Research and Policy

32
4

1

157
39

179
60

Maguire, Edward R.; Shin, Yeunhee; Zhao, 
Jihong 'Solomon'; Hassell, Kimberly D.

2003 Structural change in large police agencies during the 1990s

Policing

26

2

251

265

2006 Coming to Terms with Geographical Information Systems
Substantive symbols: The attitudinal dimension of black political incorporation in local 
2007 government
The attitudinal effects of minority incorporation: Examining the racial dimensions of trust in 
2007 urban America

Police Chief
American Journal of Political 
Science

73

6

51

1

17

33

Urban Affairs Review

42

5

629

658

Markovic, John; Bueermann, James; Smith, Kurt
Marschall, Melissa J.; Ruhil, Anirudh V.S.
Marschall, Melissa; Shah, Paru R.

State University of New York Press

LEMAS Publications, 1987‐2015
Authors
Martin, Susan E.
Matusiak, Matthew C.; Campbell, Bradley A.; 
King, William R.
McCabe, Kimberly A.; Fajardo, Robin G.
McCormack, Philip

Year

Title
A Cross‐burning is Not Just an Arson:  Police Social Construction of Hate Crimes in Baltimore 
1995 County
The legacy of LEMAS: Effects on police scholarship of a federally administered, multi‐wave 
2014 establishment survey
Law enforcement accreditation: A national comparison of accredited vs. nonaccredited 
2001 agencies

Volume

Start 
Issue no. page

End page

Criminology

33

3

303

326

Policing

37

3

630

648

Journal of Criminal Justice

29

2

127

131

23

3

248

262

Publication Title

Publisher

59

1

32

58

Miller, Kirk
Morabito, Melissa S.
Morabito, Melissa Schaefer

2015 Minority‐group threat and social control: Race/ethnicity and the issues of heterogeneity
University of Massachusetts, Lowell
An Exploratory Study Regarding the Effects of Community Policing on Index Crime Clearance 
2004 Rates in Local Agencies with Investigators
Michigan State University
Racial profiling and postmodern society: Police responsiveness, image maintenance, and the  Journal of Contemporary Criminal 
2007 left flank of police legitimacy
Justice
The institutionalization of racial profiling policy: An examination of antiprofiling policy adoption 
2013 among large law enforcement agencies
Crime and Delinquency
American Society of Criminology Annual 
Meeting
2008 Race, police, and policy: Do racial profiling policies reduce disparities in police traffic stops?
2008 The adoption of police innovation: The role of the political environment
Policing
2010 Understanding community policing as an innovation: Patterns of adoption
Crime and Delinquency

31
56

3
4

466
564

484
587

Morash, Merry; Kwak, Dae‐Hoon; Haarr, Robin

2006 Gender differences in the predictors of police stress

Policing

29

3

541

563

Murphy, David W.; Worrall, John H.
National Research Council

1999 Residency requirements and public perceptions of the police in large municipalities
2009 Ensuring the Quality, Credibility, and Relevance of U.S. Justice Statistics

Policing

22

3

327

342

Nicholson‐Crotty, Sean; O'Toole, Laurence J., Jr.

2004 Public management and organizational performance: The case of law enforcement agencies

14

1

1

18

Public Administration Review

61

2

221

234

Justice Research and Policy

1

2

89

110

Policing

38

4
NCJ 
203097

664

674

23

4

289

301

49

4

489

518

Meesing, Robert T.
Miller, Kirk
Miller, Kirk

Nowotny, Jordan J.; Jordan, Emma K.; Schuck, 
Amie M.; Rabe‐Hemp, Cara E.

Perez, Nicholas M.; Bromley, Max

2010 The Impact of Women on Police Organizations
Police information technology: Assessing the effects of computerization on urban police 
2001 functions
Municipal police salaries as a function of community home values, household incomes, and 
1999 physical housing characteristics
Comparing campus and city police human resource and select community outreach policies 
2015 and practices: An update

Perry, Steven W.

2004 American Indians and Crime: A BJS Statistical Profile, 1992‐2002

Nunn, Samuel
Pascarella, Jospeh E.

Planty, Michael
Prelog, Andrew J.
Presley, Daniel C.

2006 The national crime victimization survey: 34 years of measuring crime in the United States
Longitudinal and Geographic Analysis of the Relationship Between Natural Disasters and Crime 
2012 in the United States
An Assessment of Officer Safety: Does Departmental Authorization of Tasers Reduce Officer 
2013 Assault Rates?

National Academies Press
Journal of Public Administration 
Research and Theory
American Society of Criminology Annual 
Meeting

Bureau of Justice Statistics
Statistical Journal of the United 
Nations Economic Commission for 
Europe
Colorado State University
Southern Illinois University, Carbondale
Journal of Research in Crime and 
Delinquency

Pyrooz, David C.
Pyrooz, David C.; Fox, Andrew M.; Decker, Scott 
H.

2012 Structural covariates of gang homicide in large U.S. cities
Racial and ethnic heterogeneity, economic disadvantage, and gangs: A macro‐level study of 
2010 gang membership in urban America

Randol, Blake M.

Randol, Blake M.

2012 The organizational correlates of terrorism response preparedness in local police departments Criminal Justice Policy Review
Modeling a Decade of Organizational Change in Municipal Police Departments: A Longitudinal 
2013 Analysis of Technical, Administrative, and Programmatic Innovations
An exploratory analysis of terrorism prevention and response preparedness efforts in municipal 
police departments in the United States: Which agencies participate in terrorism prevention 
2013 and why?
Police Journal

Reaves, Brian
Reaves, Brian A.

1989 Profile of State And Local Law Enforcement Agencies, 1987
1989 Profile of State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies, 1987

Randol, Blake M.

Justice Quarterly

27

6

867

892

23

3

304

326

86

2
NCJ 
113949

158

181

Washington State University

Bureau of Justice Statistics
Bureau of Justice Statistics

LEMAS Publications, 1987‐2015
Authors

Year

Title

Publication Title

Publisher

Reaves, Brian A.
Reaves, Brian A.

1996 Local Police Departments, 1993
1989 Police Departments in Large Cities, 1987, Special Report

Bureau of Justice Statistics
Bureau of Justice Statistics

Reaves, Brian A.

1992 Drug Enforcement by Police and Sheriffs' Departments, 1990

Bureau of Justice Statistics

Reaves, Brian A.

1992 State and Local Police Departments, 1990

Bureau of Justice Statistics

Reaves, Brian A.

1992 Sheriffs' Departments 1990: A LEMAS Report

Bureau of Justice Statistics

Reaves, Brian A.

1996 A LEMAS Report: Local Police Departments, 1993, Executive Summary

Bureau of Justice Statistics

Reaves, Brian A.

2010 Local Police Departments, 2007

Bureau of Justice Statistics

Reaves, Brian A.

2015 Local Police Departments, 2013: Equipment and Technology
Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics, 1997: Data for Individual State 
1999 and Local Agencies with 100 or More Officers

Bureau of Justice Statistics

Bureau of Justice Statistics

Reaves, Brian A.; Hart, Timothy

1999 Local Police Departments, 1997
Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics, 1997: Data for Individual State 
1999 and Local Agencies with 100 or More Officers
Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics, 1999: Data for Individual State 
2000 and Local Agencies with 100 or More Officers

Bureau of Justice Statistics

Reaves, Brian A.; Hickman, Matthew J.

2001 Sheriffs' Offices 1999

Bureau of Justice Statistics

Reaves, Brian A.; Hickman, Matthew J.

2002 Police Departments in Large Cities, 1990‐2000

Bureau of Justice Statistics

Reaves, Brian A.; Smith, Pheny Z.

1996 Sheriffs' Departments 1993
Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics, 1993: Data for Individual State 
1995 and Local Agencies with 100 or More Officers
Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics, 2000: Data for Individual State 
2004 and Local Agencies with 100 or More Officers

Bureau of Justice Statistics

Reaves, Brian A.; Goldberg, Andrew

Reaves, Brian A.; Goldberg, Andrew
Reaves, Brian A.; Goldberg, Andrew

Reaves, Brian A.; Smith, Pheny Z.
Reaves, Brian J.; Hickman, Matthew J.

Redmond, Michael
Redmond, Michael; Baveja, Alok
Riggs, Courtney

2011 Communities and Crime Unnormalized Data Set
A data‐driven software tool for enabling cooperative information sharing among police 
2002 departments

Volume

Start 
Issue no. page
NCJ 
148822

End page

NCJ 
134505
NCJ 
133284
NCJ 
133283
NCJ 
160802
NCJ 
231174
NCJ 
248767
NCJ 
171681
NCJ 
178934; 
NCJ 1734

Bureau of Justice Statistics

Bureau of Justice Statistics
NCJ 
184481
NCJ 
186479
NCJ 
175703
NCJ 
148823
NCJ 
148825
NCJ 
203350

Bureau of Justice Statistics

Bureau of Justice Statistics
University of California, Irvine, Center for 
Machine Learning and Intelligent Systems
European Journal of Operational 
Research

141

3

660

678

Journal of Criminal Justice
Journal of Research in Crime and 
Delinquency

36

1

61

71

Roberts, Aki; Block, Steven

2012 Exploring the Impact of Department Policy on TASER‐Proximate Arrest Related Deaths
The influences of incident and contextual characteristics on crime clearance of nonlethal 
2008 violence: A multilevel event history analysis
Explaining temporary and permanent motor vehicle theft rates in the United States: A crime‐
2013 specific approach

50

3

445

471

Roberts, Aki; Roberts, John M., Jr.

2007 The structure of informal communication between police agencies

Policing

30

1

93

107

Roberts, Aki; Roberts, John M., Jr.

32

1
NCJ 
216150

38

55

Roberts, Aki; Roberts, John M., Jr.
Roberts, Aki; Roberts, John M., Jr.; Liedka, 
Raymond V.

2009 Impact of network ties on change in police agency practices
Policing
Police Innovations and the Structure of Informal Communication Between Police Agencies: 
2006 Network and LEMAS Data
Crime clearance and temporal variation in police investigative workload: Evidence from 
Journal of Quantitative 
2015 National Incident‐Based Reporting System (NIBRS) data
Criminology
Elements of terrorism preparedness in local police agencies, 2003‐2007: Impact of vulnerability, 
2012 organizational characteristics, and contagion in the post‐9/11 era
Crime and Delinquency

58

5

720

747

Rosenbaum, Dennis P.; Graziano, Lisa M.; 
Stephens, Cody D.; Schuck, Amie M.
Sass, Tim R.; Troyer, Jennifer L.
Schnebly, Stephen M.

Understanding community policing and legitimacy‐seeking behavior in virtual reality: A national 
2011 study of municipal police websites
Police Quarterly
1999 Affirmative action, political representation, unions, and female police employment
Journal of Labor Research
2008 The influence of community‐oriented policing on crime‐reporting behavior
Justice Quarterly

14
20
25

1
4
2

25
571
223

47
587
250

Roberts, Aki

Roberts, Aki; Roberts, John M., Jr.

Arizona State University

United States Department of Justice

LEMAS Publications, 1987‐2015
Authors
Schnebly, Stephen M.

Schroedel, Jean Reith; Frisch, Scott; Hallamore, 
Nancy; Peterson, Julie; Vanderhorst, Nicole
Schuck, Amie M.
Schuck, Amie M.
Schuck, Amie M.; Rabe‐Hemp, Cara
Scott, Michael L.
Sever, Brion
Sever, Brion; McSkimming, Michael J.
Sharp, Elaine B.
Sharp, Elaine B.
Sharp, Elaine B.; Johnson, Paul E.
Shjarback, John A.
Shjarback, John A.; White, Michael D.
Skogan, Wesley G.
Smith, Brad W.
Smith, Brad W.
Smith, Brad W. Holmes, Malcolm D.
Smith, Brad W.; Holmes, Malcolm D.
Smith, Brad W.; Wareham, Jennifer; Lambert, 
Eric G.
Sozer, M. A.
Sozer, Mehmet A.
Sozer, Mehmet Alper; Merlo, Alida V.
Stucky, Thomas D.
Stults, Brian J.
Telep, Cody W.
Timrots, Anita; Renshaw III, Benjamin H.; 
Lindgren, Sue A.

Year

Volume

Start 
Issue no. page

End page

Women and Criminal Justice

8

2

59

77

Police Quarterly

17

1

54

78

Police Quarterly

4

1

28

68

Criminal Justice Policy Review
Social Science Quarterly
Social Science Quarterly

15
87
95

4
2
4

486
291
1155

512
307
1171

26

1

157

182

31
27

2
4

449
147
539

470
162
557

Social Problems

61

1

83

104

Criminology

41

4

1035 ‐

37

3

377

398

14

6

506

521

Title
2005 Community Variation in the Nature of Crime Reporting

Publication Title

1996 The joint impact of race and gender on police department employment practices
Female representation in law enforcement: The influence of screening, unions, incentives, 
2014 community policing, CALEA, and size
Prevalence and predictors of surveillance cameras in law enforcement: The importance of 
2015 stakeholders and community factors
2014 Citizen complaints and gender diversity in police organisations
Law Enforcement's Adoption of Technology: A Quantitative Study Exploring the Adoption of 
2015 Technology by Law Enforcement Agencies
The relationship between minority populations and police force strength: Expanding our 
2001 knowledge
The impact of racial composition and other county characteristics on the size of sheriff's 
2004 departments: A new analysis of police force growth
2006 Policing urban America: A new look at the politics of agency size
2014 Minority representation and order maintenance policing: Toward a contingent view

Publisher
University of Missouri‐St. Louis

Criminal Justice Policy Review
Policing and Society
Capella University

2009 Accounting for variation in distrust of local police
Justice Quarterly
Emerging early intervention systems: An agency‐specific pre‐post comparison of formal citizen 
2015 complaints of use of force
Policing
Departmental professionalism and its impact on indicators of violence in police‐citizen 
2015 encounters
Police Quarterly
2014 Using community surveys to study policing
2003 The impact of police officer diversity on police‐caused homicides
2004 Structural and organizational predictors of homicide by police
Police use of excessive force in minority communities: A test of the minority threat, place, and 
2014 community accountability hypotheses
Community accountability, minority threat and policy brutality: An examination of civil rights 
2003 criminal complaints

The Oxford Handbook of Policing
Policy Studies Journal
Policing

2014 Community and organizational influences on voluntary turnover in law enforcement
Journal of Criminal Justice
2009 Crime and Community Policing
Assessing the Performance of Community Policing: The Effect of Community Policing Practices 
2008 on Crime Rates
The impact of community policing on crime rates: Does the effect of community policing differ 
2013 in large and small law enforcement agencies?
Police Practice and Research
2001 An Institutional Resources Perspective on Crime and Crime Control in U.S. Cities
2003 Social Threat and Benign Neglect: A Conflict Perspective on Racial Differences in Arrest
Moving Forward with Evidence‐Based Policing: What Should Police Be Doing and Can We Get 
2013 Them to Do It?

Oxford University Press

LFB Scholarly Publishing
Indiana University of Pennsylvania

University of Iowa
University at Albany, State University of 
New York
George Mason University
NCJ 
154043

Tucker, Jane M.

1994 Drug and Crime Facts, 1994
What Shapes Police Officer Willingness to Use Stress Intervention Services? An Empirical Study 
2012 of Current Factors in Pennsylvania

Bureau of Justice Statistics
Temple University

Ulkemen, Sinan

2009 The Impact of Surveillance Technology on the Behaviors of Municipal Police Departments

University of North Texas

Urbina, Martin Guevara; Alvarez, Sofia Espinoza

2015 Latino Police Officers in the United States: An Examination of Emerging Trends and Issues

Charles C Thomas Publisher

Walfield, Scott M.

2015 When a cleared rape is not cleared: A multilevel study of arrest and exceptional clearance

Journal of Interpersonal Violence

Walker, Samuel; Katz, Charles M.
Wareham, Jennifer; Smith, Brad W.; Lambert,  
Eric G.

1995 Less than meets the eye: Police department bias‐crime units

American Journal of Police

14

10

29

48

2015 Rates and patterns of law enforcement turnover: A research note

Criminal Justice Policy Review

26

4

345

370

LEMAS Publications, 1987‐2015
Authors

Year

Title

Volume

Start 
Issue no. page

End page

6
34
16

5
1
4

419
129
819

434
155
846

16

2

140

154

24
26

63
276

80
297

6

1
2
NCJ 
211975 
2

1

24

14

3

277

297

American Journal of Criminal 
Justice

35

4

184

197

Journal of Criminal Justice

36

5

461

468

Crime and Delinquency

44

2

295

313

171

187

Publication Title

Publisher

Watkins, Charles E., Jr.

2005 The Information Technology Productivity Paradox in Law Enforcement: An Exploratory Study

Weisburd, David; Lum, Cynthia
Weitzer, Ronald
Weitzer, Ronald

Willits, Dale W.

2005 The diffusion of computerized crime mapping in policing: Linking research and practice
Police Practice and Research
2000 Racialized policing: Residents' perceptions in three neighborhoods
Law and Society Review
1999 Citizens' perceptions of police misconduct: Race and neighborhood context
Justice Quarterly
Police Programs, Canines, and Contingency Theory: An Explanation of Canine Numbers Among 
2010 Large Police Departments
Beyond the Rhetoric: Factors Influencing the Implementation of Strategic Plans by American 
2015 Police Agencies
International Journal of Police 
Science and Management
2014 The organisational structure of police departments and assaults on police officers

Willits, Dale W.; Nowacki, Jeffrey S.
Wilson, Jeremy M.

2014 Police organisation and deadly force: An examination of variation across large and small cities
2003 Measurement and association in the structure of municipal police organizations

Policing and Society
Policing

Wilson, Jeremy M.
Wilson, Jeremy M.
Wilson, Jeremy M.

2005 Determinants of Community Policing: An Open Systems Model of Implementation
2004 A measurement model approach to estimating community policing implementation
2002 Implementation of Community Policing in Large Municipal Police Organizations

Working Paper
Justice Research and Policy

Wilson, Jeremy M.; Heinonen, Justin A.

Police Quarterly

Worrall, John L.

2011 Advancing a police science: Implications from a national survey of police staffing
Determining the Correlates of Police Victimization: An Analysis of Social Disorganization and 
2005 Organizational Level Factors on Injurious Assaults
The debate over police reform: Examining minority support for citizen oversight and resistance 
2010 by police unions
Determining the correlates of police victimization: An analysis of organizational level factors on 
2008 injurious assaults
Administrative determinants of civil liability lawsuits against municipal police departments: An 
1998 exploratory analysis
Addicted to the drug war: The role of civil asset forfeiture as a budgetary necessity in 
2001 contemporary law enforcement

Journal of Criminal Justice

29

Worrall, John L.; Kovandzic, Tomislav V.

2008 Is policing for profit? Answers from asset forfeiture

7

2

219

244

Xie, Min; Lauritsen, Janet L.

2012 Racial context and crime reporting: A test of Black's stratification hypothesis

Criminology and Public Policy
Journal of Quantitative 
Criminology

28

2

265

293

Welker, David
Williams, Keith L.

Wilson, Steve
Wilson, Steve; Buckler, Kevin
Wilson, Steve; Zhao, Jihong
Worrall, John L.

Zawitz, Marianne W.; Klaus, Patsy A.; Bachman, 
Ronet; Langan, Patrick; Harlow, Carol W.
Zhao, Jihong; Lovrich, Nicholas
Zhao, Jihong; Ren, Ling; Lovrich, Nicholas P.

1994 Violence Between Intimates
Collective bargaining and the police: The consequences for supplemental compensation 
1997 policies in large agencies
Political culture versus socioeconomic approaches to predicting police strength in U.S. police 
2012 agencies: Results of a longitudinal study, 1993 to 2003

George Washington University

Southern Illinois University Carbondale
American University

United States Department of Justice, 
National Institute of Justice
Ohio State University

University of Nebraska

NCJ 
149259

Bureau of Justice Statistics
Policing

20

3

508

518

Crime and Delinquency

58

2

167

195

asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 25 / Monday, February 8, 2016 / Notices
Proposed respondents, other
interested parties, and members of the
public are invited to file comments, not
to exceed five (5) pages in length,
inclusive of attachments, on any public
interest issues raised by the complaint
or section 210.8(b) filing. Comments
should address whether issuance of the
relief specifically requested by the
complainant in this investigation would
affect the public health and welfare in
the United States, competitive
conditions in the United States
economy, the production of like or
directly competitive articles in the
United States, or United States
consumers.
In particular, the Commission is
interested in comments that:
(i) Explain how the articles
potentially subject to the requested
remedial orders are used in the United
States;
(ii) identify any public health, safety,
or welfare concerns in the United States
relating to the requested remedial
orders;
(iii) identify like or directly
competitive articles that complainant,
its licensees, or third parties make in the
United States which could replace the
subject articles if they were to be
excluded;
(iv) indicate whether complainant,
complainant’s licensees, and/or third
party suppliers have the capacity to
replace the volume of articles
potentially subject to the requested
exclusion order and/or a cease and
desist order within a commercially
reasonable time; and
(v) explain how the requested
remedial orders would impact United
States consumers.
Written submissions must be filed no
later than by close of business, eight
calendar days after the date of
publication of this notice in the Federal
Register. There will be further
opportunities for comment on the
public interest after the issuance of any
final initial determination in this
investigation.
Persons filing written submissions
must file the original document
electronically on or before the deadlines
stated above and submit 8 true paper
copies to the Office of the Secretary by
noon the next day pursuant to section
210.4(f) of the Commission’s Rules of
Practice and Procedure (19 CFR
210.4(f)). Submissions should refer to
the docket number (‘‘Docket No. 3117’’)
in a prominent place on the cover page
and/or the first page. (See Handbook for
Electronic Filing Procedures, Electronic

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:51 Feb 05, 2016

Jkt 238001

Filing Procedures 4). Persons with
questions regarding filing should
contact the Secretary (202–205–2000).
Any person desiring to submit a
document to the Commission in
confidence must request confidential
treatment. All such requests should be
directed to the Secretary to the
Commission and must include a full
statement of the reasons why the
Commission should grant such
treatment. See 19 CFR 201.6. Documents
for which confidential treatment by the
Commission is properly sought will be
treated accordingly. All nonconfidential
written submissions will be available for
public inspection at the Office of the
Secretary and on EDIS 5.
This action is taken under the
authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act
of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337),
and of sections 201.10 and 210.8(c) of
the Commission’s Rules of Practice and
Procedure (19 CFR 201.10, 210.8(c)).
By order of the Commission.
Dated: February 2, 2016.
Lisa R. Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2016–02296 Filed 2–5–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
[OMB Number 1121–0240]

Agency Information Collection
Activities; Proposed eCollection
eComments Requested;
Reinstatement, With Change, of a
Previously Approved Collection for
Which Approval Has Expired: 2016
Law Enforcement Administrative and
Management Statistics (LEMAS)
Survey
Bureau of Justice Statistics,
Department of Justice.
ACTION: 60-Day notice.
AGENCY:

The Department of Justice
(DOJ), Office of Justice Programs,
Bureau of Justice Statistics, will be
submitting the following information
collection request to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for
review and approval in accordance with
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
DATES: Comments are encouraged and
will be accepted for 60 days until April
8, 2016.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If
you have additional comments
SUMMARY:

4 Handbook for Electronic Filing Procedures:
http://www.usitc.gov/secretary/fed_reg_notices/
rules/handbook_on_electronic_filing.pdf.
5 Electronic Document Information System
(EDIS): http://edis.usitc.gov.

PO 00000

Frm 00039

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

6539

especially on the estimated public
burden or associated response time,
suggestions, or need a copy of the
proposed information collection
instrument with instructions or
additional information, please contact
Shelley S. Hyland, Statistician, Bureau
of Justice Statistics, 810 Seventh Street
NW., Washington, DC 20531 (email:
[email protected]; telephone:
202–616–1706).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Written
comments and suggestions from the
public and affected agencies concerning
the proposed collection of information
are encouraged. Your comments should
address one or more of the following
four points:
—Evaluate whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary
for the proper performance of the
functions of the Bureau of Justice
Statistics, including whether the
information will have practical utility;
—Evaluate the accuracy of the agency’s
estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information,
including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used;
—Evaluate whether and if so how the
quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected can be
enhanced; and
—Minimize the burden of the collection
of information on those who are to
respond, including through the use of
appropriate automated, electronic,
mechanical, or other technological
collection techniques or other forms
of information technology, e.g.,
permitting electronic submission of
responses.
Overview of this information
collection:
(1) Type of Information Collection:
Reinstatement of the Law Enforcement
Management and Administrative
Statistics (LEMAS) Survey, with
changes, a previously approved
collection for which approval has
expired.
(2) The Title of the Form/Collection:
2016 Law Enforcement Management
and Administrative Statistics Survey.
(3) The agency form number, if any,
and the applicable component of the
Department sponsoring the collection:
The form number for the questionnaire
is CJ–44. The applicable component
within the Department of Justice is the
Bureau of Justice Statistics, in the Office
of Justice Programs.
(4) Affected public who will be asked
or required to respond, as well as a brief
abstract: Respondents will be general
purpose state, county and local law
enforcement agencies (LEAs), including
local and county police departments,

E:\FR\FM\08FEN1.SGM

08FEN1

6540

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 25 / Monday, February 8, 2016 / Notices

sheriff’s offices, and primary state law
enforcement agencies. Since 1987, BJS
has collected information about the
personnel, policies, and practices of law
enforcement agencies via the Law
Enforcement Management and
Administrative Statistics (LEMAS)
survey. This core survey, which has
been administered every 4 to 6 years,
has been used to produce nationally
representative estimates on the
demographic characteristics of sworn
personnel, hiring practices, operations,
equipment, technology, and agency
policies and procedures. BJS plans to
publish this information in reports and
reference it when responding to queries
from the U.S. Congress, Executive Office
of the President, the U.S. Supreme
Court, state officials, international
organizations, researchers, students, the
media, and others interested in criminal
justices statistics.
(5) An estimate of the total number of
respondents and the amount of time
estimated for an average respondent to
respond: An agency-level survey will be
sent to approximately 3,497 LEA
respondents. The expected burden
placed on these respondents is about
2.65 hours per respondent. The burden
estimate is based on data from prior
administrations of the LEMAS.
(6) An estimate of the total public
burden (in hours) associated with the
collection: There is an estimated 9,269
total burden hours associated with this
collection.
If additional information is required
contact: Jerri Murray, Department
Clearance Officer, United States
Department of Justice, Justice
Management Division, Policy and
Planning Staff, Two Constitution
Square, 145 N Street NE., 3E.405B,
Washington, DC 20530.
Dated: February 3, 2016.
Jerri Murray,
Department Clearance Officer for PRA, U.S.
Department of Justice.
[FR Doc. 2016–02378 Filed 2–5–16; 8:45 am]

asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

BILLING CODE 4410–18–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:51 Feb 05, 2016

Jkt 238001

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
[OMB Number 1110–0026]

Agency Information Collection
Activities; Proposed eCollection
eComments Requested; Extension
With Change, of a Previously
Approved Collection Federal Firearms
Licensee (FFL) Enrollment/National
Instant Criminal Background Check
System (NICS) E-Check Enrollment
Form, Federal Firearms Licensee (FFL)
Officer/Employee Acknowledgement of
Responsibilities Under the NICS Form
Federal Bureau of
Investigation, Department of Justice.
ACTION: 60-day notice.
AGENCY:

The Department of Justice
(DOJ), Office of Justice Programs,
Bureau of Justice Statistics, will be
submitting the following information
collection request to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for
review and approval in accordance with
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
DATES: Comments are encouraged and
will be accepted for 60 days until April
8, 2016.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If
you have additional comments
especially on the estimated public
burden or associated response time,
suggestions, or need a copy of the
proposed information collection
instrument with instructions or
additional information, please contact
Brandon S. Seifert, Management and
Program Analyst, Federal Bureau of
Investigation, Criminal Justice
Information Services (CJIS) Division,
NICS section, Module A–3, 1000 Custer
Hollow Road, Clarksburg, West Virginia
26306, or facsimile at (304) 625–7540.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Written
comments and suggestions from the
public and affected agencies concerning
the proposed collection of information
are encouraged. Your comments should
address one or more of the following
four points:
—Evaluate whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary
for the proper performance of the
functions of the Bureau of Justice
Statistics, including whether the
information will have practical utility;
—Evaluate the accuracy of the agency’s
estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information,
including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used;
—Evaluate whether and if so how the
quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected can be
enhanced; and
SUMMARY:

PO 00000

Frm 00040

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

—Minimize the burden of the collection
of information on those who are to
respond, including through the use of
appropriate automated, electronic,
mechanical, or other technological
collection techniques or other forms
of information technology, e.g.,
permitting electronic submission of
responses.
Overview of this information
collection:
1. Type of Information Collection:
Extension with change of a currently
approved collection.
2. The Title of the Form/Collection:
Federal Firearms Licensee (FFL)
Enrollment/National Instant Criminal
Background Check System (NICS) ECheck Enrollment Form, Federal
Firearms Licensee (FFL) Officer/
Employee Acknowledgment of
Responsibilities under the NICS form.
3. The agency form number, if any,
and the applicable component of the
Department sponsoring the collection:
The form is unnumbered
4. Affected public who will be asked
or required to respond, as well as a brief
abstract:
Primary: Any Federal Firearms
Licensee (FFL) or State Point of Contact
(POC) requesting access to conduct
National Instant Criminal Background
Check Systems (NICS) checks
telephonically or by the Internet
through the NICS E-Check.
Abstract: The Brady Handgun
Violence Prevention Act of 1993
required the United States Attorney
General to establish a national instant
criminal background check system that
any FFL may contact, by telephone or
by other electronic means, for
information to be supplied immediately,
on whether receipt of a firearm to a
prospective purchaser would violate
state or federal law. Information
pertaining to licensees who may contact
the NICS is being collected to manage
and control access to the NICS and to
the NICS E-Check, to ensure appropriate
resources are available to support the
NICS and also to ensure the privacy and
security of NICS information.
5. An estimate of the total number of
respondents and the amount of time
estimated for an average respondent to
respond: The completion of the Federal
Firearms Licensee (FFL) Enrollment/
National Instant Criminal Background
Check System (NICS) E-Check
Enrollment Form is estimated that there
are 406 respondents each month, 4,872
(406 × 12) annual responses, and that
each response takes approximately two
minutes, time to complete the form is
estimated to be three minutes; and the
time to assemble, mail, or fax the form

E:\FR\FM\08FEN1.SGM

08FEN1

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 13, 2016 / Notices
Geographical evidence, burial context
and practices, and museum records
support affiliation with and the
Southern Ute Indian Tribe of the
Southern Ute Indian Reservation and
Ute Mountain Tribe of the Ute Mountain
Reservation, Colorado, New Mexico and
Utah.
Determinations Made by History
Colorado
Officials of the History Colorado have
determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(B),
the two cultural items described above
are reasonably believed to have been
placed with or near individual human
remains at the time of death or later as
part of the death rite or ceremony and
are believed, by a preponderance of the
evidence, to have been removed from a
specific burial site of a Native American
individual.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there
is a relationship of shared group
identity that can be reasonably traced
between the unassociated funerary
objects and the Southern Ute Indian
Tribe of the Southern Ute Indian
Reservation and the Ute Mountain Tribe
of the Ute Mountain Reservation,
Colorado, New Mexico and Utah.

asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Additional Requestors and Disposition
Lineal descendants or representatives
of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian
organization not identified in this notice
that wish to claim these cultural items
should submit a written request with
information in support of the claim to
Sheila Goff, 1200 Broadway, Denver, CO
80203, telephone (303) 866–4531, email
[email protected], by May 13,
2016. After that date, if no additional
claimants have come forward, transfer
of control of the unassociated funerary
objects to the Southern Ute Indian Tribe
of the Southern Ute Indian Reservation
and the Ute Mountain Tribe of the Ute
Mountain Reservation, Colorado, New
Mexico and Utah may proceed.
History Colorado is responsible for
notifying the Southern Ute Indian Tribe
of the Southern Ute Indian Reservation,
Colorado; the Ute Indian Tribe of the
Uintah & Ouray Reservation, Utah and
the Ute Mountain Tribe of the Ute
Mountain Reservation, Colorado, New
Mexico and Utah that this notice has
been published.
Dated: March 21, 2016.
Melanie O’Brien,
Manager, National NAGPRA Program.
[FR Doc. 2016–08452 Filed 4–12–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4312–50–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:41 Apr 12, 2016

Jkt 238001

21903

Bureau of Justice Statistics,
Department of Justice.
ACTION: 30-Day notice.

proposed collection of information,
including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used;
—Evaluate whether and if so how the
quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected can be
enhanced; and
—Minimize the burden of the collection
of information on those who are to
respond, including through the use of
appropriate automated, electronic,
mechanical, or other technological
collection techniques or other forms
of information technology, e.g.,
permitting electronic submission of
responses.

The Department of Justice
(DOJ), Office of Justice Programs,
Bureau of Justice Statistics, will be
submitting the following information
collection request to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for
review and approval in accordance with
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
This proposed information collection
was previously published in the Federal
Register at Volume 81 FR 6539,
February 8, 2016, allowing for a 60 day
comment period.
DATES: Comments are encouraged and
will be accepted for an additional 30
days until May 13, 2016.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If
you have additional comments
especially on the estimated public
burden or associated response time,
suggestions, or need a copy of the
proposed information collection
instrument with instructions or
additional information, please contact
Shelley S. Hyland, Statistician, Bureau
of Justice Statistics, 810 Seventh Street
NW., Washington, DC 20531 (email:
[email protected]; telephone:
202–616–1706). Written comments and/
or suggestions can also be directed to
the Office of Management and Budget,
Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Attention Department of Justice
Desk Officer, Washington, DC 20503 or
sent to
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Written
comments and suggestions from the
public and affected agencies concerning
the proposed collection of information
are encouraged. Your comments should
address one or more of the following
four points:
—Evaluate whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary
for the proper performance of the
functions of the Bureau of Justice
Statistics, including whether the
information will have practical utility;
—Evaluate the accuracy of the agency’s
estimate of the burden of the

Overview of This Information
Collection
(1) Type of Information Collection:
Reinstatement, with change, of a
previously approved collection for
which approval has expired: 2016 Law
Enforcement Administrative and
Management Statistics (LEMAS) survey.
(2) The Title of the Form/Collection:
2016 Law Enforcement Management
and Administrative Statistics Survey.
(3) The agency form number, if any,
and the applicable component of the
Department sponsoring the collection:
The form number for the questionnaire
is CJ–44. The applicable component
within the Department of Justice is the
Bureau of Justice Statistics, in the Office
of Justice Programs.
(4) Affected public who will be asked
or required to respond, as well as a brief
abstract: Respondents will be general
purpose state, county and local law
enforcement agencies (LEAs), including
local and county police departments,
sheriff’s offices, and primary state law
enforcement agencies. Since 1987, BJS
has collected information about the
personnel, policies, and practices of law
enforcement agencies via the Law
Enforcement Management and
Administrative Statistics (LEMAS)
survey. This core survey, which has
been administered every 4 to 6 years,
has been used to produce nationally
representative estimates on the
demographic characteristics of sworn
personnel, hiring practices, operations,
equipment, technology, and agency
policies and procedures. BJS plans to
publish this information in reports and
reference it when responding to queries
from the U.S. Congress, Executive Office
of the President, the U.S. Supreme
Court, state officials, international
organizations, researchers, students, the
media, and others interested in criminal
justices statistics.
(5) An estimate of the total number of
respondents and the amount of time
estimated for an average respondent to
respond: An agency-level survey will be

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
[OMB Number 1121–0240]

Agency Information Collection
Activities; Proposed eCollection
eComments Requested;
Reinstatement, With Change, of a
Previously Approved Collection for
Which Approval Has Expired: 2016
Law Enforcement Administrative and
Management Statistics (LEMAS)
Survey
AGENCY:

SUMMARY:

PO 00000

Frm 00068

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

E:\FR\FM\13APN1.SGM

13APN1

21904

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 13, 2016 / Notices

sent to approximately 3,499 LEA
respondents. The expected burden
placed on these respondents is about 3
hours per respondent. The burden
estimate is based on data from prior
administrations of the LEMAS.
(6) An estimate of the total public
burden (in hours) associated with the
collection: There is an estimated 10,497
total burden hours associated with this
collection.
If additional information is required
contact: Jerri Murray, Department
Clearance Officer, United States
Department of Justice, Justice
Management Division, Policy and
Planning Staff, Two Constitution
Square, 145 N Street NE., 3E.405B,
Washington, DC 20530.
Dated: April 8, 2016.
Jerri Murray,
Department Clearance Officer for PRA, U.S.
Department of Justice.
[FR Doc. 2016–08448 Filed 4–12–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–18–P

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Mine Safety and Health Administration
Petitions for Modification of
Application of Existing Mandatory
Safety Standards
Mine Safety and Health
Administration, Labor.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:

Section 101(c) of the Federal
Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 and
Title 30 of the Code of Federal
Regulations Part 44 govern the
application, processing, and disposition
of petitions for modification. This notice
is a summary of petitions for
modification submitted to the Mine
Safety and Health Administration
(MSHA) by the parties listed below.
DATES: All comments on the petitions
must be received by the MSHA’s Office
of Standards, Regulations, and
Variances on or before May 13, 2016.
ADDRESSES: You may submit your
comments, identified by ‘‘docket
number’’ on the subject line, by any of
the following methods:
1. Electronic Mail: [email protected]. Include the docket
number of the petition in the subject
line of the message.
2. Facsimile: 202–693–9441.
3. Regular Mail or Hand Delivery:
MSHA, Office of Standards,
Regulations, and Variances, 201 12th
Street South, Suite 4E401, Arlington,
Virginia 22202–5452, Attention: Sheila
McConnell, Director, Office of

asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

SUMMARY:

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:41 Apr 12, 2016

Jkt 238001

Standards, Regulations, and Variances.
Persons delivering documents are
required to check in at the receptionist’s
desk in Suite 4E401. Individuals may
inspect copies of the petitions and
comments during normal business
hours at the address listed above.
MSHA will consider only comments
postmarked by the U.S. Postal Service or
proof of delivery from another delivery
service such as UPS or Federal Express
on or before the deadline for comments.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Barbara Barron, Office of Standards,
Regulations, and Variances at 202–693–
9447 (Voice), [email protected]
(Email), or 202–693–9441 (Facsimile).
[These are not toll-free numbers.]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
Section 101(c) of the Federal Mine
Safety and Health Act of 1977 (Mine
Act) allows the mine operator or
representative of miners to file a
petition to modify the application of any
mandatory safety standard to a coal or
other mine if the Secretary of Labor
determines that:
1. An alternative method of achieving
the result of such standard exists which
will at all times guarantee no less than
the same measure of protection afforded
the miners of such mine by such
standard; or
2. That the application of such
standard to such mine will result in a
diminution of safety to the miners in
such mine.
In addition, the regulations at 30 CFR
44.10 and 44.11 establish the
requirements and procedures for filing
petitions for modification.
II. Petitions for Modification
Docket Number: M–2016–008–C.
Petitioner: Rosebud Mining Company,
301 Market Street, Kittanning,
Pennsylvania 16201.
Mine: Barrett Mine, MSHA I.D. No.
36–09342, located in Indiana County,
Pennsylvania.
Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.503
(Permissible electric face equipment;
maintenance) and 18.35(a)(5)(i)
(Portable (trailing) cables and cords).
Modification Request: The petitioner
requests a modification of the existing
standard to permit the use of 480-volt
trailing cables with a maximum length
of 950 feet when No. 4 American Wire
Gauge (AWG) cable is used on roof
bolters. The petitioner states that:
(1) The trailing cables for the 480-volt
bolters will not be smaller than No. 4
AWG cable.
(2) All circuit breakers used to protect
the No. 4 AWG trailing cable exceeding

PO 00000

Frm 00069

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

700 feet in length will have
instantaneous trip units calibrated to
trip at 500 amperes. The trip setting of
these circuit breakers will be sealed to
ensure that the settings on these
breakers cannot be changed, and these
circuit breakers will have permanent,
legible labels. Each label will identify
the circuit breaker as being suitable for
protecting the cables as listed above.
(3) Replacement circuit breakers and/
or instantaneous trip units used to
protect the No. 4 AWG trailing cable
will be calibrated to trip at 500 amperes
and they will be sealed.
(4) All components that provide shortcircuit protection will have a sufficient
interruption rating in accordance with
the maximum calculated fault currents
available.
(5) During each production day, the
trailing cables and the circuit breakers
will be examined in accordance with all
30 CFR provisions.
(6) Permanent warning labels will be
installed and maintained on the load
center identifying the location of each
short-circuit protection device. These
labels will warn miners not to change or
alter the settings of these devices.
(7) If the affected trailing cables are
damaged in any way during the shift,
the cable will be de-energized and
repairs made.
(8) The alternative method will not be
implemented until all miners who have
been designated to operate the bolters,
or any other person designated to
examine the trailing cables or trip
settings on the circuit breakers, have
received the proper training as to the
performance of their duties.
(9) Within 60 days after the proposed
decision and order becomes final, the
petitioner will submit proposed
revisions for their approved 30 CFR part
48 training plans to the District
Manager. These revisions will specify
task training for miners designated to
examine the trailing cables for safe
operating condition and verify that the
short-circuit settings of the circuitinterrupting devices that protect the
affected trailing cables do not exceed
the settings specified previously in this
petition. The training will include the
following elements:
(a) The hazards of setting short-circuit
interrupting device(s) too high to
adequately protect the trailing cables.
(b) How to verify that the circuit
interrupting device(s) protecting the
trailing cable(s) are properly set and
maintained.
(c) Mining methods and operating
procedures that will protect the trailing
cables against damage.
(d) Proper procedures for examining
the trailing cables to ensure that the

E:\FR\FM\13APN1.SGM

13APN1

U. S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
Bureau of Justice Statistics

Washington, D.C. 20531

«Date»
«Salutation» «ContactFirstName» «ContactLastName»
«Agency Name»
«ContactAddress1» «ContactAddress2»
«ContactCity», «ContactState» «ContactZip»
Dear «Salutation» «ContactLastName»:
On behalf of the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), Research Triangle Institute (RTI) International is conducting the Law
Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics (LEMAS) survey. This letter is to inform you that your agency is
invited to participate in this survey. Since 1987, BJS has successfully implemented nine waves of LEMAS surveys. The
2016 LEMAS survey captures information about resources, functions, personnel, salaries, training, information systems,
policies, and use of technology. It will include items that are relevant to all law enforcement agencies – regardless of
agency size. The reliability of the study’s results directly depends on the participation rate among the selected agencies;
your agency cannot be replaced.
BJS will use the data collected in this survey only for research and statistical purposes, as described in Title 42, USC
§3735 and 3789g (enclosed). The data will assist Federal, State, and local officials in their efforts to assess the impact of
past funding programs, as well as help them assess the current and future needs of law enforcement agencies. Findings
from the survey will be available on the BJS website at http://www.bjs.gov/.
I understand that you receive a number of data requests throughout the year; however, I would greatly appreciate it if you
would please take the time to complete our survey. Your responses will allow us to examine trends in law enforcement
agencies over time.
You may access the survey at <>, using your survey access code: <>. You may also download a
copy of the survey from the website. Downloading the survey will also facilitate sharing it electronically with others at
your agency who might be asked to provide some of the requested information. Please complete this survey by [DATE].
If you have any general comments about this data collection, please contact Shelley Hyland, BJS Program Manager, at
<> or <>. If you have questions about the LEMAS survey, need to change the point of contact at your
agency, or need to update your contact information (including e-mail address), please contact Michael Keating, the RTI
data collection task leader, via phone or e-mail at (800) ###-#### or [email protected].
Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to our continued work together.
Sincerely,

Jeri M. Mulrow
Acting Director
Bureau of Justice Statistics
Enclosures: Confidentiality Assurances, LEMAS flyer, PERF letter of support, POC update form, 2016 LEMAS
instrument

Front Side 
Title Page 
The 2016 Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics (LEMAS) Core Survey 

Conducted by 
Bureau of Justice Statistics, US Department of Justice 
RTI International 

How can I learn more about the LEMAS Survey? 
Any questions about the LEMAS Survey can be directed to:  
Travis Taniguchi, PhD 
Research Criminologist 
RTI International 
3040 E Cornwallis Blvd, RTP, NC 27709 
[email protected] 
919‐248‐8501 

For information about BJS’s Law Enforcement Core Statistics Program, contact:  
Shelley Hyland, PhD 
Statistician 
Bureau of Justice Statistics 
810 7th Street NW, Washington, DC 20531 
[email protected] 
202‐616‐1706 

The 2016 LEMAS Core Survey Schedule 
Fall 2016 
 BJS will send out a letter inviting Law Enforcement Agency heads to participate in the 
LEMAS core survey 
 Heads of agencies invited to participate in the LEMAS core survey will be asked to 
designate a point of contact who will complete the survey 
 RTI will provide the point of contact with a website to access the survey and login 
instructions or a paper survey if requested 
Winter‐Spring 2016‐2017 
 Survey data will be collected and verified 
Summer‐Fall 2017 
 Results will be processed and analyzed 
 BJS and RTI will draft a report on survey findings  
Winter 2017‐2018 
 BJS will publish preliminary survey findings 

Backside 
What is LEMAS?  
The LEMAS is a survey conducted by the Bureau of Justice Statistics approximately every four 
years. It is presently the most systematic and comprehensive source of national data on law 
enforcement. Approximately 3,500 agencies are randomly selected to participate in this survey.  

What information do the LEMAS surveys collect?  
The LEMAS core collects important information on personnel, expenditures and pay, 
operations, equipment, computers and information systems, and policies and procedures. This 
information is used to create national estimates for all law enforcement agencies in the U.S. 
The LEMAS supplements will collect in‐depth information on a specific topical area. The first 
supplement focuses on body‐worn camera usage. 

Why is LEMAS important? 
LEMAS is the only survey of law enforcement agencies that gathers nationally representative 
information about agencies on key factors like personnel, policies, and agency activities and 
trends over time. LEMAS data are widely used by researchers, policy makers and law 
enforcement agencies to understand law enforcement at local, county, state and national 
levels.   

Why have I received multiple LEMAS surveys recently?  
The LEMAS is moving to a new core + topical supplement model. Topical supplements will cover 
emerging issues in law enforcement and will change over time. You have just completed the 
first LEMAS topical supplement which covered body‐worn camera usage. You may also be 
invited to participate in the 2016 LEMAS core this fall. In 2017, you may be invited to participate 
in the 2017 Body‐Worn Camera Supplement as we will be using this survey to assess changes in 
attitudes towards and usage of BWCs over time. 

Do I need to complete the LEMAS if I recently completed a different LEMAS survey?  
Yes! The LEMAS core and supplements are critically important to understanding characteristics, 
policies and procedures of law enforcement agencies across the country. Each agency that was 
selected to participate is crucial – each agency’s responses are important. We need responses 
from all selected agencies for each survey sent to ensure that the results are representative of 
law enforcement agencies across the U.S. 

What will I be asked to do? 
The chief executive will be asked to designate a staff member to complete the survey (i.e., point 
of contact). The agency point of contact will be provided information on how to access the 
online survey (or request a paper survey if desired). The website will be secure and will allow 
respondents to save and close the survey at any time. The survey can be reopened later to 
enter or edit responses until the final responses are submitted. Agencies will also be provided a 
paper copy of the survey if they prefer to submit the survey by mail, email or fax.   

Bureau of Justice Statistics (Bureau) – Confidentiality Assurances 
42 USC § 3735 ‐ Use of Data 
Data collected by the Bureau shall be used only for statistical or research purposes, and shall be gathered in a manner 
that precludes their use for law enforcement or any purpose relating to a private person or public agency other than 
statistical or research purposes. 

42 USC § 3789g ‐ Confidentiality of information  
(a) Research or statistical information; immunity from process; prohibition against admission as evidence or use in 
any proceedings  
No officer or employee of the Federal Government and no recipient of assistance under the provisions of this chapter 
shall use or reveal any research or statistical information furnished under this chapter by any person and identifiable to 
any specific private person for any purpose other than the purpose for which it was obtained in accordance with this 
chapter. Such information and copies thereof shall be immune from legal process, and shall not, without the consent of 
the person furnishing such information, be admitted as evidence or used for any purpose in any action, suit, or other 
judicial, legislative, or administrative proceedings.  
(b) Criminal history information; disposition and arrest data; procedures for collection, storage, dissemination, and 
current status; security and privacy; availability for law enforcement, criminal justice, and other lawful purposes; 
automated systems: review, challenge, and correction of information  
All criminal history information collected, stored, or disseminated through support under this chapter shall contain, to 
the maximum extent feasible, disposition as well as arrest data where arrest data is included therein. 
The collection, storage, and dissemination of such information shall take place under procedures reasonably designed to 
insure that all such information is kept current therein; the Office of Justice Programs shall assure that the security and 
privacy of all information is adequately provided for and that information shall only be used for law enforcement and 
criminal justice and other lawful purposes. In addition, an individual who believes that criminal history information 
concerning him contained in an automated system is inaccurate, incomplete, or maintained in violation of this chapter, 
shall, upon satisfactory verification of his identity, be entitled to review such information and to obtain a copy of it for 
the purpose of challenge or correction. 
(c) Criminal intelligence systems and information; prohibition against violation of privacy and constitutional rights of 
individuals  
All criminal intelligence systems operating through support under this chapter shall collect, maintain, and disseminate 
criminal intelligence information in conformance with policy standards which are prescribed by the Office of Justice 
Programs and which are written to assure that the funding and operation of these systems furthers the purpose of this 
chapter and to assure that such systems are not utilized in violation of the privacy and constitutional rights of 
individuals.  
(d) Violations; fine as additional penalty 
 Any person violating the provisions of this section, or of any rule, regulation, or order issued there under, shall be fined 
not to exceed $10,000, in addition to any other penalty imposed by law.  

(DATE)
(NAME)
(AGENCY NAME)
(ADDRESS)
(CITY, STATE, ZIP)

Dear (NAME):
The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), working with RTI International and the Police Executive Research Forum
(PERF), is fielding the next iteration of the Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics (LEMAS)
survey in 2016. Conducted periodically since 1987, LEMAS collects data from more than 3,000 general-purpose
state and local law enforcement agencies.
You probably are familiar with LEMAS. This survey draws on a nationally representative sample to collect data on
agency responsibilities, budgets, staffing levels, policies, equipment, and other information. The results are used
to identify trends in police training, hiring standards (such as educational requirements and salary levels for new
officers), involvement in various types of task forces and community policing activities, use of technologies (such
as body-worn cameras, various less-lethal weapons, and computer equipment), policies on use of force and other
matters, and many other measures.
LEMAS is the only nationally representative source of this kind of information. With the LEMAS results, your
agency will be able to learn how agencies of similar size and characteristics to your own conduct business, and
where your agency stands in a national framework. In addition to providing valuable information to law
enforcement agencies, LEMAS findings are of interest to researchers and the general public.
I write to strongly encourage you to complete the survey when it arrives. Your agency has been specifically
chosen as part of a national sample to obtain a representative picture of law enforcement in the U.S. All
information that you share will remain confidential; study reports will only present findings at a national level and
no information will be publicly linked to your agency by name. The receipt of information from each agency will
greatly improve the quality of data and analysis of results. We appreciate your agency taking the time and effort
required to complete the LEMAS. Any questions about the LEMAS can be directed to (BJS/RTI contacts TBD).
This is a critical survey to help understand trends in policing, and PERF is pleased to have the opportunity to work
with BJS and RTI on this important project.

Sincerely,

Chuck Wexler

■WE PROVIDE PROGRESS IN POLICING
1120 Connecticut Avenue, NW Suite 930 Washington, DC 20036
Tel: 202.466.7820 Fax: 202.466.7826 TTY: 202.466.2670 www.PoliceForum.org [email protected]

[CASE ID] 

LEMAS Point of Contact Form 
Please confirm and update point of contact information for your agency. If you have any questions, 
please contact RTI International by emailing us at [email] or calling [toll free number]. 
Law Enforcement Agency:  [LEA Name] 
Agency head: [LEA Agency Head] 
LEMAS Point of Contact name:  [LEMAS POC Name] 
Contact Information for LEMAS Point of Contact: 

Address: [POC address] 

City:  [POC city] 

State:  [POC state] 

Zip:  [POC zip code] 

Telephone: [POC phone] 

Email: [POC email] 

Is this LEMAS point of contact correct? 
o
o

Yes  – THANK YOU! THIS FORM IS COMPLETE. 
No   – PLEASE UPDATE YOUR LEMAS POINT OF CONTACT INFORMATION BELOW. 

New LEMAS Point of Contact name:  _____________________________________ 

Updated Contact Information for LEMAS Point of Contact: 

Address: ____________________________________ 

City:  _______________________________________ 

State:  ______________________________________ 

Zip:  ________________________________________ 

Telephone:  __________________________________ 

Email:  ______________________________________ 

Would the new Point of Contact prefer to complete the LEMAS survey on the web or via a paper 
questionnaire? 
o
o

Web 
Paper 

U. S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
Bureau of Justice Statistics

Washington, D.C. 20531

«Date»
«Salutation» «ContactFirstName» «ContactLastName»
«Agency Name»
«ContactAddress1» «ContactAddress2»
«ContactCity», «ContactState» «ContactZip»
<>
Dear «Salutation» «ContactLastName»:
On behalf of the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) and Research Triangle Institute (RTI) International, I would
like to thank you for your participation in the 2016 Law Enforcement Management and Administrative
Statistics (LEMAS) survey. I truly appreciate your support in completing this survey. Your participation is vital
to the success of the national collection.
This <> confirms that we have received your survey and are currently processing the data. RTI
will contact you if we have any questions about the answers your agency has submitted. We anticipate that data
collection will be completed by <>. Once the data have been processed, BJS and RTI will send
participating agencies a brief report with key findings based on the jurisdiction size (i.e., number of full-time
sworn personnel or population size) that your agency serves.
Your agency may be selected to take part in a different LEMAS survey in the future, and I hope that your
agency will continue to participate. In the meantime, if you have any general comments or questions, please
contact Shelley Hyland, BJS Program Manager, at <> or <>. If you have questions about the
LEMAS survey, need to change the point of contact at your agency, or need to update your contact information
(including e-mail address), please contact Michael Keating, the RTI data collection task leader, via phone or email at (800) ###-#### or [email protected].
Sincerely,
Shelley S. Hyland, Ph.D.
Program Manager
Bureau of Justice Statistics

SUBJECT: Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics Survey
Dear «Salutation» «ContactLastName»:
The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) recently e-mailed you a link to a web survey seeking
information about your law enforcement agency (LEA) for the Law Enforcement Management
and Administrative Statistics (LEMAS) Survey. If you have already completed the survey, please
accept our sincere thanks.
If you have not completed your survey we ask you to complete the survey by [DATE]. Your
responses are very important. They allow other law enforcement agencies, and state and local
policy makers understand administrative aspects of your agency and other agencies like yours.
Developing and maintaining an accurate picture of the nation’s law enforcement workforce is
paramount to understanding the current state of policing in the United States.
Please complete the survey by using the following link: «URL» and entering your survey
access code «PIN».
If you would prefer to complete the survey on paper, you may download and print a paper
version upon entering your survey access code on the LEMAS survey website. You may also
request a paper survey by emailing RTI International at <> or calling <>. Upon receipt of your agency’s request, you will receive a paper version and a
postage paid return envelope within two business days.
If you have any general comments about this data collection, please contact Shelley Hyland, BJS
Program Manager, at <> or <>. If you have questions about the LEMAS
survey, have difficulty accessing the website, or would like a paper copy of the survey, please
contact me via phone or e-mail at (###) ###-#### or [email protected].
On behalf of the Bureau of Justice Statistics, we are grateful for your participation. Thank you
for your time and attention.

Michael Keating
RTI International
Data Collection Task Leader

U. S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
Bureau of Justice Statistics

Washington, D.C. 20531

«Date»
«Salutation» «ContactFirstName» «ContactLastName»
«Agency Name»
«ContactAddress1» «ContactAddress2»
«ContactCity», «ContactState» «ContactZip»
Dear «Salutation» «ContactLastName»:
Your law enforcement agency (LEA) was selected to participate in the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) Law
Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics (LEMAS) survey. About a month ago, a reminder to
complete the survey was e-mailed to you at «email» by <>. Your LEA is among a randomly selected
group of agencies chosen to participate in this data collection; your LEA cannot be replace with another.
I recognize that you may not have received the previous email message or that you may not have responded
because of time constraints. I appreciate that your time is limited; however, the reliability of the study directly
depends on the participation of surveyed agencies. The survey includes items that are relevant to all agencies
and your responses are essential for the federal government and state and local policy makers to understand the
current state of policing.
You may access the survey by using the following link: «URL» and entering your survey access code
«PIN».
Alternatively, if you prefer to submit your data by mail, enclosed in this packet you will find a paper version of
the survey and a business reply envelope to facilitate the return of your completed form.
Please submit your questionnaire by «date». If you have any general comments about this data collection, please
contact Shelley Hyland, BJS Program Manager, at <> or <>. If you have questions about the
LEMAS survey or have difficulty accessing the website, please contact Michael Keating, the data collection
task leader at RTI International, our data collection agent for this study. Mr. Keating can be reached via phone
or e-mail at (800) ###-#### or [email protected].
Sincerely,
Jeri M. Mulrow
Acting Director
Bureau of Justice Statistics
Enclosures: 2016 LEMAS Core Survey; Business reply envelope

SUBJECT: Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics Survey|
Dear «Salutation» «ContactLastName»:
The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) recently sent a survey packet and e-mailed a link to the
Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics (LEMAS) survey to your law
enforcement agency (LEA). Your LEA is among a select group of agencies asked to participate
in this data collection.
I appreciate that your time is limited, but your participation is critical. The survey includes items
that are relevant to all types of LEAs, regardless of size, and will help other law enforcement
agencies, and state and local policy makers understand the current state of policing in the United
States.
Please complete the survey by using the following link: «URL» and entering your survey
access code «PIN».
If you have any general comments about this data collection, please contact Shelley Hyland, BJS
Program Manager, at <> or <>. If you would like another paper version of the
survey, have questions about the operation of the web survey, or have difficulty accessing the
website, please contact me via phone or e-mail at <> or <>. I will be happy to
assist you with any questions you might have.
Thank you for your time and attention.

Michael Keating
RTI International
Data Collection Task Leader

Sample Call Script for Nonresponse Telephone Calls 
[IF CALL RINGS TO A GATEKEEPER] 
Hello, this is <> calling on behalf of the Bureau of Justice Statistics in the U.S. 
Department of Justice regarding the 2016 Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics 
survey. I am following up on a survey invitation that we sent addressed to <>. May I speak 
with <>? 
[IF CALL RINGS TO POC] 
Hello, this is <> calling on behalf of the Bureau of Justice Statistics in the U.S. 
Department of Justice regarding the 2016 Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics 
survey. A few months ago, we sent you a letter and an email message inviting your agency to participate 
in the survey. We did not hear back from your agency and I wanted to follow up with you to confirm 
that you received the messages that we sent.  
Have you received our communications? 
[IF YES] 
[IF QUESTIONS ABOUT THE SURVEY] 
‐
‐

‐
‐

The LEMAS survey is the central part of the Law Enforcement Core Statistics (LECS) 
Program. 
The survey captures information about the changing aspects of law enforcement 
organization, resources, functions, personnel, salaries, training, collective bargaining, 
information systems, policies, and use of technology.  
BJS will use the data collected through this survey only for research and statistical 
purposes. 
The survey will take approximately XX minutes to complete. 

[OFFER ASSISTANCE TO COMPLETE] 
Is there anything I can do to assist you in completing the survey? A paper version is available 
if you would prefer to submit the information by mail. Alternatively, I can complete the 
survey with you over the phone.  
[IF PROMPTING AGENCY TO COMPLETE ONLY CRITICAL ITEMS] 
BJS considers the following questions to be most critical: <>. Would you be 
able to provide responses to just those questions? 
[IF AGENCY SAYS THEY DO NOT INTEND TO RESPOND] 
Thank you for letting us know. Would you be willing to share with us why you have chosen 
not to participate? 
[IF NO] 
Let me review the information we have on file for your agency. [REVIEW E‐MAIL ADDRESS AND 
MAILING ADDRESS.] 
Ask for the POC’s preferred method of contact and offer to re‐send the information. 

SUBJECT: Reminder: Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics Program
Survey
Dear «Salutation» «ContactLastName»:
On behalf of the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), the Research Triangle Institute (RTI) International is
conducting the Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics (LEMAS) survey. This letter
is to remind you that your agency has been invited to participate in this survey. The 2016 LEMAS survey
captures information about the functions, personnel, training, equipment, policies, and use of technology
in your agency. It includes items that are relevant to all law enforcement agencies (LEAs) – regardless of
agency size. The reliability of the study depends on your participation; your agency cannot be replaced.
Please complete the LEMAS survey by [Date]. I understand that you receive a number survey requests
and I genuinely appreciate your attention to this survey.
You may access the survey online at <> and entering your survey access code: <>.
BJS will use the data collected in this survey only for research and statistical purposes, as described in
Title 42, USC §3735 and 3789g (enclosed). There are no risks or benefits to your agency based on your
decision to participate in this survey. However, your response is very important in order to help the
federal government and state and local policy makers understand administrative aspects of your agency
and others like yours.
If you prefer to submit your survey via paper, you may download a paper version of the survey from the
website above. You may also request a paper survey by emailing RTI at <> or calling
<>. Upon receipt of your agency’s request you will receive a paper version of the
survey within 2 business days. A postage-paid envelope will be provided to return your completed survey.
If you have any general comments about this data collection, please contact me at <> or <>. If you have questions about the LEMAS survey, need to change the point of contact at your
agency, or need to update your contact information (including e-mail address), please contact Michael
Keating, the RTI data collection task leader, via phone or e-mail at (800) ###-#### or [email protected].
Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to our continued work together.
Sincerely,
Shelley Hyland, Ph.D.
Program Manager
Bureau of Justice Statistics

U. S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
Bureau of Justice Statistics

Washington, D.C. 20531

«Date»
«Salutation» «ContactFirstName» «ContactLastName»
«Agency Name»
«ContactAddress1» «ContactAddress2»
«ContactCity», «ContactState» «ContactZip»
Dear «Salutation» «ContactLastName»:
We have made several attempts to contact you over the past few months regarding your participation in the
Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics (LEMAS)
survey. Your law enforcement agency is among a select group of agencies asked to participate in this data
collection.
We are writing today to notify you that there are only a few weeks remaining to complete the survey. We must
receive your response by [DATE] or the data from your agency will be excluded from the study results. As a
reminder, your participation is vital to the success of the survey. The 2016 LEMAS survey captures information
about the changing aspects of law enforcement organization, resources, functions, personnel, salaries, training,
collective bargaining, information systems, policies, and use of technology. It will include items that are
relevant to all law enforcement agencies (LEAs) – regardless of agency size. The reliability of the study’s
results directly depends on the participation of the selected LEAs; your LEA cannot be replaced.
The online survey will remain open until «Date». Please complete the questionnaire by using the following
link: «URL» and entering your survey access code «PIN».
Alternatively, if you prefer to submit your data by mail, enclosed in this packet you will find a paper version of
the survey and a business reply envelope to facilitate the return of your completed form.
If you have any general comments about this data collection, please contact Shelley Hyland, BJS Program
Manager, at <> or <>. If you have questions about the operation of the web survey, have
difficulty accessing the website, or need instruction in completing the paper survey, please contact Michael
Keating, the RTI data collection task leader, via phone or e-mail at (800) ###-#### or [email protected]. We will be
happy to assist you with any questions you might have.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Jeri M. Mulrow
Acting Director
Bureau of Justice Statistics
Enclosures: 2016 LEMAS Survey; Business reply envelope