Download:
pdf |
pdf2020 LEMAS OMB Attachments
Attachment 1: 34 USC 10132
Attachment 2: List of survey items by domain and legacy
Attachment 3: List of known publications using LEMAS data
Attachment 4: Cognitive interview report
Attachment 5: 60-day notice
Attachment 6: 30-day notice
Attachment 7: Comments in response to 60-day notice
Attachment 8: Prenotification letter
Attachment 9: Survey invitation letter
Attachment 10: Letter of support (local police)
Attachment 11: Letter of support (sheriff)
Attachment 12: Study flyer
Attachment 13: Agency point of contact update form
Attachment 14: Survey content sheet
Attachment 15: Email invitation
Attachment 16: Completion thank you
Attachment 17: First reminder letter
Attachment 18: Local and primary state police agencies survey
Attachment 19: Sheriffs’ offices survey
Attachment 20: Second reminder (email)
Attachment 21: Third reminder (postcard)
Attachment 22: Fourth reminder (email)
Attachment 23: Fifth reminder (letter)
Attachment 24: Telephone non-response contact script
Attachment 25: Sixth reminder (letter)
Attachment 26: Seventh reminder (email)
Attachment 27: End of study letter
Attachment 28: End of study email
3/10/2020
Attachment 1: 34 USC 10132
34 USC 10132: Bureau of Justice Statistics
Text contains those laws in effect on December 19, 2019
Pending Updates: Pub L. 116-92 (12/20/2019) [View Details]
From Title 34-CRIME CONTROL AND LAW ENFORCEMENT
Subtitle I-Comprehensive Acts
CHAPTER 101-JUSTICE SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT
SUBCHAPTER III-BUREAU OF JUSTICE STATISTICS
Jump To:
Source Credit
References In Text
Codification
Prior Provisions
Amendments
Effective Date
Miscellaneous
§10132. 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. 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;
(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;
1/7
3/10/2020
Attachment 1: 34 USC 10132
(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 comprehensive 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 10231 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 VII.
(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;
(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) shall provide
such information to the Bureau as is required to carry out the purposes of this section.
2/7
3/10/2020
Attachment 1: 34 USC 10132
(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 ; Pub. L. 112–166, §2(h)(1), Aug.
10, 2012, 126 Stat. 1285 .)
R
T
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 of 1968 Act note set out under section 10101 of this title and Tables.
C
Section was formerly classified to section 3732 of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare, prior to
editorial reclassification and renumbering as this section.
P
P
A prior section 302 of Pub. L. 90–351, title I, June 19, 1968, 82 Stat. 200 ; Pub. L. 93–83, §2, Aug. 6, 1973,
87 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.
A
2012-Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 112–166 struck out ", by and with the advice and consent of the Senate" before
period at end of first sentence.
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
3/7
Attachment 1: 34 USC 10132
3/10/2020
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.
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 10231
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).
E
D
2012 A
Amendment by Pub. L. 112–166 effective 60 days after Aug. 10, 2012, and applicable to appointments
made on and after that effective date, including any nomination pending in the Senate on that date, see
section 6(a) of Pub. L. 112–166, set out as a note under section 113 of Title 6, Domestic Security.
E
D
1984 A
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 10101 of this title.
C
2010 A
Pub. L. 111–211, title II, §251(c), July 29, 2010, 124 Stat. 2298 , provided that: "Nothing in this section
[amending this section and section 41507 of this title] 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.]
D
C
Pub. L. 115–391, title VI, §610, Dec. 21, 2018, 132 Stat. 5245 , provided that:
"(a) N
P
S
P
.-Beginning not later than 1 year after the date of enactment
of this Act [Dec. 21, 2018], and annually thereafter, pursuant to the authority under section 302 of the
Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3732) [now 34 U.S.C. 10132], the Director
of the Bureau of Justice Statistics, with information that shall be provided by the Director of the Bureau of
Prisons, shall include in the National Prisoner Statistics Program the following:
"(1) The number of prisoners (as such term is defined in section 3635 of title 18, United States Code, as
added by section 101(a) of this Act) who are veterans of the Armed Forces of the United States.
"(2) The number of prisoners who have been placed in solitary confinement at any time during the
previous year.
"(3) The number of female prisoners known by the Bureau of Prisons to be pregnant, as well as
the outcomes of such pregnancies, including information on pregnancies that result in live birth,
stillbirth, miscarriage, abortion, ectopic pregnancy, maternal death, neonatal death, and preterm birth.
"(4) The number of prisoners who volunteered to participate in a substance abuse treatment
program, and the number of prisoners who have participated in such a program.
4/7
Attachment 1: 34 USC 10132
3/10/2020
"(5) The number of prisoners provided medication-assisted treatment with medication approved by
the Food and Drug Administration while in custody in order to treat substance use disorder.
"(6) The number of prisoners who were receiving medication-assisted treatment with medication
approved by the Food and Drug Administration prior to the commencement of their term of
imprisonment.
"(7) The number of prisoners who are the parent or guardian of a minor child.
"(8) The number of prisoners who are single, married, or otherwise in a committed relationship.
"(9) The number of prisoners who have not achieved a GED, high school diploma, or equivalent
prior to entering prison.
"(10) The number of prisoners who, during the previous year, received their GED or other
equivalent certificate while incarcerated.
"(11) The numbers of prisoners for whom English is a second language.
"(12) The number of incidents, during the previous year, in which restraints were used on a female
prisoner during pregnancy, labor, or postpartum recovery, as well as information relating to the type of
restraints used, and the circumstances under which each incident occurred.
"(13) The vacancy rate for medical and healthcare staff positions, and average length of such a
vacancy.
"(14) The number of facilities that operated, at any time during the previous year, without at least 1
clinical nurse, certified paramedic, or licensed physician on site.
"(15) The number of facilities that during the previous year were accredited by the American
Correctional Association.
"(16) The number and type of recidivism reduction partnerships described in section 3621(h)(5) of
title 18, United States Code, as added by section 102(a) of this Act, entered into by each facility.
"(17) The number of facilities with remote learning capabilities.
"(18) The number of facilities that offer prisoners video conferencing.
"(19) Any changes in costs related to legal phone calls and visits following implementation of
section 3632(d)(1) of title 18, United States Code, as added by section 101(a) of this Act.
"(20) The number of aliens in prison during the previous year.
"(21) For each Bureau of Prisons facility, the total number of violations that resulted in reductions
in rewards, incentives, or time credits, the number of such violations for each category of violation, and
the demographic breakdown of the prisoners who have received such reductions.
"(22) The number of assaults on Bureau of Prisons staff by prisoners and the number of criminal
prosecutions of prisoners for assaulting Bureau of Prisons staff.
"(23) The capacity of each recidivism reduction program and productive activity to accommodate
eligible inmates at each Bureau of Prisons facility.
"(24) The number of volunteers who were certified to volunteer in a Bureau of Prisons facility,
broken down by level (level I and level II), and by each Bureau of Prisons facility.
"(25) The number of prisoners enrolled in recidivism reduction programs and productive activities
at each Bureau of Prisons facility, broken down by risk level and by program, and the number of those
enrolled prisoners who successfully completed each program.
"(26) The breakdown of prisoners classified at each risk level by demographic characteristics,
including age, sex, race, and the length of the sentence imposed.
"(b) R
J
C
.-Beginning not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this
Act [Dec. 21, 2018], and annually thereafter for a period of 7 years, the Director of the Bureau of Justice
Statistics shall submit a report containing the information described in paragraphs (1) through (26) of
subsection (a) to the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate and the Committee on the Judiciary of the
House of Representatives."
I
H
V
N
C
V
S
Pub. L. 113–235, div. B, title II, Dec. 16, 2014, 128 Stat. 2191 , provided in part: "That beginning not later
than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act [div. B of Pub. L. 113–235, Dec. 16, 2014], as part of
each National Crime Victimization Survey, the Attorney General shall include statistics relating to honor
violence".
S
C
A
S
Pub. L. 106–534, §5, Nov. 22, 2000, 114 Stat. 2557 , provided that:
"(a) I G
.-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) I
A
.-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;
5/7
Attachment 1: 34 USC 10132
3/10/2020
and
"(B) the nature and extent of telemarketing, sweepstakes, and repair fraud against seniors;
"(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."
I
S
N
C
V
S
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 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."
C
V
W
D
A
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) F
.-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) P
.-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.
6/7
3/10/2020
Attachment 1: 34 USC 10132
"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) I G
.-The Attorney General shall conduct a study to increase knowledge and information
about crimes against individuals with developmental disabilities that will be useful in developing new
strategies to reduce the incidence of crimes against those individuals.
"(b) I
A
.-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) N
A
S
.-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) R
.-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."
7/7
Attachment 2
2020 LEMAS Survey Items and Trends
2016
Item
Section I: Descriptive Information
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.
N/A
2
3
4
5
6
Item
Justification for New Item/Expanded Options or
Trend* Reason for Removal
Change to Item in 2020 Survey
Y
2020 LEMAS does not ask about authorized full-time paid positions
but does ask about full-time sworn officer vacancies (Q2). Local
department version does not ask about officers with limited arrest
powers. Sheriff version groups limited and no arrest powers together.
Enter the number of full-time sworn officer vacancies for the pay
period that included June 30, 2019
N
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: responding to calls for service, community
policing, school resource officers
Y
As of June 30, 2016, how many RESERVE or AUXILIARY OFFICERS
did your agency have?
Y
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.
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.
Did your agency’s total operating budget for the fiscal year that
included June 30, 2019 include a line item for community policing
activities?
Section II: Personnel
Not asked in 2020 LEMAS
Question removed to reduce burden
Not asked in 2020 LEMAS
P
Y
Now Q9A in 2020 LEMAS
Y
Now Q10 in Local 2020 LEMAS and Q11 in Sheriff 2020 LEMAS
N
Added to address growing need for information on
community policing implementation
New item for 2020 LEMAS
Trend Justification for New Item/Expanded Options
Change to Item in 2020 Survey
Y
Q14a in Local and Q17a in Sheriff. Limited to SWORN recruits
Y
Q14b in Local and Q17b in Sheriff. Limited to SWORN recruits
8
9
How many total hours of ACADEMY training and FIELD training
(e.g., with FTO) are required of your agency's new officer recruits? Y
7b
Question removed to reduce burden
Changes to some response options. 2016 response options split
across 2020 survey versions. "Dispatchers only" is added as a subresponse option to the "Support" response option (previously
"Technical support"). Personnel with court functions removed from
municipal police version, only included in Sheriff version. May impact
trend ability for some response categories.
Indicate your agency's minimum education requirement which
new officer recruits must have at hiring or within two years of
hiring.
Does your agency consider MILITARY SERVICE as an exemption to
this minimum education requirement?
Does your agency require a new officer recruit to be a U.S. citizen
before hire?
7a
This question was added to better inform policymakers'
need for more information about staffing needs and
shortfalls
N
Question removed to reduce burden
Not asked in 2020 LEMAS
Question was disaggregated by mandated and additional Q16 in 2020 and Q19 in 2020 Sheriff. 2020 LEMAS break down
training hours because agencies can add significant
responses by state mandated hours and additional training hours and
include a total hours of training row
additional training beyond minimum requirements
Attachment 2
2020 LEMAS Survey Items and Trends
10
11
12
13
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
14
15
16
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?
Enter the number of FULL-TIME agency personnel who were
bilingual as of June 30,2016.
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.
On average, how many total weeks does it take to hire an entrylevel SWORN officer?
Which of the following types of applicants for entry-level SWORN
officer hires were targeted through special recruitment efforts
during the fiscal year including June 30, 2019?
Did your agency offer any of the following incentives for entrylevel SWORN officer hires during the fiscal year including June 30,
2019?
Which of the following best describes your agency's exit interview
policy used to assess officers' reasons for departure?
Enter the salary schedule for the following FULL-TIME SWORN
positions as of June 30, 2019.
Did your agency authorize or provide any of the following special
pay for SWORN officers during the fiscal year including June 30,
2019?
Did your agency use any of the following methods to increase its
retention rate for your FULL-TIME SWORN officers during the fiscal
year including June 30, 2019?
What is the standard shift length for SWORN PATROL/ROAD
officers in your agency?
Enter the number of FULL-TIME SWORN personnel by RACE and
SEX for the pay period that included June 30,2016.
Enter the SEX and RACE of the chief executive (i.e. Chief of Police,
Sheriff, Commissioner) for your agency as of June 30, 2016.
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.
Is collective bargaining authorized for your agency's employees?
17
Trend: Y-Yes, N-No, P-Partial
Y
Y
Q17 in 2020 Local and Q20 in 2020 Sheriff . 2020 LEMAS break down
responses by state mandated hours and additional training hours and
include a total hours of training row. Change in language from NONPROBATIONARY to FULL-TIME SWORN
Two additional response categories were added to better
capture the activities agencies undertake to screen
Q15 in 2020 Local and Q18 in 2020 Sheriff. Some different response
candidates
options from 2016 to 2020
Y
N
Item added in 2016 to address Task Force
recommendation 2.5.1
Q7 in 2020 LEMAS
Question has been modified for 2020 LEMAS. Officer separations are
disaggregated by reason for separation and officer hiring
disaggregated by type of hire
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Q4 in 2020 LEMAS
Y
P
Race added in 2016 LEMAS to address Task Force
recommendation 2.5.1
Sex can be trended with 2012 LEMAS; Q5 in 2020 LEMAS
N
Question added in 2016 to address Task Force
recommendation 2.5.1
Q6 in 2020 LEMAS
Y
Question removed to reduce burden
Not asked in 2020 LEMAS
Attachment 2
2020 LEMAS Survey Items and Trends
Trend Justification for New Item/Expanded Options
Item
Section III: Operations
18
Enter the total number of calls for service (i.e., 911 calls, nonemergence 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
20
Section IV: Community Policing
Question removed to reduce burden
Not asked in 2020 LEMAS
Question removed to reduce burden
Not asked in 2020 LEMAS
Trend Justification for New Item/Expanded Options
As of June 30, 2016, did your agency’s mission statement include a
community policing component?
Y
Change to Item in 2020 Survey
Question removed to reduce burden
Change to Item in 2020 Survey
Not asked in 2020 LEMAS
23
During the fiscal period including June 30, 2016, which of the
following did your agency do?
Y
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.)?
Y
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?
Y
24
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?
Y
Question removed to reduce burden
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?
Y
Response categories for partnerships with universities,
federal law enforcement agencies, law enforcement
associations, and victim services providers were included Q11 in 2020 Local and Q14 in 2020 Sheriff. Additional response
to better understand the use of partnerships
options in 2020 LEMAS
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 or crime, OR satisfaction with police?
Question removed to reduce burden
27
During the fiscal year including June 30, 2016, did your agency use
information from a survey of citizens for any of the following?
P
21
22
Item
28
29
Section V: Equipment
Y
Additional agency engagement strategies were added to Q13 in 2020 Local and Q16 in 2020 Sheriff. Additional response
better describe community policing actions.
options in 2020 LEMAS
Question removed to reduce burden
Not asked in 2020 LEMAS
Question removed to reduce burden
Not asked in 2020 LEMAS
Not asked in 2020 LEMAS
Trend Justification for New Item/Expanded Options
Does your agency supply or give a cash allowance to its FULL-TIME
SWORN personnel to purchase the following?
Y
Which types of sidearms are authorized for use by your agency’s
FULL-TIME SWORN personnel?
Y
Not asked in 2020 LEMAS
Similar question asked in 2020 LEMAS but worded differently with
different response options. Q12 in Local and Q15 in Sheriff. Changes
may impact ability to trend.
Change to Item in 2020 Survey
Question removed to reduce burden
Not asked in 2020 LEMAS
Question removed to reduce burden
Not asked in 2020 LEMAS
Attachment 2
2020 LEMAS Survey Items and Trends
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
N/A
Change in response category may impact trending. Q28 in 2020 Local
and Q31 in 2020 Sheriff. Change in response category may impact
trending. Q30 and 31 from the 2016 LEMAS were combined in the
2020 LEMAS and both refer to weapon AUTHORIZATION not issuance.
2020 item separates responses by on-duty and off-duty instead of all
sworn and some sworn as in 2016 LEMAS.
Q28 in 2020 Local and Q31 in 2020 Sheriff. Q30 and 31 from the 2016
LEMAS were combined in the 2020 LEMAS and both now refer to
weapon authorization not issuance. 2020 LEMAS item separates
responses by on-duty and off-duty instead of all sworn and some
sworn as in 2016 LEMAS.
Which types of secondary firearms does your agency issue to FULLTIME SWORN personnel or authorize for use?
P
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?
P
As of June 30, 2016, does your agency require written
documentation when the following types of WEAPONS or ACTIONS
are used?
Y
Does your agency REQUIRE uniformed field/patrol officers to wear
protective body armor while in the field?
Y
Does your agency REQUIRE uniformed field/patrol officers to wear
their seat belt while driving or riding in an agency vehicle?
Enter the total number of motorized vehicles operated by your
agency as of June 30, 2016.
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?
As of June 30, 2019, how many handlers and K-9s did your agency
employ?
What types of activities did your K-9s engage in?
N/A
Trend: Y-Yes, N-No, P-Partial
Question removed to reduce burden
Not asked in 2020 LEMAS
Question removed to reduce burden
Not asked in 2020 LEMAS
N
Question removed to reduce burden
Not asked in 2020 LEMAS
Y
Question removed to reduce burden
Not asked in 2020 LEMAS
Y
Q29 in 2020 Local and Q32 in 2020 Sheriff
N
N
2020 LEMAS explores specific activities conducted by K-9 units
Attachment 2
2020 LEMAS Survey Items and Trends
Item
Section VI: Technology
Trend Justification for New Item/Expanded Options
37
During the fiscal year including June 30, 2016, did your agency
maintain a website for any of the following?
P
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
Item
45
During the fiscal year including June 30, 2016, did your agency use
any of following social media to communicate with the public?
Y
As of June 30, 2016, did your agency use computers for any of the
following functions?
P
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?
Y
During the fiscal year including June 30, 2016, did your agency use
any of the following technologies on a REGULAR basis?
Y
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?
Y
As of June 30, 2016, did your agency have an operational computerbased 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
Section VII: Policies and Procedures
50
Does your agency have a written policy or procedural directives on
the following?
P
As of June 30, 2016, does your agency require an external
investigation in the following situations?
P
Is there a civilian complaint review board/agency in your
jurisdiction that reviews complaints against officers in your
agency?
Y
Does the civilian review board/agency have independent
investigative authority with subpoena powers?
Y
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?
Y
N/A
As of June 30, 2019, do your FULL-TIME SWORN officers regularly
check the immigration status of persons detained?
46
47
48
49
Shortened to binary website question in 2020 LEMAS. Q32 in Local
and Q35 in Sheriff
Different response options and question references "data" not
"computers". Now Q34 in the Local and Q37 in the Sheriff
Question removed to reduce burden
Not asked in 2020 LEMAS
Responses added for computer aided dispatch, records
management systems, and geographic information
systems to better capture technology use
Q33 in the Local and Q36 in the Sheriff
Question removed to reduce burden
Not asked in 2020 LEMAS
Q40 in 2020 Local. Still Q43 in Sheriff
Question removed to reduce burden
Trend Justification for New Item/Expanded Options
Which of the following best describes your agency’s written policy
for pursuit driving?
Y
N
Change to Item in 2020 Survey
2016 LEMAS had additional questions capturing content available
online. 2020 LEMAS shortened to yes/no question. Q31 in Local and
Q34 in Sheriff.
Question removed to reduce burden
Not asked in 2020 LEMAS
Change to Item in 2020 Survey
Additional policies added to assess Task Force
recommendation 2.7.1 and 2.13
Not asked in 2020 LEMAS
Q35 in 2020 Local and Q38 in 2020 Sheriff. 2016 and 2020 LEMAS
have different response options; the 2020 LEMAS collect maximum
work hours allowed.
Added to address Task Force recommendation 2.2.2
Q43 in the 2020 Local and Q46 in the 2020 Sheriff
Q42 in 2020 Local and Q45 in 2020 Sheriff
Question removed to reduce burden
Not asked in 2020 LEMAS
Question removed to reduce burden
Not asked in 2020 LEMAS
Attachment 2
2020 LEMAS Survey Items and Trends
N/A
N/A
Under what circumstances do your FULL-TIME SWORN officers
regularly check immigration status?
N
Do your FULL-TIME SWORN officers verify immigration status with
the Department of Homeland Security?
N
N/A
What are the reasons your FULL-TIME SWORN officers do not
regularly check immigration status of persons detained?
As of June 30, 2019, does your agency have an operational
computerized Early Intervention System for monitoring or
responding to problematic officer behavior?
Item
Section VIII: Special Problems/Tasks
N/A
As of June 30, 2016, how did your agency address the following
problems/tasks?
51
Trend: Y-Yes, N-No, P-Partial
N
N
Early intervention systems are becoming an increasingly
important component of managing officer behavior and
reducing agency risk
Trend Justification for New Item/Expanded Options
P
Additional problems and tasks were added to explore
agency response to emerging issues. This includes
approaches towards accreditation, homelessness and
mental health, opioids, and sexual assault response
Change to Item in 2020 Survey
Q8 in 2020 LEMAS. 2016 and 2020 LEMAS have some different
response options. May impact ability to trend.
Attachment 3: LEMAS Publications
Authors
Year
Jurek, Alicia L.; King, William R.
2020
Mughan, Sian; Li, Danyao; NicholsonCrotty, Sean
2020
Paez, Rocio A.; Dierenfeldt, Rick
2020
Aiello, Michael F.
2019
Balestrieri, Blythe A.B.
2019
Boss, Daniel
2019
Breslin, Rachel A.
2019
Brooks, Connor
Burkhardt, Brett C.; Baker, Keith
2019
2019
Carter, Jeremy G.; Fox, Bryanna
2019
Chand, Daniel E.
2019
Title
Structural responses to gendered social problems: Police agency adaptations to
human trafficking
When law enforcement pays: Costs and benefits for elected versus appointed
administrators engaged in asset forfeiture.
Community policing and youth offending: a comparison of large and small
jurisdictions in the United States
Influential Women? Policing Styles in Online Recruitment Materials.
Law enforcment activities in Virginia's primary and non-primary sheriff's offices:
Final report.
Police Education: An Analysis of the Effects of Educational Requirements for Police
Officers On Citizen Complaints.
Police response to intimate partner violence and victim willingness to report:
Representative bureaucracy through an intersectional lens
Sheriffs' Offices, 2016: Personnel
Agency correlates of police militarization: The case of MRAPs
Community policing and intelligence-led policing: An examination of convergent or
discriminant validity
Is it population or personnel? The effects of diversity on immigration policy
implementation by sheriff offices.
Publication Title
Publisher
Police Quarterly
Sage Journals
American Review of Public Administration
Sage Journals
Volume
23
Start
page
Issue no.
1
25
End
page
54
1
International Journal of Adolescence and Youth Taylor & Francis Online
25
1
140
153
Police Quarterly
23
1
3
24
Sage Journals
Virginia Commonwealth University
Policing: An international journal
Emerald Insight
Public Performance & Management Review
Taylor & Francis Online
22
NCJ 252834
2
161
191
42
1
43
58
0
2019
Sactuary cities: The politics of refuge
Deller, Camille; Deller, Steven C.
Dierenfeldt, Rick; Shadwick, Joshua T.;
Kwak, Hyounggon
Fridel, Emma E.; Sheppard, Keller G.;
Zimmernman, Gregory M.
Harvey, Anne; Mattia, Taylor;
2019
Women & Criminal Justice
Taylor & Francis Online
Deviant Behavior
Taylor & Francis Online
Journal of Quantitative Criminology
Springer
Hu, Xiaochen; Lovrich, Nicholas P.
2019
Women in Law Enforcement and Police Use of Deadly Force
Examining gender- and drug-specific arrest counts: A partial test of Agnew's general
strain theory
Integrating the literature on police use of deadly force and police lethal
victimization: How does place impact fatal police-citizen encounters
Reducing racial disparities in crime victimization
Social media and the police: A study of organizational characteristics associated
with the use of social media
Policing: An international journal
Emerald Insight
42
4
654
670
2019
Estimates of law enforcement costs by crime type for benefit-cost analyses
Journal of benefit-cost analysis
Cambridge University Press
10
1
95
123
2019
Local police departments, 2016; Personnel
Hunt, Priscillia E;, Saunders, Jessica;
Kilmer, Beau
Hyland, Shelley S.; Davis, Elizabeth
Johnson, Odis; St. Vil, Christopher; Gilbert,
Keon L.; Goodman, Melody; Johnson,
Cassandra A.
2019
2019
2019
How neighborhoods matter in fatal interactions between police and men of color
Oxford University Press
29
3
163
180
U.S. Department of Justice
NCJ 252835
Social Science & Medicine
Elsevier
220
Public Performance & Management Review
Taylor & Francis Online
42
226
235
554
579
Kingshott, Brian F.; Meesig, Robert T.
2019
Lawson, Edward E.
Lum, Cynthia; Koper, Christopher S.; Willis,
James; Happeny, Stephen; Vovak, Heather;
Nichols, Jordan
Malega, Ron; Garner, Joel H.
2019
2019
The rapid diffusion of license plate readers in US law enforcement agencies
Policing: An international journal
Emerald Insight
2019
Sage Journals
22
1
56
81
2019
American Journal of Criminal Justice
Springer
44
5
836
857
McCarty, William P.; Aldirawi, Hani;
Dewald, Stacy; Palacios, Mariana
2019
Police Quarterly
Sage Journals
22
3
278
304
Miller, Amalia R.; Segal, C.
2019
The Review of Economic Studies
Oxford Academic
86
5
2220
2247
Nicholson-Crotty, Jill; Nicholson-Crotty,
Sean; Li, Danyao
Sworn volunteers in American policing, 1999 to 2013
Feeling blue: Officer perceptions of public antipathy predict police occupational
norms
Burnout in blue: An analysis of the extent and primary predictors of burnout among
law enforcement officers in the United States
Do female officers improve law enforcement quality? Effects on crime reporting and
domestic violence
Police Quarterly
Marier, Christopher, J.; Moule, Richard K.
2019
Recruit screening, representation, and the moral hazard problem in policing.
Public Performance & Management Review
Taylor & Francis Online
42
2
483
503
Nowacki, Jeffrey S.; Spencer, Tyrell
2019
Police discretion, organizational characteristics, and traffic stops: An analysis of
racial disparity in illinois
International Journal of Police Science and
Management
Sage Journals
Nowacki, Jeffrey; Willits, Dale
2019
An organizational approach to understanding police response to cybercrime
Policing: An international journal
Emerald Insight
Posser, Chad B.
2019
Pryor, Cori; Boman, John H.; Mowen,
Thomas J.; McCamman, Michael
Intelligence-Led Policing: Linking Local and State Policies to Establish a Common
Definition
2019
A national study of sustained use of force complaints in law enforcement agencies
2019
Kelly, Brian
Kennedy, Logan P.
2019
2019
3
Institute for Justice
University of Nevada
Journal of Applied Security Research
Taylor & Francis Online
14
1
3
31
21
1
4
16
1
0
1
1
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
University of Mississippi
Elsevier
0
1
0
1
University of South Carolina
Journal of Criminal Justice
1
1
1
Volunteer Involvement and Organizational Performance: The Use of Volunteer
Officers in Public Safety.
Fighting crime or raising revenue? Testing opposing views of forfeiture
Policing Protests: An Exploratory Analysis of Crowd Management
Does community policing help to solve crime? A look at its relationships with crime
clearance rates
Causes and Consequences of Police Militarization
Kang, Seong, C.
0
1
1
1
Collingwood, Loren; O'Brien, Benjamin G.
2019
1
0
0
George Mason University
Police Quarterly
1
0
Youngstown State University
U.S. Department of Justice
Sage Journals
1
64
23
33
1
Peer
Reviewed
Attachment 3: LEMAS Publications
1
Ramchand, Rajeev; Saunders, Jessica;
Osilla, Karen; Ebener, Patricia; Kotzias,
Virginia; Thornton, Elizabeth; Strang, Lucy;
Cahill, Meagan
2019
Suicide prevention in U.S. law enforcement agencies: A national survey of current
practices.
Richardson, Nicholas J.
2019
Saunders, Jessica; Kotzias, Virginia;
Ramchand, Rajeev
To Arrest (Or Not): An Examination of Race and Sexual Orientation on the
Likelihood of Arrest in Domestic Violence Encounters
2019
Contemporary police stress: The impact of the evolving socio-political context
Scherer, Jacqueline A.
2019
Identifying Effective Strategies for Robbery Investigations: An Examination of
Organizational Factors, Investigative Processes and Detective Characteristics.
George Mason University
Schuck, Amie M.; Rabe-Hemp, Cara
2019
Inequalities regimes in policing: Examining the connection between social exclusion
Race and Justice
and order maintenance strategies
Sage Journals
9
3
228
250
Scott, Thomas L.; Wellford, Charles; Lum,
Cynthia; Vovak, Heather
2019
Variability of crime clearance among police agencies
Sage Journals
22
1
82
111
Shjarback, John A.; Todak, Natalie
2019
The prevalence of female representation in supervisory and management positions
Women & Criminal Justice
in American law enforcement: An examination of organizational correlates
Taylor & Francis Online
29
3
129
147
Simpson, Rylan; Hipp, John R.
Singla, Akheil; Kirschner, Charlotte; Stone,
Samuel B.
2019
29
6
706
726
Worrall, John L.
Aiello, Michael F.
Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology.
Springer
34
1
55
66
0
North Carolina State University
20
Criminology, Criminal Justice, Law and Society
Police Quarterly
1
35
52
0
A typological approach to studying policing
Race, representation, and revenue: Reliance on fines and forfeitures in city
governments
Policing and Society
Taylor & Francis Online
Urban Affairs Review
Sage Journals
2019
Investigative resources and crime clearances: A group-based trajectory approach.
Criminal Justice Policy Review
Sage Journals
30
2
155
175
2018
Policing through social networking: Testing the linkage between digital and physical The Police Journal: Theory, Practice and
police practices
Principles
Sage Journals
91
1
89
101
2019
Baumgartner, Frank R.; Christiani, Leah;
Epp, Derek; Roach, Kevin; Shoub, Kelsey
2018
Bond, Brenda J.; Gabriele, Kathryn R.
2018
Boustead, Anne E.
2018
Chalfin, Aaron; McCrary, Justin
Clifton, Stacey; Torres, Jose; Hawdon,
James
2018
Corsaro, Nicholas; Wilson, Jeremy M.
2018
2018
The effects of police contracting on crime: An examination of Compton, California
Criminal Justice Policy Review
Sage Journals
29
1
67
88
Hoover Institution
Harvard Kennedy School
100
1
167
186
American Journal of Criminal Justice
Springer
34
3
831
852
Journal of Experimental Criminology
Springer
14
1
59
81
2018
Collaborative stakeholder engagement: An integration between theories of
organizational legitimacy and learning
Academy of Management Journal
Academy of Management
61
Diehr, Aaron J.; McDaniel, Justin T.
2018
Lack of community-oriented policing practices partially mediates the relationship
between racial residential segregation and 'black-on-black' homicide rates
Preventative Medicine
Elsevier
112
Dinsmore, Ellen
2018
Dirlam, Jonathan
2018
1
220
244
179
184
Blurring the thin blue line: The rise of the military model in U.S. policing
Cycle of Violence: Interconnections Between Justifiable Homicides by the Police
and Citizens and the Killing of Police Officers
A multi-level study of clearance: The role of gender
'Representative Bureaucracy' in Police Hiring Practices: A Case Study of a Diverse
Police Agency
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
University of Wisconsin
Ohio State University
2018
Edel, Sara F.
2018
Gaines, Dustin C.
2018
The correlates of specialized police gang units
Garner, Joel H.; Hickman, Matthew J.;
Malega, Ronald W.; Maxwell, Christopher
D.
2018
Progress toward national estimates of police use of force
PloS one
PubMed Central (PMC)
13
2
Giblin, Matthew J.; Nowacki, Jeffrey S.
2018
Organizational decline and fiscal distress in municipal police agencies
Police Quarterly
Sage Journals
21
2
Grant, Jordan A.; Henning, Kris R.
2018
Public Access to Crime Maps from Police Agencies: Frequency, Agency
Characteristics, and Maps Used
Student Research Symposium
Portland State University
Headley, Andrea M.
2018
Understanding the Organizational Factors That Impact Police-Community Relations
Hendrix, Josh A.; Taniguchi, Travis A.;
Strom, Kevin J.; Barrick, Kelle; Johnson,
Nicole J.
2018
he eyes of law enforcement in the new panopticon: Police-community racial
asymmetry and the use of surveillance technology.
Surveillance & Society
Surveillance Studies Network
16
1
53
68
Holcomb, Jefferson E.; Williams, Marian R.;
Hicks, William D.; Kovandzic, Tomislav V.;
Meitl, Michele B.
2018
Civil asset forfeiture laws and equitable sharing activity by the police.
Criminology & Public Policy
Wiley Online Library
17
1
101
127
Policing: An Internation Journal
Emerald Insight
41
4
465
481
Koslicki, Wendy M.; Willits, Dale
1
1
Dole, Jenna L.
Koslicki, Wendy M.
1
0
A Hoover Institution Essay
Review of Economics and Statistics
Desai, Vinit M.
Huff, Jessica; White, Michael, D.; Decker,
Scott H.
Hyland, Shelley
Kenyon, Matthew D.
1
0
Policing the powerless: How Black political power reduces racial disparities in traffic
stops outcomes
Research and planning units: An innovation instrument in the 21st century police
organization
Small Towns, Big Companies: How Surveillance Intermediaries Affect Small and
Midsize Law Enforcement Agencies
Are U.S. cities underpoliced? Theory and evidence
Whatever gets you through the night: Officer coping strategies after the high-profile
line of duty deaths in Dallas and Baton Rouge
1
0
0
University of New Mexico
University of North Dakota
0
Sam Houston State University
1
171
195
1
0
0
Florida International University
1
1
2018
2018
2018
Organizational correlates of police deviance: A statewide analysis of misconduct in
Arizona, 2000-2011
Full-Time Employees in Law Enforcement Agencies, 1997-2016.
Correlates of procedural justice in American law enforcement
2018
Advertising Underlying Assumptions: A Quantitative Content Analysis of Militarized
and Community-Oriented Artifacts in Police Recruitment Videos.
2018
The iron fist in the velvet glove? Testing the militarization/community policing
paradox
U.S. Department of Justice
George Mason University
1
0
0
0
NCJ 251762
Washington State University
International Journal of Police Science and
Management
Sage Journals
20
2
143
154
1
Attachment 3: LEMAS Publications
Variability in the use of misdemeanor arrests by police agencies from 1990 to 2013:
Criminal Justice Policy Review
An application of group-based trajectory modeling.
Police Departments and Crime Status in Virginia Communities: An Assessment
from the Citizen Perspective.
Lum, Cynthia; Vovak, Heather
2018
Manheim, Frank T.; Bullock, Tim; Scott,
Jahtanya S.
2018
Marek, Heather E.
2018
Criminalizing Our Way to Racial Equality? An Empirical Look at Hate Regulation.
Matusiak, Randa E.; Matusiak, Matthew C.
2018
Structure and function: Impact on employment of women in law enforcement.
Women & Criminal Justice
Taylor & Francis Online
28
4
313
335
McCandless, Sean
2018
Improving community relations: How police strategies to improve accountability for
social equity affect citizen perceptions
Public Integrity
Taylor & Francis Online
20
4
370
385
Namgung, Hyon
2018
How can police agencies implement community policing? Create specialized units!
International Journal of Law, Crime, and
Justice
Elsevier
52
144
154
Nowacki, Jeffrey S.; Willits, Dale
2018
Adoption of body cameras by United States police agencies: an organisational
analysis
Policing and Society
Taylor & Francis Online
28
841
853
Preito-Hodge, Kayla
2018
A Tale of Force: Examining Factors That Influence Police Officer Use of Force.
Przeszlowski, Kimberly S.; Crichlow,
Vaughn J.
Rad, Abdul N.
2018
2018
An exploratory assessment of community-oriented policing implementation, social
disorganization and crime in America
Police Institutions and Police Abuse: Evidence from the US
The Effects of Community Policing Practices and Related Social Demographic
Variables on City Crime Rates.
Sage Journals
29
6-7
536
560
0
George Mason University
0
University of Oregon
7
7
3
Roth, Jeffrey J.
2018
Property crime clearance in small jurisdictions: Police and community factors.
Criminal Justice Review
Sage Journals
43
4
477
493
Schuck, Amie M.
2018
Women in policing and rape: Representative bureaucracy and organizational
change.
Feminist Criminology
Sage Journals
13
3
237
259
Schuck, Amie M.; Rabe-Hemp, Cara E.
2018
Investing in people: Salary and turnover in policing.
Policing: An Internation Journal
Emerald Insight
41
1
113
128
Taylor, David P.
2018
Law enforcement and the depiction of minorities and women on social media: A
review of municipal police department Facebook pictures.
Blacks in Policing and Organizational Change: A Comparison of Departments'
Participation in Community Oriented Policing Activities.
Bryant University
Race and Justice
Sage Journals
2018
Assessing (in)equality in the structural covariates of drug-specific arrest counts
Crime & Delinquency
Sage Journals
64
1
88
114
2018
Assessing the impact of community-oriented policing on arrest
Justice Quarterly
Taylor & Francis Online
35
3
526
555
2018
Role conflict and the psychological impacts of the post-Ferguson period on law
enforcement motivation, cynicism, and apprehensiveness.
Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology
Springer
Willis, James J.; Mastrofski, Stephen D.
2018
Improving policing by integrating craft and science: What can patrol officers teach
us about good police work?
Policing and Society
Taylor & Francis Online
28
1
27
44
Ajilore, Olugbenga
2017
Is there a 1033 effect? Police militarization and aggressive policing
Munich Personal RePEc Archive
Aldossari, Mobark Q.; Kim, Dan J.
2017
Does more IT utilization improve police performance?
Americas Conference on Information Systems
Bradford, John H.
2017
Carter, Jeremy G.; Grommon, Eric
2017
Collins, Megan E.; Parker, Susan T.; Scott,
Thomas L.; Wellford, Charles F.
2017
Cordner, Gary
2017
de Guzman, Melchor C.; Kim, MoonSun
2017
Dobrin, Adam
2017
Garcia, John A.
2017
A comparative analysis of crime guns
2017
Representative Bureaucracy and Racial Profiling in Missouri
Giblin, Matthew J.; Galli, Phillip M.
2017
Compensation as a police candidate attraction tool.
Grieco, Justin L.
2017
BRAC and Crime: Examining the Effects of an Installation's Closure on Local Crime
Hougland, Steven; Wolf, Ross
2017
Hur, Yongbeom
2017
Ingrams, Alex
2017
Jennings, Jay T.; Rubado, Meghan E.
2017
Johnson, William D.
2017
Accreditation in police agencies: Does external quality assurance reduce citizen
complaints?.
Does training matter in public organizations? Assessing training effects in the US
law enforcement agencies
Managing governance complexity and knowledge networks in transparency
initiatives: The case of police open data
Preventing the use of deadly force: The relationship between police agency policies
and rates of officer-involved gun deaths.
Evaluating the Integration of Hate Crime Law into Police Practice: A Content
Analysis of Police Agency Policies on Hate Crimes in Maryland.
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
MPRA Paper
No. 82543
0
0
Policing and Society
Taylor & Francis Online
27
8
847
864
RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of
the Social Sciences
The Russell Sage Foundation
3
5
96
127
Emerald Insight
40
1
11
25
Taylor & Francis Online
18
4
352
365
Police culture: Individual and organizational differences in police officer
Policing: An International Journal
perspectives
Community hierarchy of needs and policing models: Toward a new theory of police
Police Practice and Research
organizational behavior
International Journal of Police Science and
State-level estimates of the number of volunteer police in the United States
Management
The race project: Researching race in the social sciences researchers, measures,
Journal of Race, Ethnicity, and Politics
and scope of studies
Gbomina, Mercy H.
1
0
Nova Southeastern University
Tillyer, Rob
The Surprising Link Between Education and Fatal Police Shooting Rates in the
U.S., 2013-2016
Officer perceptions of the impact of mobile broadband technology on police
operations
1
1
Thomas, Shaun A.; Dierenfeldt, Rick
Torres, Jose; Reling, Timothy; Hawdon,
James
1
0
0
University of Oxford
2018
2018
1
1
Richardson, Keighan
Sever, Brion; Elg, Eric; Ellis, Sydney
1
0
University of Massachusetts
Social Sciences
1
1
Sage Journals
19
2
81
88
Cambridge University Press
2
2
300
346
20
4
397
419
Sage Journals
90
1
40
54
Emerald Insight
20
4
454
478
Local Government Studies
Taylor & Francis Online
43
3
364
387
Public Administration Review
Wiley
77
2
217
226
Sage Journals
Naval Postgraduate School
The Police Journal: Theory, Practice and
Principles
International Journal of Organization Theory
and Behavior
1
1
1
1
0
University of Missouri-Kansas City
Police Quarterly
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
0
George Mason University
Attachment 3: LEMAS Publications
Jurek, Alicia L.; Matusiak, Matthew C.;
Matusiak, Randa E.
Kennedy, Brandy A.; Butz, Adam M.;
Lajevardi, Nazita; Nanes, Matthew J.
2017
Structural elaboration in police organizations: An exploration
Policing: An International Journal
Emerald Insight
2017
Passive representation in American policing: Trends and changes, 1993-2013
Race and Representative Bureaucracy in
American Policing
Springer International
Kent, Stephanie L.; Carmichael, Jason T.
2017
Municipal law enforcement policy on illegal immigration stops: Do social factors
determine how aggressively local police respond to unauthorized immigrants?
Sociological Inquiry
Wiley Online Library
Krishnan, Kaushik
2017
Liu, Weiwei; Taylor, Bruce
2017
McCarty, William; Dewald, Stacy
2017
Essays in Labour Economics
873
881
111
Active representation and police response to sexual assault complaints
Journal of Crime and Justice
Taylor & Francis Online
40
1
20
33
Testing the school-to-prison pipeline
Powers, Danielle A.
2017
2017
2017
Schuck, Amie M.
2017
Schuck, Amie M.
2017
Shjarback, John; Decker, Scott; Rojek, Jeff
J.; Brunson, Rod K.
Titus, Alfred S.
2017
2017
0
University of California, Berkeley
99
2017
Roth, Jeffrey
448
11
Owens, Emily G.
Roesler, Katharina
421
1
Behind the Badge: Amid Protests and Calls for Reform, How Police View Their
Jobs, Key Issues and Recent Fatal Encounters Between Blacks and Police
2017
3
14
2017
2017
1
87
40
Morin, Rich; Parker, Kim; Stepler, Renee;
Mercer, Andrew
Youngstown State University
1
Pew Research Center
Journal of Policy Analysis and Management
Wiley Online Library
36
1
11
37
1
0
California State University
0
California State University
U.S. Department of Justice
University of North Carolina At
Chapel Hill
0
0
NCJ 250545
0
Stanford University
Criminal Justice Studies
Taylor & Francis Online
30
1
45
62
Women and Criminal Justice
Taylor & Francis Online
27
5
341
362
Criminal Justice Policy Review
Sage Journals
28
1
41
60
Policing: An International Journal
Emerald Insight
40
4
748
767
28
4
580
597
Walden University
Wood, McKenzie
2017
Boustead, Anne E.
2016
Police, Process, and Privacy: Three Essays on the Third Party Doctrine
Pardee RAND Graduate School
Bradley, Donna M.
2016
Comparing Police Performance in Union and Non-Union Municipal Departments.
Capella University
Burch, Andrea M.
2016
Cawley, William O.
2016
Sheriffs' Office Personnel, 1993–2013
Police Agency Adoption of Social Media as Related to Agency Size, Communityoriented Policing, and Technological Capacity
Haberfeld, Maria
2016
Comparative policing revisited: The struggle toward democracy in the 21st century
Hajjar, Lauren M.
2016
Understanding the Employment of Data-Driven Facilitators Within Law Enforcement
Agencies: Partnerships, Impaired Driving Task Forces and Other Strategies.
Journal of Criminal Justice Education
Taylor & Francis Online
U.S. Department of Justice
Taylor & Francis
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
NCJ 249757
Sam Houston State University
Human Rights
1
1
0
42
1
18
21
1
0
Brandeis University
'I Can Haz Applicants': An Analysis of Police Recruitment and Marketing through
Social Media.
Higher education and police performance
0
Helldorfer, Kelly L.
2016
Hernandez, Richard
2016
Hickman, Matthew J.; Poore, Jane E.
2016
National data on citizen complaints about police use of force: Data quality concerns
Criminal Justice Policy Review
and the potential (mis)use of statistical evidence to address police agency conduct
Sage Journals
27
5
455
479
Kelly, Brian D.; Kole, Maureen
Lum, Cynthia; Koper, Christopher S.; Willis,
James; Happeny, Stephen; Vovak, Heather;
Nichols, Jordan
Johnson, Olivia; Willman, Elizabeth;
Douglas, Robert; Neil-Sherwood, Michele;
Sherwood, Mark
2016
The effects of asset forfeiture on policing: A panel approach
Wiley Online Library
54
1
558
575
2016
The Rapid Diffusion of License Plate Readers in U.S. Law Enforcement Agencies:
A National Survey
2016
Police officer wellness evaluation response survey result
Journal of Law Enforcement
EBSCO
5
3
1
35
Legewie, Joscha; Fagan, Jeffrey
2016
Group Threat, Police Officer Diversity and the Deadly Use of Police Force.
Columbia Law School Public Law and Legal
Theory Working Paper Group
Columbia Law School
Ozkan, Turgut; Worrall, John L.; Piquero,
Alex, R.
2016
Does minority representation in police agencies reduce assaults on the police?
American Journal of Criminal Justice
Springer
Pang, Min-Seok; Pavlou, Paul A.
2016
On information technology and the safety of police officers
Fox School of Business Research Paper
Przeszlowski, Kimberly
1
1
0
0
Police Department Minimum Education Requirement and Use of Force.
Predicting Law Enforcement Officer Turnover and Use of Force from Variables
Measured by the 2013 Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics
(LEMAS) Survey
Police Vehicle Pursuits, 2012-2013
Black to Blue and White to Fright: Examining The Importance of Minority
Representation for Racial Profiling in Policing.
Police Professionalism and Racial Disparities in Arrest Rates: An Examination of
Police Discrimination, Discretion, And Diversity
A city-level analysis of property crime clearance rates
Female officers and community policing: Examining the connection between gender
diversity and organizational change
Prevalence and predictors of surveillance cameras in law enforcement: The
importance of stakeholders and community factors
Minority representation in policing and racial profiling: A test of representative
bureaucracy vs community context.
Realigning Community Policing in a Homeland Security Era
Making and breaking careers: Reviewing law enforcement hiring requirements and
disqualifiers
1
1
Taylor & Francis Online
2017
Roach, Kevin
365
Emerald Insight
2017
Reaves, Brian A.
351
Journal of Occupational and Environmental
Hygiene
Policing: An International Journal
Morabito, Melissa S.; Pattavina, April;
Williams, Linda M
2017
2
Profiles of law enforcement agency body armor policies--A latent class analysis of
the LEMAS 2013 data
Sheriff's deputies and police officers: Comparing their views
The Relationships among Law Enforcement Education Standards, Training, and
Social Media Use
McIntyre, John P.
Radmall, Ryan L.
40
University of Southern Mississippi
0
1
University of Texas at Dallas
Economic Inquiry
1
0
George Mason University
1
2016
Roberts, Aki; Roberts, John M.
2016
Schuck, Amie M.; Rabe-Hemp, Cara
2016
Community-Oriented Policing Implementation, Social Disorganization and Crime
Rates in Small Cities.
Crime clearance and temporal variation in police investigative workload: Evidence
from National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) data
Citizen complaints and gender diversity in police organisations
1
14-512
41
3
402
423
1
0
No 16-016
0
Florida Atlantic University
Journal of Quantitative Criminology
Springer
32
4
651
674
Policing and Society
Taylor & Francis
26
8
859
874
1
1
Attachment 3: LEMAS Publications
Shjarback; John A.; White, Michael D.
2016
Stickle, Ben
2016
Stovall, Joshua R.
2016
Taylor, Ralph B.; Groff, Elizabeth R.; Elesh,
David; Johnson, Lallen
2016
Tosun, Hamza
2016
Trochmann, Maren B.; Gover, Angela
2016
Vovak, Heather
2016
Walfield, Scott
2016
Walfield, Scott
2016
Willits, Dale; Nowacki, Jeffrey
2016
Anzia, Sarah F.; Moe, Terry M.
Departmental professionalism and its impact on indicators of violence in
police citizen encounters
A national examination of the effect of education, training and pre-employment
screening on law enforcement use of force
Surveillance of, and the Impact of Community Policing on Arrest-Related Deaths
(ARDS): Exploring the Surveillance of ARDS and the Opportunities to Prevent
Them in the United States
Police Quarterly
Sage Journals
19
1
32
62
Justice Policy Journal
Center on Juvenile and Criminal
Justice
13
1
1
15
0
U.S. Department of Justice
0
NCJ 249739
European Scientific Institute
12
9
23
35
Emerald Insight
39
4
773
790
1
0
1
1
George Mason University
Civic Research Institute
17
5
85
87
Journal of Interpersonal Violence
Sage Journals
31
9
1767
1792
The use of specialized cybercrime policing units: An organizational analysis
Criminal Justice Studies
Taylor & Francis Online
29
2
105
124
2015
Public sector unions and the costs of government
Journal of Politics
The University of Chicago Press
77
1
114
127
Bennett, Laura
2015
Race and Gender in Policing: Are More Representative Departments More
Effective?
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
Stanford Law School, Stanford
Criminal Justice Center
Brown, Mary Maureen
2015
Revisiting the IT productivity paradox
Cave, Breanne; Telep, Cody W.; Grieco,
Julie
2015
Rigorous evaluation research among US police departments: special cases or a
representative
sample?
D'Alessio, Stewart J.; Stolzenberg, Lisa;
Flexon, Jamie L.
2015
Are Drug Asset Forfeiture Laws Corrupting the Police?
DeCarlo, John; Jenkins, Michael J.
2015
Labor Unions, Management Innovation and Organizational Change in Police
Departments
Fan, Amy Z.; Prescott, Marta R.; Zhao,
Guixiang; Gotway, Carol A.; Galea, Sandro
2015
Individual and community level determinants of mental and physical health after the Journal of Behavioral Health Services and
Research
Deepwater Horizon oil spill: Findings from the Gulf States Population Survey
Keith, Louis E.
2015
Significant Predictors of Forming Police Citizen Collaborative Partnerships: A
Secondary Data Analysis
Sage Journals
Police Practice and Research
Taylor & Francis
Springer Briefs in Criminology
2015
Nonparametric Bayes Analysis of Social Science Data
Minority group threat and social control: Race/ethnicity and the issues of
heterogeneity
Arrest charges' (non)-independence in black and white men: An Extension and
Application of SimRank to include Network Structure when Computing Black and
White Men’s Arrest Charge Similarities
Comparing campus and city police human resource and select community outreach
Policing
policies and practices: An update
Local Police Departments, 2013: Personnel, policies, and practices
Local Police Departments, 2013: Equipment and Technology
Law Enforcement's Adoption of Technology: A Quantitative Study Exploring the
Adoption of Technology by Law Enforcement Agencies
Emerging early intervention systems: An agency specific pre post comparison of
Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice
formal citizen complaints of use of force
Latino Police Officers in the United States: An Examination of Emerging Trends and
Issues
Fink, Dustin; Roesler, Katharina
2015
Perez, Nicholas M.; Bromley, Max
2015
Reaves, Brian A.
Reaves, Brian A.
2015
2015
Scott, Michael L.
2015
Shjarback, John A.
2015
2015
16
5
3
565
254
583
268
1
1
0
1
42
1
23
41
1
0
1
0
0
University of Massachusetts,
Lowell
0
38
Bureau of Justice Statistics
Bureau of Justice Statistics
4
664
674
9
4
314
325
Williams, Keith L.
2015
Beyond the Rhetoric: Factors Influencing the Implementation of Strategic Plans by
American
Police Agencies
American University
Baldwin, Neal C.
2014
Environmental Determinism and the Existence of Citizen Oversight of the Police
University of Tennessee at
Chattanooga
Barrick, Kelle; Hickman, Matthew J.; Strom,
Kevin J.
2014
Representative policing and violence towards the police
Burruss, George W.; Giblin, Matthew J.
2014
Edson, Timothy C.
2014
26
4
345
370
1
0
0
Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice
Oxford Academic
8
2
193
204
Crime and Delinquency
Sage Journals
60
3
331
355
University of Massachusetts
Lowell
1
0
Charles C Thomas Publisher
Sage Journals
1
0
0
0
NCJ 248777
NCJ 248767
Capella University
Oxford Academic
Rates and patterns of law enforcement turnover: A research note
Modeling isomorphism
on policing innovation: The role of institutional pressures in
‐
adopting
community oriented policing
Arrest Warrant Apprehension: Examining Characteristics of Expediency Using a
Multilevel
Approach
45
Springer International Publishing
2015
Criminal Justice Policy Review
1
0
Capella University
IEEE Transactions on Visualization and
Computer Graphics
Duke University
1
0
Weston Publishing
Interaxis: Steering scatterplot axes via observation level interaction
2015
Urbina, Martin Guevara; Alvarez, Sofia
Espinoza
Wareham, Jennifer; Smith, Brad W.;
Lambert,
Eric G.
American Review of Public
Administration
2015
McCormack, Philip
1
European Scientific Journal
Policing: An International Journal
Criminal Justice Research Review
Kim, Hannah; Choo, Jaegul; Park, Haesun;
Endert, Alex
Kunihama, Tsuyoshi
1
University of Washington
Intra-Metropolitan Crime Patterning and Prediction
IT management in policing: Main advantages and disadvantages of it for police
managers
Measuring the impact of police representativeness on communities
Examining the Relationship Between Crime Rates and Clearance Rates Using Dual
Trajectory Analysis.
Excessive use of exceptional clearances
When a cleared rape is not cleared: A multilevel study of arrest and exceptional
clearance
1
1
1
0
Attachment 3: LEMAS Publications
Eitle, David; D'Alessio, Stewart J.;
Stolzenberg,
Lisa
2014
Farrell, Amy
2014
Giblin, Matthew J.
2014
Hickman, Matthew J.
2014
Hur, Yongbeom
2014
Matusiak, Matthew C.; Campbell, Bradley
A.; King, William R.
2014
Randol, Blake M.
2014
Schuck, Amie M.
2014
The effect of organizational and environmental factors on police misconduct
Environmental and institutional influences on police agency responses to human
trafficking
Understanding Influence Across Justice Agencies: The Spread of 'Community
Reforms' from
Law Enforcement to Prosecutor Organizations
Police administrative records as social science data
Turnover, voluntary turnover, and organizational performance: Evidence from
municipal police
departments
The legacy of LEMAS: Effects on police scholarship of a federally administered,
multi wave establishment survey
Modelling the influence of organisational structure on crime analysis technology
innovations in municipal police departments
Female representation in law enforcement: The influence of screening, unions,
incentives,
community policing, CALEA, and size
Police Quarterly
17
2
103
126
Police Quarterly
17
1
3
29
Southern Illinois University
The Oxford Handbook of Police
and Policing
Policing
37
3
630
648
16
1
52
64
17
1
54
78
95
4
Police Quarterly
2014
Minority representation and order maintenance policing: Toward a contingent view
2014
Smith, Brad W. Holmes, Malcolm D.
2014
Using community surveys to study policing
The Oxford Handbook of Policing
Police use of excessive force in minority communities: A test of the minority threat,
place, and
Social Problems
community accountability hypotheses
Smith, Brad W.; Wareham, Jennifer;
Lambert,
Eric G.
2014
Willits, Dale W.
2014
Social Science Quarterly
104
37
3
377
398
International Journal of Police
Science and Management
16
2
140
154
Policing and Society
24
1
63
80
Ansari, Sami
2013
Chalfin, Aaron; McCrary, Justin
2013
The Effect of Police on Crime: New Evidence from U.S. Cities, 1960 2010
Gau, Jacinta M.; Terrill, William; Paoline,
Eugene A., III
2013
Looking up: Explaining police promotional aspirations
Criminal Justice and Behavior
Graco, Warwick; Koesmarno, Warwick
2013
Configurations and couplings: An exploratory study
Advances in Data Mining:
Applications and Theoretical Aspects
Gul, Zakir; Kule, Ahmet
2013
Gustafson, Joseph
2013
Hur, Yongbeom
2013
Johnson, Richard R.
2013
Presley, Daniel C.
2013
Randol, Blake M.
2013
Randol, Blake M.
2013
Roberts, Aki; Block, Steven
2013
Sozer, Mehmet Alper; Merlo, Alida V.
2013
Telep, Cody W.
2013
Burch, Andrea M.
2012
An examination of police department uniform color and police citizen aggression
The institutionalization of racial profiling policy: An examination of antiprofiling
policy adoption
among large law enforcement agencies
An Assessment of Officer Safety: Does Departmental Authorization of Tasers
Reduce Officer
Assault Rates?
Modeling a Decade of Organizational Change in Municipal Police Departments: A
Longitudinal
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 and why?
Explaining temporary and permanent motor vehicle theft rates in the United States:
A crime
specific approach
The impact of community policing on crime rates: Does the effect of community
policing differ
in large and small law enforcement agencies?
Moving Forward with Evidence Based Policing: What Should Police Be Doing and
Can We Get
Them to Do It?
Sheriffs' Offices, 2007
1171
470
83
Community and organizational influences on voluntary turnover in law enforcement Journal of Criminal Justice
Intelligence led policing: How the use of crime intelligence analysis translates in to
the decision
making
Diversity in municipal police agencies: A national examination of minority hiring and
promotion
Racial diversity, is it a blessing to an organization? Examining its organizational
consequences in
municipal police departments
1155
449
1
2014
2013
Oxford University Press
61
Willits, Dale W.; Nowacki, Jeffrey S.
Miller, Kirk
Sage Journals
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
LFB Scholarly Publishing
National Bureau of Economic
Research
0
18815
40
Springer
1
1
1
Skogan, Wesley G.
The organisational structure of police departments and assaults on police officers
448
37
Sharp, Elaine B.
Police organisation and deadly force: An examination of variation across large and
small cities
Estimating Crime Rates from Police Reports and Victim Surveys: Progressive and
Convergence
in Time Series Analyses
433
Policing
International Journal of Police Science and
Management
1
0
NCJ 245945
Oxford University Press
1
3
7987
247
269
266
279
21
40
International Journal of Security
and Terrorism
4
1
Policing
36
4
International Review of
Administrative Sciences
79
1
149
164
Criminal Justice and Behavior
40
2
228
244
Crime and Delinquency
59
1
32
58
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
Southern Illinois University,
Carbondale
0
Washington State University
1
Police Journal
86
2
158
181
Journal of Research in Crime and
Delinquency
50
3
445
471
Police Practice and Research
14
6
506
521
Bureau of Justice Statistics
1
0
George Mason University
Statistical Tables
1
NCJ 238558
0
Attachment 3: LEMAS Publications
Fox, James P., Jr.
2012
Harmon, Rachel
2012
Kim, MoonSun; de Guzman, Melchor C.
2012
Prelog, Andrew J.
2012
Pyrooz, David C.
2012
Legitimacy and Law Enforcement: The Counterinsurgency Against Gang Crime in
the United
States
Why do we (still) lack data on policing?
Police paradigm shift after the 9/11 terrorist attacks: The empirical evidence from
the Unites States municipal police departments
Longitudinal and Geographic Analysis of the Relationship Between Natural
Disasters and Crime
in the United States
Structural covariates of gang homicide in large U.S. cities
The organizational correlates of terrorism response preparedness in local police
departments
Exploring the Impact of Department Policy on TASER Proximate Arrest Related
Deaths
Elements of terrorism preparedness in local police agencies,
2003 2007: Impact of
‐
vulnerability,
organizational characteristics, and contagion in the post 9/11 era
What Shapes Police Officer Willingness to Use Stress Intervention Services? An
Empirical Study
of Current Factors in Pennsylvania
0
Georgetown University
Marquette Law Review
Criminal Justice Studies
Taylor & Francis
96
4
1119
1146
25
4
323
342
0
Colorado State University
Journal of Research in Crime and
Delinquency
49
4
489
518
Criminal Justice Policy Review
23
3
304
326
Randol, Blake M.
2012
Riggs, Courtney
2012
Roberts, Aki; Roberts, John M., Jr.; Liedka,
Raymond V.
2012
Tucker, Jane M.
2012
Xie, Min; Lauritsen, Janet L.
2012
Racial context and crime reporting: A test of Black's stratification hypothesis
Journal of Quantitative
Criminology
28
2
265
293
Zhao, Jihong; Ren, Ling; Lovrich, Nicholas
P.
2012
Political culture versus socioeconomic approaches to predicting police strength in
U.S. police agencies: Results of a longitudinal study, 1993 to 2003
Crime and Delinquency
58
2
167
195
Dichter, Melissa E.; Marcus, Steven C.;
Morabito, Melissa S.; Rhodes, Karin V.
2011
Explaining the IPV arrest decision: Incident, agency, and community factors
Criminal Justice Review
36
1
22
39
Holcomb, Jefferson E.; Kovandzic,
Tomislav V.; Williams, Marian R.
2011
Civil asset forfeiture, equitable sharing, and policing for profit in the United States
Journal of Criminal Justice
39
3
273
285
58
5
720
747
Communities and Crime Unnormalized Data Set
Rosenbaum, Dennis P.; Graziano, Lisa M.;
Stephens, Cody D.; Schuck, Amie M.
2011
Understanding community policing and legitimacy seeking behavior in virtual
reality: A national study of municipal police websites
Police Quarterly
14
1
25
47
Wilson, Jeremy M.; Heinonen, Justin A.
2011
Advancing a police science: Implications from a national survey of police staffing
Police Quarterly
14
3
277
297
Arslan, Metin
2010
The Effects of Community Policing on Crime and Crime Clearance Rates in Texas
2010
2010
Dalton, Teresa A.
2010
Engbeck, John R.
2010
Garicano, Luis; Heaton, Paul
2010
Crime Analysis: An Empirical Analysis of Its Effectiveness as a Crime Fighting Tool
The University of Texas at Dallas
33
4
607
620
28
1
167
201
Lee, Hoon; Jang, Hyunseok; Yun, Ilhong;
Lim, Hyeyoung; Tushaus, David W.
2010
An examination of police use of force utilizing police training and neighborhood
contextual factors: A multilevel analysis
Policing
33
4
681
702
Morabito, Melissa Schaefer
2010
Understanding community policing as an innovation: Patterns of adoption
Crime and Delinquency
56
4
564
587
2010
2010
Welker, David
2010
Wilson, Steve; Buckler, Kevin
2010
Bishopp, Stephen A.; Worrall, John L.
2009
Racial and ethnic heterogeneity, economic disadvantage, and gangs: A macro level
study of
gang membership in urban America
Local Police Departments, 2007
Police Programs, Canines, and Contingency Theory: An Explanation of Canine
Numbers Among
Large Police Departments
The debate over police reform: Examining minority support for citizen oversight and
resistance
by police unions
Do state asset forfeiture laws explain the upward trend in drug arrests?
Northeastern University
Bureau of Justice Statistics
Bureau of Justice Statistics
NCJ 230521
NCJ 230071
1
1
1
0
0
1
1
0
American Society of Criminology
Annual Meeting
27
Justice Quarterly
1
0
2010
Pyrooz, David C.; Fox, Andrew M.; Decker,
Scott
H.
Reaves, Brian A.
1
0
Capella University
2010
2010
The Impact of Women on Police Organizations
1
0
University of Denver
Langton, Lynn
Langton, Lynn
2010
1
0
Gustafson, Joseph L.
‐
Nowotny, Jordan J.; Jordan, Emma K.;
Schuck, Amie M.; Rabe Hemp, Cara E.
1
0
The University of Texas at Dallas
Macro social determinants of black police force size: Political mobilization and
Policing
crime control
The Expanding Definition of Crime and Its Effect on the Individual: A Multilevel
Modeling
Analysis
Dynamics of Police Organizational Change, Learning Based Interactions, and
Agency Innovation
and Cooperation within Community Policing
Information technology, organization, and productivity in the public sector: Evidence
from
Journal of Labor Economics
police departments
Diversity in Municipal Police Agencies: A National Examination of its Determinants
and Effects
Women in Law Enforcement, 1987 2008
Gang Units in Large Local Law Enforcement Agencies, 2007
1
0
University of California, Irvine,
Center for Machine Learning and
Intelligent Systems
2011
Chamlin, Mitchell B.; Sanders, Beth A.
1
0
Temple University
Redmond, Michael
Baltaci, Halil
1
0
Arizona State University
Crime and Delinquency
1
1
Bureau of Justice Statistics
6
867
892
1
0
0
NCJ 231174
Southern Illinois University
Carbondale
American Journal of Criminal
Justice
35
4
184
197
Journal of Crime and Justice
32
2
117
138
1
1
Attachment 3: LEMAS Publications
Demir, Serhat
2009
Eitle, David; Monahan, Susanne
2009
Gul, Zakir
2009
Hickman, Matthew J.; Piquero, Alex R.
2009
Kaminski, Robert J.; Stucky, Thomas D.
2009
Kennedy, William G.
2009
Diffusion of Police Technology Across Time and Space
‐ and the Impact of
Technology Use on
Police Effectiveness and its Contribution to Decision Making
Revisiting
the racial threat thesis: The role of police organizational characteristics in
‐
predicting
Justice Quarterly
race specific drug arrest rates
A Partial Test of the Intelligence Led Policing Model
Organizational, administrative, and environmental correlates of complaints about
police use of
Crime and Delinquency
force: Does minority representation matter?
Reassessing political explanations for murders of police
Journal of Research in Crime and
Delinquency
King, William R.
2009
Toward a life course perspective of police organizations
Langton, Lynn
2009
Lindsay, William
2009
Lombardo, Robert M.; Olson, David E.
2009
Aviation Units in Large Law Enforcement Agencies, 2007
Law Enforcement Performance Standards and Wages: A Test of the Efficiency
Wage Hypothesis
Organizational approaches to drug law enforcement by local police departments in
the United States: Specialized drug units and participation in multi agency drug task Justice Research and Policy
forces
Lord, Vivian B.; Kuhns, Joseph B.; Friday,
Paul C.
Maguire, Edward R.
2009
Small city community policing and citizen satisfaction
Policing
Policing
2009
Police organizational structure and child sexual abuse case attrition
National Research Council
2009
Ensuring the Quality, Credibility, and Relevance of U.S. Justice Statistics
Roberts, Aki; Roberts, John M., Jr.
Sharp, Elaine B.; Johnson, Paul E.
Sozer, M. A.
2009
2009
2009
Ulkemen, Sinan
2009
Briggs, Steven J.; Zhao, Jihong; Wilson,
Steve;
Ren, Ling
2008
Dalehite, Esteban G.
2008
Forst, Brian
2008
Helms, Ronald
2008
Holmes, Malcolm D.; Smith, Brad W.;
Freng, Adrienne B.; Munoz, Ed A.
2008
Impact of network ties on change in police agency practices
Accounting for variation in distrust of local police
Crime and Community Policing
The Impact of Surveillance Technology on the Behaviors of Municipal Police
Departments
The effect
of collective bargaining on large police agency supplemental
‐
compensation policies:
1990 2000
Determinants of performance measurement: An investigation into the decision to
conduct
citizen surveys
Improving Police Effectiveness and Transparency: National Information Needs on
Law
Enforcement
Locally elected sheriffs and money compensation: A quantitative analysis of
organizational and
environmental contingency explanations
Minority threat, crime control and police resource allocation in the southwestern
United States
James, Nathan; Council, Logan R.
2008
How Crime in the United States is Measured
Johnson, Brian D.; Ulmer, Jeffery T.;
Kramer,
John H.
2008
The social context of guidelines circumvention: The case of Federal District courts
Jones, Matthew A.
2008
Jones Webb, Rhonda; Wall, Melanie
2008
Miller, Kirk
2008
Morabito, Melissa S.
2008
Roberts, Aki
2008
Schnebly, Stephen M.
2008
Sozer, Mehmet A.
2008
Wilson, Steve; Zhao, Jihong
2008
Worrall, John L.; Kovandzic, Tomislav V.
2008
DeLone, Gregory J.
2007
Police Organizations: An Empirical Examination of American Sheriff's Offices and
Municipal
Police Agencies
Neighborhood Racial/Ethnic Concentration, Social Disadvantage and Homicide
Risk: An
Ecological Analysis of 10 U.S. Cities
26
3
528
561
15
1
3
27
13
1
3
20
Kent State University
Homicide Studies
The Impact of Police Agency Size on Crime Clearance Rates
0
Kent State University
0
1
1
0
University of North Carolina at
Charlotte
46
Bureau of Justice Statistics
2
213
244
0
0
NCJ 226672
Washington State University
11
1
45
75
1
1
32
4
574
594
32
1
157
179
1
0
32
26
1
1
38
157
55
182
1
1
0
0
Police Practice and Research
9
3
227
238
Public Administration Review
68
5
891
907
National Academies Press
Policing
Justice Quarterly
LFB Scholarly Publishing
University of North Texas
United States Department of
Justice, Bureau
of Justice Statistics
33
1
5
28
Crime and Delinquency
54
1
128
152
46
3
737
783
85
American Society of Criminology
Annual
Meeting
1
1
1
0
Portland State University
Journal of Urban Health
1
0
Library of Congress,
Congressional Research
Service
Criminology
1
0
NCJ 234182
Criminal Justice Review
Race, police, and policy: Do racial profiling policies reduce disparities in police
traffic stops?
5
662
676
1
0
The adoption of police innovation: The role of the political environment
The influences of incident and contextual characteristics on crime clearance of
nonlethal
violence: A multilevel event history analysis
Policing
31
3
466
484
Journal of Criminal Justice
36
1
61
71
The influence of community oriented policing on crime reporting behavior
Justice Quarterly
25
2
223
250
Assessing the Performance of Community Policing: The Effect of Community
Policing Practices
on Crime Rates
Determining the correlates of police victimization: An analysis of organizational
level factors on
injurious assaults
1
1
1
1
0
Indiana University of Pennsylvania
Journal of Criminal Justice
36
5
461
468
Is policing for profit? Answers from asset forfeiture
Criminology and Public Policy
7
2
219
244
Law enforcement mission statements post September 11
Police Quarterly
10
2
218
235
1
1
1
Attachment 3: LEMAS Publications
King, Ryan D.
2007
Lilley, David; Hinduja, Sameer
2007
Marschall, Melissa J.; Ruhil, Anirudh V.S.
2007
Marschall, Melissa; Shah, Paru R.
2007
Miller, Kirk
2007
Roberts, Aki; Roberts, John M., Jr.
2007
Federal subsidies and evidence of progressive change: A quantitative assessment
of the effects of targeted grants on manpower and innovation in large U. S. police
agencies
Compstat, community policing and the science of success: A market based
approach to police
management
The context of minority group threat: Race, institutions and complying with Hate
Crime law
Police officer performance appraisal and overall satisfaction
Substantive symbols: The attitudinal dimension of black political incorporation in
local
government
The attitudinal effects of minority incorporation: Examining the racial dimensions of
trust in
urban America
Racial profiling and postmodern society: Police responsiveness, image
maintenance, and the
left flank of police legitimacy
The structure of informal communication between police agencies
Beckman, Karen A.
2006
Community Policing and Changing Crime Rates: Does What Police Do Matter?
2006
The Organizational Determinants of Police Arrest Decisions
2006
2006
Citizen complaints about police use of force
Impact of the military reserve activation on police staffing
Hickman, Matthew J.; Reaves, Brian A.
2006
Sheriffs' Offices, 2003
Bureau of Justice Statistics
NCJ 211361
Hickman, Matthew J.; Reaves, Brian A.
2006
Local Police Departments, 2003
Bureau of Justice Statistics
NCJ 210118
Lilley, David; Hinduja, Sameer
2006
Organizational values and police officer evaluation: A content comparison between
traditional
Police Quarterly
and community policing agencies
9
4
2006
Coming to Terms with Geographical Information Systems
Police Chief
73
6
2006
Gender differences in the predictors of police stress
Policing
29
3
541
563
2006
The national crime victimization survey: 34 years of measuring crime in the United
States
Statistical Journal of the United
Nations Economic Commission for Europe
23
4
289
301
Police Innovations and the Structure of Informal Communication Between Police
Agencies: Network and LEMAS Data
Policing urban America: A new look at the politics of agency size
Social Science Quarterly
87
2
291
307
Helms, Ronald; Gutierrez, Ricky S.
2007
Holian, Matt
2007
Chappell, Allison T.; MacDonald, John M.;
Manz, Patrick W.
Hickman, Matthew J.
Hickman, Matthew J.
Markovic, John; Bueermann, James; Smith,
Kurt
Morash, Merry; Kwak, Dae Hoon; Haarr,
Robin
Planty, Michael
Police Quarterly
10
1
87
107
Economic Affairs
27
4
23
29
Law and Society Review
41
1
189
224
Journal of Criminal Justice
35
2
137
150
American Journal of Political
Science
51
1
17
33
Urban Affairs Review
42
5
629
658
Journal of Contemporary Criminal
Justice
23
3
248
262
30
1
93
107
52
2
287
306
73
NCJ 210296
10
Policing
University of Maryland, College
Park
Crime and Delinquency
Police Chief
Bureau of Justice Statistics
United States Department of
Justice
486
513
Brunet, James R.
2005
Drug Testing in Law Enforcement Agencies: Social Control in the Public Sector
LFB Scholarly Publishing
Choi, KyuBeom
2005
The Effects of Actual Punishment Levels on Perceptions of Punishment: A
Multi Level Approach
Florida State University
2005
Impact of serious crime, racial threat and economic inequality on private police size Social Science Research
34
2
267
282
2005
Police Organizational Factors, the Racial Composition of the Police, and the
Probability of Arrest
22
1
30
57
51
4
573
597
52
3
337
359
Jenness, Valerie; Grattet, Ryken
2005
Lemmer, Thomas J.
2005
Schnebly, Stephen M.
2005
The influence of mandatory arrest policies, police organizational characteristics, and
situational
Crime and Delinquency
variables on the probability of arrest in domestic violence cases
The law in between: The effects of organizational perviousness on the policing of
Social Problems
hate crime
Police Department Reorganization and Effectiveness in Addressing Gang Violence
in Chicago
Community Variation in the Nature of Crime Reporting
Loyola University Chicago
University of Missouri St. Louis
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
0
2006
2005
1
0
2006
Eitle, David
1
1
1
0
Sharp, Elaine B.
Justice Quarterly
1
0
1
0
Roberts, Aki; Roberts, John M., Jr.
D'Alessio, Steward J.; Eitle, David;
Stolzenberg,
Lisa
D'Alessio, Stewart, J.; Eitle, David;
Stolzenberg,
Lisa
1
NCJ 216150
1
0
0
1
1
1
1
0
0
Attachment 3: LEMAS Publications
Watkins, Charles E., Jr.
2005
Weisburd, David; Lum, Cynthia
2005
Wilson, Jeremy M.
2005
Wilson, Steve
2005
Catalano, Shannan M.
2004
Dorsey, Tina L.; Zawitz, Marianne W.;
Middleton, Priscilla
2004
The Information Technology Productivity Paradox in Law Enforcement: An
Exploratory Study
The diffusion of computerized crime mapping in policing: Linking research and
practice
Determinants of Community Policing: An Open Systems Model of Implementation
2004
Sever, Brion; McSkimming, Michael J.
2004
Smith, Brad W.
2004
Wilson, Jeremy M.
2004
A measurement model approach to estimating community policing implementation
Davies, Heather J.
2003
Understanding Variations in Murder Clearance Rates: The Influence of the Political
Environment
Nicholson Crotty, Sean; O'Toole, Laurence
J., Jr.
Perry, Steven W.
2004
2004
2004
Working Paper
United States Department of
Justice,
National Institute of Justice
5
419
434
0
0
University of Missouri St. Louis
0
Bureau of Justice Statistics
0
Michigan State University
Journal of Public Administration Research and
Theory
14
1
Bureau of Justice Statistics
NCJ 203097
Bureau of Justice Statistics
NCJ 203350
1
18
Criminal Justice Policy Review
15
4
486
512
Policing
27
4
539
557
Justice Research and Policy
6
2
1
24
2003
Local Police Departments 2000
Bureau of Justice Statistics
Maguire, Edward R.
2003
Organizational Structure in American Police Agencies: Context, Complexity, and
Control
State University of New York
Press
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
Smith, Brad W.
2003
31
2
147
162
2003
The impact of police officer diversity on police caused homicides
Community accountability, minority threat and policy brutality: An examination of
civil rights
criminal complaints
Policy Studies Journal
Smith, Brad W.; Holmes, Malcolm D.
Criminology
41
4
1035
Stults, Brian J.
2003
Gutierrez, Ricky S.
Hassell, Kimberly D.; Zhao, Jihong
Solomon; Maguire, Edward R.
Hickman, Matthew J.; Reaves, Brian A.
2003
Social Threat and Benign Neglect: A Conflict Perspective on Racial Differences in
Arrest
University at Albany, State
University of
New York
1
1
1
0
American University
LFB Scholarly Publishing
2003
2003
0
0
0
Police officers on two officer units: A study of attitudinal responses toward a patrol
Policing
experiment
Social Equity and the Funding of Community Policing
Structural arrangements in large municipal police organizations: Revisiting Wilson's
Policing
theory of local political culture
del Carmen, Alejandro; Guevara, Lori
0
0
NCJ 211975
University of Nebraska
Drugs and Crime Facts
Reaves, Brian J.; Hickman, Matthew J.
Meesing, Robert T.
6
Police Practice and Research
Determining the Correlates of Police Victimization: An Analysis of Social
Disorganization and
Organizational Level Factors on Injurious Assaults
An Examination of the
‐ Convergence between Police Recording and Victim
Reporting of Serious
Violent Crime, 1973 2002
An Exploratory Study Regarding the Effects of Community Policing on Index Crime
Clearance
Rates in Local Agencies with Investigators
Public management and organizational performance: The case of law enforcement
agencies
American Indians and Crime: A BJS Statistical Profile, 1992 2002
Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics, 2000: Data for
Individual State
and Local Agencies with 100 or More Officers
The impact of racial composition and other county characteristics on the size of
sheriff's
departments: A new analysis of police force growth
Structural and organizational predictors of homicide by police
0
George Washington University
26
1
144
161
26
2
231
250
1
0
1
0
NCJ 196002
1
1
1
0
Attachment 3: LEMAS Publications
Wilson, Jeremy M.
2003
Measurement and association in the structure of municipal police organizations
Elliott, Everett
2002
An Analysis of the Relationship Between Hate Crimes Reporting and Administrative
Policies as
They Relate to Community Policing
Greene, Helen Taylor; del Carmen,
Alejandro
2002
Female police officers in Texas: Perceptions of colleagues and stress
Gutierrez, Ricky Steven
2002
Building Bridges: Is the Architecture of Community Policing Flawed? A Policy
Impact Analysis in
202 American Cities
Washington State University
Hickman, Matthew J.; Reaves, Brian A.
2002
Sheriffs' Offices 2000
Bureau of Justice Statistics
Hickman, Matthew J; Reaves, Brian A.
2002
Local police and homeland security: Some baseline data
Kaminski, Robert John
Katz, Charles M.; Maguire, Edward R.;
Roncek,
Dennis W.
Langworthy, Robert H.
2002
2002
2002
2
297
25
Policing
2
385
398
0
NCJ
196534
83
85, 88
Justice Research and Policy
United States Department of
Justice, Office of Justice
Programs, Office of Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency
Prevention
3
472
506
4
1/2
21
38
1
0
592
39
618
60
1
1
0
660
678
Trends in Juvenile Violent Offending: An Analysis of Victim Survey Data
OJJDP Juvenile Justice Bulletin
MacDonald, John M.
Maguire, Edward R.
2002
2002
The effectiveness of community policing in reducing urban violence
Multiwave establishment surveys of police organizations
Crime and Delinquency
Justice Research and Policy
Reaves, Brian A.; Hickman, Matthew J.
2002
Police Departments in Large Cities, 1990 2000
Redmond, Michael; Baveja, Alok
2002
A data driven software tool for enabling cooperative information sharing among
police
departments
Wilson, Jeremy M.
2002
Implementation of Community Policing in Large Municipal Police Organizations
Ohio State University
Hickman, Matthew J.; Reaves, Brian A.
2001
Community Policing in Local Police Departments, 1997 and 1999, Special Report
Bureau of Justice Statistics
NCJ 184794
Hickman, Matthew J.; Reaves, Brian A.
2001
Local Police Departments 1999
Bureau of Justice Statistics
NCJ 186478
McCabe, Kimberly A.; Fajardo, Robin G.
2001
Nunn, Samuel
2001
Reaves, Brian A.; Hickman, Matthew J.
2001
Sheriffs' Offices 1999
Sever, Brion
2001
The relationship between minority populations and police force strength: Expanding
our
Police Quarterly
knowledge
Stucky, Thomas D.
2001
An Institutional Resources Perspective on Crime and Crime Control in U.S. Cities
Worrall, John L.
2001
Addicted to the drug war: The role of civil asset forfeiture as a budgetary necessity
in
contemporary law enforcement
NCJ 191052
48
4
Bureau of Justice Statistics
4
NCJ 175703
141
3
1
0
0
0
Journal of Criminal Justice
29
2
127
131
Public Administration Review
61
2
221
234
Bureau of Justice Statistics
4
1
1
1
0
NCJ 186479
28
68
1
0
University of Iowa
Journal of Criminal Justice
1
25
2002
European Journal of Operational
Research
1
0
State University of New York
Albany
Policing
1
0
10
Police Chief
1
0
Lynch, James P.
Law enforcement accreditation: A national comparison of accredited vs.
nonaccredited
agencies
Police information technology: Assessing the effects of computerization on urban
police
functions
276
West Virginia University
An Opportunity Model of Police Homicide Victimization
The creation of specialized police gang units: A macro level analysis of
contingency, social
threat and resource dependency explanations
LEMAS: A comparative organizational research platform
26
Policing
29
171
187
1
Attachment 3: LEMAS Publications
Goldberg, Andrew L.; Reaves, Brian A.
2000
Sheriffs' Departments, 1997
King, William R.
2000
Measuring police innovation: Issues and measurement
Policing
King, William R.; Lab, Steven P.
2000
Crime prevention, community policing, and training: Old wine in new bottles
Police Practice and Research
Lott, John R., Jr.
2000
Reaves, Brian A.; Hart, Timothy
2000
Weitzer, Ronald
2000
Goldberg, Andrew L.; Reaves, Brian A.
1999
Sheriffs' Departments 1997: Executive Summary
Greenfeld, Lawrence A.; Smith, Steven K.
1999
American Indians and Crime
King, William R.
1999
Time, constancy, and change in American municipal police organizations
Louden, Robert Joseph
1999
The Structure and Procedures of Hostage/crisis Negotiation Units in United States
Police
Organizations
Murphy, David W.; Worrall, John H.
1999
Pascarella, Jospeh E.
1999
Reaves, Brian A.; Goldberg, Andrew
1999
Reaves, Brian A.; Goldberg, Andrew
1999
Reaves, Brian A.; Goldberg, Andrew
Sass, Tim R.; Troyer, Jennifer L.
Does a helping hand put others at risk? Affirmative action, police departments, and
Economic Inquiry
crime
Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics, 1999: Data for
Individual State
and Local Agencies with 100 or More Officers
Racialized policing: Residents' perceptions in three neighborhoods
Law and Society Review
United States Deparment of
Justice, Bureau
of Justice Statistics
3
303
317
1
2
241
252
38
2
239
277
34
1
129
155
NCJ 179011
3
338
364
22
3
327
342
1
2
89
110
Bureau of Justice Statistics
NCJ 171681
Local Police Departments, 1997
Bureau of Justice Statistics
NCJ 178934;
NCJ 1734
1999
Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics, 1997: Data for
Individual State
and Local Agencies with 100 or More Officers
Bureau of Justice Statistics
1999
Affirmative action, political representation, unions, and female police employment
Journal of Labor Research
1
0
1
0
City University of New York
Justice Research and Policy
1
0
NCJ 173386
2
1
1
0
NCJ 184481
United States Department of
Justice, Bureau
of Justice Statistics
United States Department of
Justice, Bureau
of Justice Statistics
Residency requirements and public perceptions of the police in large municipalities Policing
Municipal police salaries as a function of community home values, household
incomes, and
physical housing characteristics
Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics, 1997: Data for
Individual State
and Local Agencies with 100 or More Officers
23
Bureau of Justice Statistics
Police Quarterly
0
NCJ 173428
1
1
0
0
0
20
4
571
587
Weitzer, Ronald
1999
Citizens' perceptions of police misconduct: Race and neighborhood context
Justice Quarterly
16
4
819
846
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.
1998
Comparing campus and municipal police: The human resource dimension
Policing
21
3
534
546
1
1
1
1
Attachment 3: LEMAS Publications
Worrall, John L.
1998
Maguire, Edward R.
1997
Zhao, Jihong; Lovrich, Nicholas
1997
Reaves, Brian A.
1996
Administrative determinants of civil liability lawsuits against municipal police
departments: An
exploratory analysis
Structural change in large municipal police organizations during the community
policing era
Collective bargaining and the police: The consequences for supplemental
compensation
policies in large agencies
Local Police Departments, 1993
Bureau of Justice Statistics
NCJ 148822
Reaves, Brian A.
1996
A LEMAS Report: Local Police Departments, 1993, Executive Summary
Bureau of Justice Statistics
NCJ 160802
Reaves, Brian A.; Smith, Pheny Z.
Schroedel, Jean Reith; Frisch, Scott;
Hallamore, Nancy; Peterson, Julie;
Vanderhorst, Nicole
1996
Sheriffs' Departments 1993
Bureau of Justice Statistics
NCJ 148823
1996
The joint impact of race and gender on police department employment practices
Crime and Delinquency
44
2
295
313
Justice Quarterly
14
3
547
576
Policing
20
3
508
518
Women and Criminal Justice
A Cross burning is Not Just an Arson: Police Social Construction of Hate Crimes in
Baltimore
Criminology
County
Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics, 1993: Data for
Individual State
and Local Agencies with 100 or More Officers
American Journal of Police
Less than meets the eye: Police department bias crime units
American Review of Public
Women and minorities in the work force of law enforcement agencies
Administration
Bureau of Justice Statistics
2
59
77
33
3
303
326
1995
Reaves, Brian A.; Smith, Pheny Z.
1995
Walker, Samuel; Katz, Charles M.
1995
Kim, Pan Suk; Mengistu, Berhanu
1994
Timrots, Anita; Renshaw III, Benjamin H.;
Lindgren, Sue A.
1994
Drug and Crime Facts, 1994
Bureau of Justice Statistics
NCJ 154043
1994
Violence Between Intimates
Bureau of Justice Statistics
NCJ 149259
1992
1992
1992
1989
1989
1989
Drug Enforcement by Police and Sheriffs' Departments, 1990
State and Local Police Departments, 1990
Sheriffs' Departments 1990: A LEMAS Report
Profile of State And Local Law Enforcement Agencies, 1987
Profile of State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies, 1987
Police Departments in Large Cities, 1987, Special Report
Bureau of
Bureau of
Bureau of
Bureau of
Bureau of
Bureau of
NCJ 134505
NCJ 133284
NCJ 133283
NCJ 113949
Zawitz, Marianne W.; Klaus, Patsy A.;
Bachman, Ronet; Langan, Patrick; Harlow,
Carol W.
Reaves, Brian A.
Reaves, Brian A.
Reaves, Brian A.
Reaves, Brian
Reaves, Brian A.
Reaves, Brian A.
Justice Statistics
Justice Statistics
Justice Statistics
Justice Statistics
Justice Statistics
Justice Statistics
1
1
0
0
8
Martin, Susan E.
1
0
1
1
0
NCJ 148825
14
10
29
24
2
161
48
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
226
Attachment 4: Cognitive interview report
February 2020
Law Enforcement Management and
Administrative Statistics
2020 Questionnaire
Cognitive Interview Findings and
Recommendations
Prepared for
U.S. Department of Justice
Bureau of Justice Statistics
810 7th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20531
Prepared by
Ashley Griggs
Marianne Ayers
RTI International
3040 East Cornwallis Road
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
Contributors
Christian Genesky, Tim Flanigan, Tim Smith
RTI Project Number 0215001
Attachment 4: Cognitive interview report
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1
2. Question-Specific Discussion ..................................................................................................... 3
Question 1 ..................................................................................................................................... 4
Question 2 ..................................................................................................................................... 5
Question 3 ..................................................................................................................................... 6
Question 4 ..................................................................................................................................... 9
Question 5 ................................................................................................................................... 10
Question 6 ................................................................................................................................... 11
Question 7 ................................................................................................................................... 14
Question 8 ................................................................................................................................... 15
Question 9 ................................................................................................................................... 17
Question 10 (Sheriff) ................................................................................................................ 20
Question 10 (Local PD) / Question 11 (Sheriff) ................................................................. 20
Questions 12 and 13 (Sheriff) ................................................................................................ 21
Question 11 (Local PD) / Question 14 (Sheriff) ................................................................. 22
Question 12 (Local PD) / Question 15 (Sheriff) ................................................................. 23
Question 13 (Local PD) / Question 16 (Sheriff) ................................................................. 24
Question 14 (Local PD) / Question 17 (Sheriff) ................................................................. 25
Question 15 (Local PD) / Question 18 (Sheriff) ................................................................. 26
Question 16 (Local PD) / Question 19 (Sheriff) ................................................................. 27
Question 17 (Local PD) / Question 20 (Sheriff) ................................................................. 28
Question 18 (Local PD) / Question 21 (Sheriff) ................................................................. 29
Question 19 (Local PD) / Question 22 (Sheriff) ................................................................. 30
Question 20 (Local PD) / Question 23 (Sheriff) ................................................................. 31
Question 21 (Local PD) / Question 24 (Sheriff) ................................................................. 32
Question 22 (Local PD) / Question 25 (Sheriff) ................................................................. 33
Question 23 (Local PD) / Question 26 (Sheriff) ................................................................. 34
Question 24 (Local PD) / Question 27 (Sheriff) ................................................................. 35
Question 25 (Local PD) / Question 28 (Sheriff) ................................................................. 36
Question 26 (Local PD) / Question 29 (Sheriff) ................................................................. 37
Question 27 (Local PD) / Question 30 (Sheriff) ................................................................. 38
Question 28 (Local PD) / Question 31 (Sheriff) ................................................................. 39
Question 29 (Local PD) / Question 32 (Sheriff) ................................................................. 40
Question 30 (Local PD) / Question 33 (Sheriff) ................................................................. 41
Question 31 (Local PD) / Question 34 (Sheriff) ................................................................. 42
Question 32 (Local PD) / Question 35 (Sheriff) ................................................................. 42
Question 33 (Local PD) / Question 36 (Sheriff) ................................................................. 43
Question 34 (Local PD) / Question 37 (Sheriff) ................................................................. 44
Question 35 (Local PD) / Question 38 (Sheriff) ................................................................. 45
Questions 36-38 (Local PD) / Question 39-41 (Sheriff) ................................................... 47
Question 39 (Local PD) / Question 42 (Sheriff) ................................................................. 48
Question 40 (Local PD) / Question 43 (Sheriff) ................................................................. 49
Question 41 (Local PD) / Question 44 (Sheriff) ................................................................. 50
Question 42 (Local PD) / Question 45 (Sheriff) ................................................................. 51
Attachment 4: Cognitive interview report
Question 43 (Local PD) / Question 46 (Sheriff) ................................................................. 52
3. Miscellaneous Topics .................................................................................................................. 53
Burden ......................................................................................................................................... 53
Data Availability......................................................................................................................... 53
Appendix A: PERF Invitation Email .............................................................................................. 55
Appendix B: BJS FedEx Letter ...................................................................................................... 56
Appendix C: BJS Invitation Emails .............................................................................................. 57
Appendix D: Cognitive Interview Participants .......................................................................... 59
Appendix E: Invitation Letter ......................................................................................................... 60
Appendix F: Questionnaires .......................................................................................................... 61
Appendix G: Cognitive Interview Protocols............................................................................... 93
Attachment 4: Cognitive interview report
1. Introduction
This report summarizes the findings and recommendations from cognitive interviews of the Law
Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics (LEMAS) 2020 questionnaire. The cognitive
interviews were conducted from October 2019 through January 2020 by three trained cognitive
interviewers from RTI International (RTI). The purpose of the cognitive interviews was to identify
potential problems and improvements to the LEMAS questionnaire.
A goal of 40 completed cognitive interviews was set. This target was broken down by two
stratification categories: agency type (local police department or sheriff’s office) and agency size (small:
9 or fewer Full-time equivalent [FTE] sworn officers, medium: 10-99 FTE, large: 100 or more FTE). RTI
selected an initial sample of 80 agencies to recruit for participation in the interviews—this initial sample
consisted of 40 primary agencies and 40 replacement agencies to account for the possibility that some
agencies would refuse to participate or would be unreachable. State police agencies were excluded from
selection due to the small number of agencies (N=49).
A representative from the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) emailed (Appendix A) each
primary sample agency to request their participation in the cognitive interviews. This effort did not result
in successful recruitment of any agencies so RTI began calling the agencies to follow up on PERF’s
email. As an additional recruitment effort, RTI sent a FedEx letter to the sampled agencies on behalf of
BJS (Appendix B). RTI then called each agency the next week to follow up on the letter and continued
calling every few days. BJS also sent an invitation email (Appendix C). After several unsuccessful
contact attempts, the recruiters began calling the corresponding replacement agencies.
Despite these repeated and varied contact attempts, recruitment was not on track to reach the
target goals, so 29 additional agencies were added to the sample. In total, 95 agencies were contacted.
Recruitment efforts to these agencies resulted in 20 completed interviews with a roughly even mix of
agency types: 11 local police departments and 9 sheriff’s offices. Small agencies were underrepresented
in the participating sample, with only 2 agreeing to participate. Table 1 presents the participation goals
and number of agencies completing interviews by agency type and size. The full list of participating
agencies is presented in Appendix D.
Table 1. Participation Targets, by Agency Type and Size
Agency Type
Local PD
Local PD
Local PD
Sheriff
Sheriff
Sheriff
Total
Agency Size
Large
Medium
Small
Large
Medium
Small
Target
7
7
7
6
7
7
40
Participants
7
3
1
3
5
1
20
Attachment 4: Cognitive interview report
Once an agency agreed to participate in an interview, RTI emailed or mailed the contact an
invitation letter (Appendix E) and the draft questionnaire (Appendix F). Participants were asked to
complete the questionnaire in advance of the interview and to scan and email or mail it to the interviewer,
if possible. All but three of the local police department participants completed the questionnaire prior to
the interview.
The interviews were conducted by phone. The average length was 55 minutes for local police
departments and 58 minutes for sheriff’s offices. During the calls with participants, the interviewers
followed a cognitive interview protocol with scripted probes (Appendix G). The interviewers also used
spontaneous probes as necessary to clarify key concepts or issues. The findings of all the interviews were
considered together to identify recommendations for potential revisions to the questionnaire.
Findings and recommendations from the cognitive interviews are presented in this report in two
sections: Question-Specific Discussion and Miscellaneous Topics. Each section presents a discussion of
findings and recommended changes to the surveys (if any).
Attachment 4: Cognitive interview report
2. Question-Specific Discussion
This section presents images of each section/question of the draft LEMAS questionnaire, along
with a discussion of findings and recommendations. Questions that appear in both the local police
department and the sheriff’s office questionnaires (but with minor wording differences) are presented
together; questions that do not have a counterpart in the other questionnaire are presented individually.
For questions present in both instruments, none of the findings differed across the two agency types.
The first set of recommendations presented for each section/question is based on findings from
the cognitive interviews. The second set of recommendations describes other changes RTI identified that
may improve the questionnaire but were not explicitly identified through cognitive testing.
RTI recommends two changes that apply to the entire questionnaire are thus not presented in the
question-specific discussion that follows.
1. Update the reference period from June 30, 2019 to June 30, 2020 to account for the anticipated
survey launch date of September 2020.
2. Modify the sheriff’s office instrument to use the term “deputies” instead of “officers” or
“officers/deputies.”
Attachment 4: Cognitive interview report
Question 1
Local PD:
Sheriff:
Findings
This question asks respondents to report the number of employees classified as full-time or parttime. Participants were asked if they have any staff who do not clearly fit into the full-time or part-time
classifications. Only one participant did, explaining that they have limited-term grant-funded employees
who have a set number of hours. Depending on the grant, they may be working full-time hours, but they
are most often working part-time. This participant said they also have “thousand-hour” employees, which
are essentially part-time. The participant counted both of these types of employees as part-time because
he was thinking about “full-time” as permanent employees, many of whom are in a union.
The sheriff survey includes an additional item: “Officers/deputies with limited or no arrest
powers (e.g., jail/correctional officers).” When asked what types of personnel they included in this item,
most participants mentioned jail staff or correctional officers. One participant included their dispatch
staff, because it is a combined dispatch and corrections role and they do not make arrests. A different
participant included officers that help at the lockup, assist with booking, staff the station after hours or on
weekends, greet the public, and do courtroom security.
Recommendations (Based on Interviews)
None.
Attachment 4: Cognitive interview report
Additional Recommendations
None.
Question 2
Findings
This question asks about vacancies in full-time sworn officers. Most participants thought about
vacancies as the number of positions allocated in the budget that are not currently filled. Four participants
thought about the number of authorized positions and one participant thought about the “targeted number”
of officers.
No participants reported difficulty determining the number of vacancies, but some needed to get
this number from another department, such as HR or Recruiting. Two participants (both Local police
department) said it would have been more difficult if they had been asked to provide the number of
vacancies for all staff as opposed to full-time sworn officers, with one explaining that it is more difficult
to break out the data for civilian staff. All other participants said that providing vacancies for all staff
would be just as easy as for full-time sworn.
Recommendations (Based on Interviews)
Include an instruction to compare the number of full-time sworn officers to (1) the number of
authorized positions or (2) the number of budgeted positions. For example, “Enter the number of FULLTIME officer vacancies for the pay period that ended June 30, 2019, comparing the number of authorized
full-time positions to the number of filled full-time positions.”
Additional Recommendations
None.
Attachment 4: Cognitive interview report
Question 3
Local PD:
Attachment 4: Cognitive interview report
Sheriff:
Findings
This question asks for the number of full-time personnel, classified according to their primary job
responsibility and whether they are sworn, non-sworn, or—in the case of Sheriffs—officers/deputies with
limited or no arrest powers. Three participants (from two large and one medium sized local police
departments) said that getting these data was somewhat difficult, with one describing it as a manual hand
count through “a bunch” of division rosters that needed to be tallied. A fourth participant (from a large
local police department) said their system does not clearly distinguish between patrol officers and patrol
supervisors, so it “took some extra work” to manually pull out the number of patrol supervisors.
Participants thought about “primary job responsibility” as what is done on a daily/regular basis,
what is in the job description, or how the personnel spend the majority of their time. In some instances,
participants voiced uncertainty. One gave the example of civilian investigators, who have dual roles doing
investigations and other administrative work. One local police department participant commented that the
question was “semi-confusing” because of the number of determinations that must be made about each
staff person—first, what their primary job responsibility is, and then whether they are sworn or non-
Attachment 4: Cognitive interview report
sworn. Another aspect of the question that was confusing for some participants was where to include
school resource officers (SROs).
A critical issue was with how participants treated the subcategories below Operations. These rows
are meant for reporting a subset of personnel already reported under Operations. However, six
participants (4 local police departments and 2 sheriffs) thought that all personnel reported under
Operations needed to be reported again under either b1 or b2. This interpretation was confusing for
participants and may result in overreporting on b1 and b2 and/or underreporting on b. As an example of
overreporting, one participant reported an SRO under Operations and reported the same SRO under b1
(patrol/field officers only), based on the incorrect assumption that all Operations staff need to fit into one
of these two categories. Other examples of participant confusion related to this issue included the
following:
•
•
A participant who thought the question was confusing because detectives is listed as part of
Operations and also part of b2 (Detectives/investigators only). This participant seemed to think
that duplication was a mistake and detectives should be removed as an example of Operations.
A participant who thought the exclusion of supervisors from b1 and b2 was a mistake. This
participant thought that b1 and b2 needed to be revised to include supervisors in each row (i.e.,
“1. Patrol/field officers and/or supervisors” and “2. Detective supervisors and investigators”).
The remaining participants understood that b1 and b2 will not necessarily sum to the total reported for
operations. The staff they reported under operations but not b1 or b2 included SROs (the most common
response), supervisors, sergeants, first line supervisors, narcotics investigators, and traffic.
The “Dispatchers only” subcategory beneath “Support” was similarly confusing. In probing the
nine sheriff’s office participants, it was found that two omitted their dispatchers from the Support row and
reported them only in the “Dispatchers only” row—these participants apparently thought that the same
individuals should not be reported in multiple rows. Also problematic is that one participant interpreted
“Dispatchers only” to mean that their only job duty is dispatch. This participant reported their dispatchers
under Support and did not report them under Dispatchers because “everyone has a blended job
description.”
One participant apparently missed the distinction that the question is asking about paid personnel
and suggested listing volunteers as an example in the Other category.
One participant from a local police department suggested adding a row for contracted services.
The participant said this is common on the East Coast, and their police department contracts out to a
private company for dispatchers.
Recommendations (Based on Interviews)
Restructure the question to eliminate the subcategories (b1, b2, and f1). The three operations rows
could become “Road officers/deputies”, “Detectives/investigators,” and “Operations staff not reported
above – Supervisors, inspectors, special operations, and other personnel providing direct law enforcement
services.”
Attachment 4: Cognitive interview report
To address the confusion about where to list SROs, we recommend including them as an
italicized example under the Operations category.
Additional Recommendations
Modify Item 3b or Item 3b2 so that the same wording is used for detectives. Currently, Item 3b2
says “detectives/investigators” and 3b says only “detectives.”
Question 4
Findings
None.
Recommendations (Based on Interviews)
None.
Additional Recommendations
None.
Attachment 4: Cognitive interview report
Question 5
Local PD:
Sheriff:
Findings
None.
Recommendations (Based on Interviews)
None.
Additional Recommendations
None.
Attachment 4: Cognitive interview report
Question 6
Local PD:
Attachment 4: Cognitive interview report
Sheriff:
Attachment 4: Cognitive interview report
Findings
This question asks respondents to report the number of full-time sworn by race/ethnicity and
gender and type of supervisory position. Participants gave the following as example of “intermediate
supervisors:” assistant chief, undersheriff, deputy chief, commander, major, captain, and lieutenant. One
participant commented that deputy chiefs and the assistant chief are considered executives and not
necessarily counted as an intermediate supervisor, but he did count them as intermediate supervisors
when answering the question. For the “Sergeant or equivalent first-line supervisor” category, most
everyone interpreted it to mean sergeants only. However, one participant included corporal supervisors
and one included lieutenants.
Participants were not asked about their ability to provide these data, but one commented that their
response was a complete guess because their supervisory staff are very diverse and their agency does not
have good data on their characteristics. A second participant said their Human Resources department
would need to gather this information because “we don’t ask about that.” A third commented that these
data were not easy to provide because the agency does not track data in this way. For this reason, the
agency needed to do a manual hand count to answer the question.
Recommendations (Based on Interviews)
This question is potentially very burdensome, as suggested by some participants’ comments.
Adding an instruction that encourages estimates when data are not tracked by the agency might help
reduce item nonresponse. For example, the following could be added to the existing instruction: “If a
position does not exist in your agency, enter ‘N/A’. If none, enter ‘0’. If your agency does not maintain
data on these characteristics, please provide your best estimates.”
Additional Recommendations
None.
Attachment 4: Cognitive interview report
Question 7
Local PD:
Sheriff:
Findings
Participants were not asked about this question, but three offered comments. The first noted that
they do not keep these records and the second noted that they could not break down bilingual for
detention and sworn. The third said there was “no way” to know the true number because the metric used
is people who are getting paid for the skill, and that is tracked by passing a proficiency test. However,
some personnel who are multilingual opt out of the test.
Recommendations (Based on Interviews)
Consider adding an instruction to provide estimates similar to that suggested for Q6.
Additional Recommendations
None.
Attachment 4: Cognitive interview report
Question 8
Attachment 4: Cognitive interview report
Findings
This question asks how the agency addresses various problems/tasks (e.g., with a specialized
unit). Participants expressed consistent interpretations of “specialized unit,” describing a unit with a
specific mission that is outside of standard patrol functions and uses special skill to perform specific tasks
or duties. The question was easy to answer for agencies that have no/few specialized units and also for
agencies that have all or most of the specialized units listed. However, one participant in a low-crime
community said it was difficult to decide between Columns 4 and 5. Another participant cited difficulty
deciding between Columns 1 and 2 because their agency does not clearly define whether a person doing a
task is officially a “unit.”
A participant from a sheriff’s office with only 2 FTE said it is hard for small departments to look
at questions like this and know what is wanted. Because of their small size they do not have any special
staffing—they just do it all.
Participants were asked if they included only sworn staff in Columns 2 and 3 or both sworn and
non-sworn. About half took each approach. They were also probed about the meaning of “full-time” as
used in Column 1 and again in Columns 2 through 4. There was some confusion among participants about
whether these mentions referred to staff who work full-time (as opposed to part-time) versus staff who
dedicate all of their work hours to the problem/task regardless of how many hours they work. Two local
police departments and one sheriff’s office included part-time staff; the others did not have part-time staff
or thought they should be excluded. One sheriff’s office also considered duties performed by a part-time
reserve deputy when answering this question.
Overall, participants felt that the list of problems/tasks was comprehensive. Most could not think
of any missing items; those who could mentioned K9, motorcycle, mounted unit, mental health, diversion,
and LGBTQ issues. One participant thought that “Special operations” was too broad and should be
broken up into emergency entry teams, K9, traffic reconstruction, and aviation (manned or unmanned).
Three participants thought it was odd that opioids is the only drug on the list. One of these
participants thought other drugs, and specifically methamphetamine, should be listed. Another of these
participants said they have a dedicated unit that handles all drugs but not opioids specifically. Of the 17
participants who completed the survey prior to the interview, five (two local police department and three
sheriff’s office participants) answered that they have a specialized opioids unit.
Several of the participants indicated that some of the problems/tasks overlap at their agency. They
mentioned the following areas of overlap:
• Victim assistance (aa) and several others: Child abuse/endangerment (d), Domestic violence (h),
Juvenile crimes (o), Sexual assault (w)
• Child abuse/endangerment (d) and Domestic violence (h)
• Community policing (e) and Public relations (t)
• Impaired drivers (m) and Traffic enforcement (z)
Attachment 4: Cognitive interview report
Recommendations (Based on Interviews)
Add an instruction stating that all types of full-time personnel should be considered when answer
the question. For example, “Mark the most appropriate box for each problem/task listed below. Consider
FULL-TIME sworn, non-sworn, and civilian personnel. Mark only one box per row.
Consider restructuring the question to ask for less detail by collapsing columns 2 and 3
(addressed by dedicated personnel and addressed by non-dedicated personnel). Consider whether any
modifications of the task list are warranted. For example, some of the tasks could be combined; this
could reduce confusion and reporting error. Impaired drivers (m) and Traffic enforcement (z) seem
especially well-suited for combining, as do Domestic violence (h), Sexual assault (w), and Victim
assistance (aa). Combining such tasks would also allow for the addition of other tasks suggested by
participants. Since the question already takes up an entire page, any additional problems/tasks would
need to replace existing ones.
Additional Recommendations
Use the past tense in column headers to match the time period that is specified in the question.
Question 9
Local PD:
Attachment 4: Cognitive interview report
Sheriff:
Findings
In these questions, respondents are asked to report their agency’s operating budget, date range of
their fiscal year, and whether the operating budget included a line item for community policing activities.
The sheriff’s office instrument specifies that jail administration costs should not be included as
part of the total operating budget, but 4 of the 5 sheriff participants whose agency oversees a jail reported
jail administration costs in this question. The fifth participant, the one who did not report jail
administration costs in this question, initially did include those costs and then removed them after reading
the question.
When participants were asked what they thought “community policing activities” refers to, one
sheriff’s office participant was not sure. The other participants provided the following examples, which
were fairly similar, with few exceptions (i.e., therapy dog program, bike patrol):
• community activity team
• coffee with a cop
• shop with a cop
• back to school bashes
• holiday activities for kids
• badges for kids
• funding for deputies and the sheriff to attend functions
• community interaction and events
• community relations division
• roundtable discussions
• community meetings
• information share and flow between the police department and the community
• outreach programs
• senior citizen outreach
• Project Lifesaver (dementia/autism tracking bracelets)
Attachment 4: Cognitive interview report
•
•
therapy dog program
bike patrol
One sheriff’s office participant had a much different interpretation of “community policing
activities” than the others. This participant explained that “community policing activities” refers to
everything, including jail operations, patrol operations, vehicles, and salaries.
When completing the survey, one local police department participant questioned the purpose of
the community policing question. This participant answered “Yes,” the agency’s budget includes a line
item for community policing activities but explained that their line item is not specifically for doing
community policing activities—it is a larger item that includes community policing along with other
tasks. The participant wondered if the purpose of the question is to determine whether a specific
community policing line item is included or if community policing is covered in the budget more
generally. Another local police department participant who answered “Yes” explained that their
community policing activities are covered by state and federal grants, and that the line item he was
thinking about was the line item for grant funding for community policing projects.
One participant noted it would be helpful to have a field to enter the year in Question 9b, as the
fiscal year he reported began in July 2018 and there is currently no way to make that distinction.
Recommendations (Based on Interviews)
To address the issue of sheriff respondents including jail administration costs in their total
operating budget, remove the instruction from Question 9a to exclude jail administration costs and add a
follow-up question asking if the total operating budget reported includes jail administration costs. If jail
costs are included, ask for an estimate of those costs. This question structure would help identify cases
where the jail costs are included, even if the respondent is ultimately unable to report those costs
separately.
Additional Recommendations
None.
Attachment 4: Cognitive interview report
Question 10 (Sheriff)
Findings
None.
Recommendations (Based on Interviews)
None.
Additional Recommendations
None.
Question 10 (Local PD) / Question 11 (Sheriff)
Findings
None.
Recommendations (Based on Interviews)
None.
Additional Recommendations
None.
Attachment 4: Cognitive interview report
Questions 12 and 13 (Sheriff)
Findings
These questions on the sheriff survey ask for the size and population of their service area.
Participants uniformly understood “service area” to mean the county they are responsible for. Some
already knew the service area’s square mileage; others looked it up using public records, Google, or the
county’s website.
When reporting the service area’s population, most participants reported the entire county’s
population. One participant was unsure of the service area’s population and said he could only provide a
range. Six of the participants said their agency provides policing services under contract to cities within
the county; all six included these contract cities in their population count. One participant subtracted out
the populations served by the county’s several standalone police departments. Similarly, one participant
explained, “If our incorporated city had a police department, then we would not have ‘primary’ law
enforcement responsibility within the city. We would still have jurisdiction within the city and could still
police in the city, but the responsibility would fall with the police department, and I would not have
included them in the population count.”
About half of the participants included in the population counts of cities or jurisdictions that have
their own law enforcement agencies and about half did not. Those who included these cities/jurisdictions
would be able to exclude their populations from the total count reported in this question, but some said it
would be difficult (e.g., would need to call the villages to determine their population) and some
mentioned that they still serve the areas (e.g., small villages within the county) that have their own police
departments.
Several participants indicated that the population they serve fluctuates due to tourism, college
students, or migrants working in agriculture. The participant who mentioned migrants is the one who did
not know the total population and could only provide a range. The others said they did not include tourists
in their population count. Of the two participants who mentioned fluctuations due to college students, one
counted students because they go on calls to that college, which is a small school with its own security;
the other excluded the students because they attend a large state university that has its own police.
Recommendations (Based on Interviews)
None.
Attachment 4: Cognitive interview report
Additional Recommendations
None.
Question 11 (Local PD) / Question 14 (Sheriff)
Findings
This question asks if the agency has a problem-solving partnership or written agreement with
various groups, agencies, organizations, etc. Most participants interpreted “problem-solving partnership”
as an informal, collaborative relationship and “written agreement” as a more formal arrangement.
When answering this question, one participant considered only formal agreements, which he
described as those with “a memorandum of understanding or some sort of written agreement that is
legally reviewed.” However, all other participants considered a combination of formal and informal
agreements.
Six participants mentioned the term “memorandum of understanding” when asked to describe
their interpretation of the question.
Recommendations (Based on Interviews)
Modify the question to note informal relationships and include “memorandum of understanding.”
For example, “…did your agency have an informal problem-solving relationship or a memorandum of
understanding or other written agreement with any of the following?”
Additional Recommendations
None.
Attachment 4: Cognitive interview report
Question 12 (Local PD) / Question 15 (Sheriff)
Findings
This question asks if agencies solicited feedback from the community. About half of participants
thought the question was asking only about formal methods of soliciting feedback, such as conducting a
survey or creating a Sheriffs Advisory Council, while the others also thought about informal approaches,
such as accepting comments on social media or conducting community round tables, listening sessions, or
town hall meetings.
Recommendations (Based on Interviews)
Modify the question to clarify what types of feedback should be included, for example, the
question could ask “…did your agency solicit feedback informally (e.g., via social media, community
listening sessions) or formally (e.g., via a community survey or advisory council)?”
Additional Recommendations
None.
Attachment 4: Cognitive interview report
Question 13 (Local PD) / Question 16 (Sheriff)
Findings
Item b in this question asks if the agency conducted a citizen police academy. Participants were
not specifically probed on this item. However, one commented that their agency did not conduct “an
actual citizen academy” but they have “retired citizen” and “police cadet” programs. The participant was
not sure if these would apply.
Recommendations (Based on Interviews)
None.
Additional Recommendations
None.
Attachment 4: Cognitive interview report
Question 14 (Local PD) / Question 17 (Sheriff)
Findings
These questions ask about minimum education requirements for new sworn recruits. The
questions were easy for most participants to answer because their agencies’ education requirements are
the same for all recruits.
Recommendations (Based on Interviews)
None.
Additional Recommendations
None
Attachment 4: Cognitive interview report
Question 15 (Local PD) / Question 18 (Sheriff)
Findings
None.
Recommendations (Based on Interviews)
None.
Additional Recommendations
None.
Attachment 4: Cognitive interview report
Question 16 (Local PD) / Question 19 (Sheriff)
Findings
This question asks about training hours for non-lateral recruits. One participant was unsure what
“non-lateral” means; all others understood it to mean a recruit who is not transferring from another
department and/or has not completed a full academy.
The question says to include law enforcement training only. Because of this instruction, three
participants excluded medical training (i.e., first aid and CPR; medical training; first responder training)
and one excluded administrative and in-service training.
As intended, none of the sheriff’s office participants included training hours for training on jail
operations.
Two participants indicated that the number of academy training hours differs for recruits who are
full-time sworn versus part-time sworn.
Recommendations (Based on Interviews)
Modify the instructions to clarify whether any aspects of medical training should be included. To
address the issue of different training hours for full-time versus part-time sworn, ask only about full-time
sworn in this question. Add a follow-up question to ask if the requirements for part-time sworn are the
same or different from the requirements for full-time sworn.
Additional Recommendations
None.
Attachment 4: Cognitive interview report
Question 17 (Local PD) / Question 20 (Sheriff)
Findings
This question asks for the minimum number of state-mandated versus additional training hours.
Participants were not probed on this question, but one commented that additional training hours could be
extra training for a specialty. These hours vary by specialty, so he was unable to provide a precise number
and instead wrote in “varies.”
Recommendations (Based on Interviews)
Modify the question wording to specify that specialty training hours should be excluded. For
example, “What is the minimum annual number of in-service hours of training that is required for your
agency’s FULL-TIME SWORN officers? Include general law enforcement training only. Do not include
specialty training. If no training is required, enter ‘0’.”
Additional Recommendations
None.
Attachment 4: Cognitive interview report
Question 18 (Local PD) / Question 21 (Sheriff)
Findings
This question asks for the number of hires by type (non-lateral, lateral, other). Like on the earlier
question that used the term “non-lateral,” most participants understand the distinction between lateral and
non-lateral hires. On this question, two participants specified that the distinction comes down to whether
the hire is already POST certified.
Participants generally thought that these numbers were easy to determine, but one local police
department participant said it was a little harder to determine the number of lateral hires because they do
not make that distinction in their data.
A majority of participants were unable to provide an example of the type of new hire that would
be reported in the “Other” category. Those who did provide examples mentioned auxiliary or reserve
officers, retired law enforcement, police executives from outside the agency, the executive assistant to the
chief, new hires that are reinstated, and officers hired for serving papers.
Recommendations (Based on Interviews)
None.
Additional Recommendations
None.
Attachment 4: Cognitive interview report
Question 19 (Local PD) / Question 22 (Sheriff)
Findings
This question asks for the average number of weeks to hire an entry-level officer. Participants had
varying interpretations of the question. The question indicates that they should count from when the
application was received, but few did that. Some counted from as early as the job being posted or as late
as the interview being conducted. Other starting points participants used included the date of the initial
hiring announcement, the application submission cut-off date, and the exam/testing date (including civil
service).
The instructions also say to use the offer of employment as the other bound when determining the
number of weeks until hire. Participants were not probed on what end point they used, but one offered
that he used the academy start date.
Aside from the issue of participants using the wrong time frame, another issue with this question
is that participants had difficulty reporting the average because there is variability in hiring time. They
said the amount of time varies greatly because of variations in the amount of time needed to conduct
background checks, the urgency to fill open positions, the availability of medical materials or information
from prior employers, or testing requirements based on the applicants’ education. Because of this
variation, participants provided only a rough estimate of the average hiring time.
Recommendations (Based on Interviews)
Consider removing this question entirely—it is difficult for respondents to determine the average
and they did not consider the start and end points specified in the question. Alternatively revise the
question to ask, “Thinking about entry-level SWORN officers, on average, how many weeks pass from
the time they submit their application to the time they are offered employment? Do not include basic
academy training.”
Additional Recommendations
None.
Attachment 4: Cognitive interview report
Question 20 (Local PD) / Question 23 (Sheriff)
Findings
This question asks whether various types of applicants were targeted through special recruitment
efforts. Participants had similar ideas of what counts as “special recruitment efforts.” They described any
special recruitment activities outside of their normal recruitment efforts, such as targeting specific groups
of people by mailing lists, job fairs, or through their schools.
Recommendations (Based on Interviews)
None.
Additional Recommendations
None.
Attachment 4: Cognitive interview report
Question 21 (Local PD) / Question 24 (Sheriff)
Findings
This question asks what types of hiring incentives the agency offers. Most participants indicated
that their incentives are offered for all hires, but two mentioned that they have some incentives only for
lateral hires. One of the two did not report the incentives for lateral hires because the question asks about
entry-level hires.
Recommendations (Based on Interviews)
None.
Additional Recommendations
None.
Attachment 4: Cognitive interview report
Question 22 (Local PD) / Question 25 (Sheriff)
Findings
This question asks for the number of full-time sworn officers who separated from the agency for
various reasons. One participant was unable to provide these numbers because the majority of separations
are for retirement and the agency does not keep a breakdown of other reasons.
Participants were asked if they think individuals who were in the academy when they separated
from the agency should be considered when answering this question. Their answers were evenly split,
with half saying yes and half saying no. Two of those who said yes offered that they reported these
individuals under Resignations and under Probationary rejections. Among those who did not think
individuals who were in the academy at the time of their separation should be included, two noted that
they should not be counted because they are not yet full-time sworn officers.
Recommendations (Based on Interviews)
Add an instruction to exclude trainees while they are still in the academy. For example, “Do not
include sworn officer recruits while who separated prior to completing academy training. If none, enter
‘0’.”
Additional Recommendations
Flip the order of “Probationary rejections” (Item e) and “Resignations” (Item a).
Attachment 4: Cognitive interview report
Question 23 (Local PD) / Question 26 (Sheriff)
Findings
This question asks about the agency’s exit interview policy. One local police department
participant selected the option “Exit interviews typically not conducted” because their Human Resources
department does the exit interviews; they were not thinking of the department as part of the law
enforcement agency.
Recommendations (Based on Interviews)
None.
Additional Recommendations
To be more concise and for consistency with the last response option, change “Agency conducts
exit interviews…” to “Exit interviews conducted…” in the first three response options. Also, consider
modifying the question to specify “FULL-TIME SWORN officers,” like in other questions.
Attachment 4: Cognitive interview report
Question 24 (Local PD) / Question 27 (Sheriff)
Findings
None.
Recommendations (Based on Interviews)
None.
Additional Recommendations
Change “Enter the salary…” to “Enter the base annual salary…” to clarify the information being
requested. In addition, change the first response option from “Chief executive (chief, director, sheriff,
etc.)” to “Chief executive (chief, director, etc.) on the local police department instrument and to “Sheriff”
on the sheriff’s office instrument.
Attachment 4: Cognitive interview report
Question 25 (Local PD) / Question 28 (Sheriff)
Findings
This question asks what types of special pay the agency provides. Participants generally thought
the list was comprehensive, especially because “Special skills proficiency pay” covers—as one
participant put it—“a whole gamut of stuff.” The only additional types of special pay participants
mentioned were for field training officers, detectives, and specialty teams. One participant noted that
certain types of special pay apply only to some officers based on their date of hire.
Recommendations (Based on Interviews)
None.
Additional Recommendations
None.
Attachment 4: Cognitive interview report
Question 26 (Local PD) / Question 29 (Sheriff)
Findings
This question asks what methods the agency uses to increase its retention rate. Participants were
not probed on this question, but one noted that their agency offers certain benefits to a subset of officers
based on their date of hire.
Recommendations (Based on Interviews)
None.
Additional Recommendations
To ask the question in a more clear and concise way, consider revising it to say, “Did your agency
offer the following benefits to increase retention among FULL-TIME SWORN officers during the fiscal
year including June 30, 2019?”
Attachment 4: Cognitive interview report
Question 27 (Local PD) / Question 30 (Sheriff)
Findings
None.
Recommendations (Based on Interviews)
None.
Additional Recommendations
None.
Attachment 4: Cognitive interview report
Question 28 (Local PD) / Question 31 (Sheriff)
Findings
This question asks which weapons or actions are authorized for use, and whether they are
authorized while on duty or off duty. Most participants thought that “authorized” refers to agency policy.
One participant, however, was not thinking about a formal policy and instead was thinking about whether
the officers are assigned a weapon on which they have received training. Participants acknowledged that
some weapons are authorized for use in certain situations only, but this did not seem to confuse them as
they answered—they indicated that these weapons are authorized for use.
One participant thought that “authorized for use” was a “weird” way of wording the question.
This participant suggested instead saying “authorized to possess/carry.”
A different participant noted that some of the weapons are only authorized for use by their SWAT
team. When answering this question, they focused only on patrol officers and did not report the weapons
for SWAT only.
Attachment 4: Cognitive interview report
Recommendations (Based on Interviews)
Restructure the question to present two yes/no columns. Ask, “As of June 30, 2019, did your
agency have a formal policy authorizing use of the following weapons or actions by full-time sworn
officers while – ” Column 1 can then be labeled with “…On duty?” (yes/no) and Column 2 with “…Off
duty?” (yes/no). The column labelled “Not authorized” could then be eliminated.
Additional Recommendations
To simplify the grid, remove the “Firearms” section header and the entire row containing the
“Less Lethal” section header. These headers do not seem to be critical.
Question 29 (Local PD) / Question 32 (Sheriff)
Findings
This question asks about the types of video cameras regularly operated by the agency.
Participants found the to be easy to answer. However, they had extremely varied interpretations of its
meaning. The following are some of the explanations participants provided when asked what they thought
“operated […] on a REGULAR basis” means in this question:
• Used at least once per year
• Used “about every day”
• Used on a daily basis
• Used during a single shift (Because every officer is issued a body camera, this
participant reported the number of body-worn cameras in use per shift rather than the
total number in use across the department.)
• Used whenever on shift duty (e.g., in patrol cars and body-worn cameras) or used 24
hours per day for fixed-site surveillance
• Used during the normal course of business or as a part of standard duties and operations
• Use is normal and common, and does not require a warrant
• Used in accordance with department policy
Attachment 4: Cognitive interview report
•
Always available for use
One participant was confused by the use of “operated by” as it relates to patrol cars (Item d),
presumably since the camera can activate automatically. Another participant acknowledged counting
school cameras the department has access to, even though they “do not necessarily operate them.”
Recommendations (Based on Interviews)
If it is possible to define “regular” across the various types of video cameras referenced in this
question, it might help improve consistency among respondents and thereby increase data quality.
Additional Recommendations
None.
Question 30 (Local PD) / Question 33 (Sheriff)
Findings
These questions ask for the number of handlers and K-9s, and also the activities they engaged in.
Item e, “Public enforcement,” was not uniformly understood by participants. About half thought it refers
to crowd control, with some of these participants citing crowd control as just one of several activities
covered under public enforcement. One participant specifically said it does not refer to crowd control, as
that participant’s agency is prohibited from using dogs for that purpose. Other examples participants
provided of public enforcement included normal patrol work, clearing buildings, traffic enforcement,
street enforcement, helping with arrests, managing riots, and attending parades or other events with a
large amount of people. One participant was not sure what public enforcement refers to in this question
and did not provide any examples.
Attachment 4: Cognitive interview report
One participant suggested using the term “general enforcement” rather than “public
enforcement.”
Recommendations (Based on Interviews)
Clarify what is meant by “Public enforcement.”
Additional Recommendations
None.
Question 31 (Local PD) / Question 34 (Sheriff)
Findings
None.
Recommendations (Based on Interviews)
None.
Additional Recommendations
None.
Question 32 (Local PD) / Question 35 (Sheriff)
Findings
None.
Recommendations (Based on Interviews)
None.
Additional Recommendations
None.
Attachment 4: Cognitive interview report
Question 33 (Local PD) / Question 36 (Sheriff)
Findings
This question asks which of a variety of tools the agency use. Participants were not probed on this
question, but one suggested adding an additional category of “Electronic forensics” related to computers,
internet, cell phones, and other electronic devices.
Recommendations (Based on Interviews)
None.
Additional Recommendations
None.
Attachment 4: Cognitive interview report
Question 34 (Local PD) / Question 37 (Sheriff)
Findings
This question asks for which activities agencies use data. Two participants were not sure what
Item e, “Predictive policing,” refers to. One of them guessed that it means training personnel to predict
where crime will happen. The others gave a variety of explanations, including:
• Using data to predict future crime patterns
• Forecasting where future crime will occur
• Using crime analysis and statistics to look for patterns and allocate manpower or special
units to a specific area to stop crime from occurring
• Predicting upcoming issues, such as having traffic issues when a large convention comes
to town
• Heat mapping (This example was provided by a participant from a small police
department that, according to the participant, is “so small we know this information—we
don’t have the tools even if we wanted to [do this type of analysis].”)
The two participants from small agencies commented that many of these items do not apply to
their agencies given their small size.
Recommendations (Based on Interviews)
Clarify what is meant by “Predictive policing.”
Additional Recommendations
None.
Attachment 4: Cognitive interview report
Question 35 (Local PD) / Question 38 (Sheriff)
Findings
This question asks whether the respondent’s agency has various written policies or procedural
directives. For Item b (“Maximum work hours allowed”), participants had differing ideas of what types of
work should be included. They considered various combinations of regular work, regular shift work, work
within the department, off duty work, secondary employment, overtime, and “work done in the capacity
of the sheriff’s office.” Furthermore, those who answered “Yes” and specified the number of hours
Attachment 4: Cognitive interview report
provided hours using varying time period units (e.g., hours per day or hours per week). The most common
time period was 24 hours; others were one day, one week, and one pay period (two weeks).
Participants were asked what they thought Item c (“Off-duty conduct”) refers to. Although they
described it in different ways, all seemed to think of it as their behavior when not on duty.
All of the participants answered “Yes” to Item d (“Use of deadly force/firearm discharge”), but
they meant different things when selecting their response. Most participants meant that their agency has
both a deadly force policy and a firearm discharge policy. Similarly, one participant meant that their
agency has a use of force policy that covers use of deadly force, such as firearm discharge. However, one
participant reported having only a use of force policy and one reporting having only a firearm discharge
policy.
Recommendations (Based on Interviews)
Modify Item b to specify the type of work. Remove the field to specify the maximum hours or
allow respondents to indicate what time period unit they are using to report the.
Move firearm discharge to its own category.
Additional Recommendations
None.
Attachment 4: Cognitive interview report
Questions 36-38 (Local PD) / Question 39-41 (Sheriff)
Findings
Participants reported no difficulty in answering these questions, which ask about checking the
immigration status of persons detained. The first question asks about regularly checking immigration
status. Most participants thought that meant during the normal course of duties or as the norm, and
similarly, one participant thought of “regularly” as a “standard operating practice.” Another participant
described it as “often.” One participant was an outlier in their interpretation, thinking that regularly
checking immigration status meant “whenever an officer comes in contact with a person,” similar to
checking licenses and warrants.
Only two participants were routed to the second and third questions after answering “Yes” to the
first. Both indicated that the circumstances in which their officers check immigration status depends on
the situation and varies on a case-by-case basis. On the third question, both answered “Yes,” that their
officers verify immigration status with the Department of Homeland Security. One commented, “I can’t
think of any other way to check.”
Six participants indicated their agency has a policy regarding checking immigration status, either
prohibiting it or specifying in which situations it is allowed. Only three of these participants submitted a
completed survey prior to the interview, but all three of them selected “Yes” on the immigration item in
the prior question (Q35n/Q38n).
Attachment 4: Cognitive interview report
One sheriff’s office participant suggested adding questions to ask if officers are cross-certified
with immigration enforcement, how they handle ICE detainees in the jails, and if there are any
prohibitions on working with federal agencies.
Recommendations (Based on Interviews)
Revise the first question to clarify what is meant by “regularly” checking immigration status and
remove the third question.
Additional Recommendations
Change the questions to past tense to match the time period (“As of June 30, 2019”).
Question 39 (Local PD) / Question 42 (Sheriff)
Findings
Respondents whose officers do not regularly check the immigration status of detainees are routed
to this question, which asks for the reasons why. Overall, participants thought the list of items was
comprehensive, with only one suggesting an additional item related to public trust that is more inclusive
than Item d, which focuses on victims.
Recommendations (Based on Interviews)
None.
Additional Recommendations
Revise Item e to say, “Concerned that officers will be perceived as using racial profiling.”
Attachment 4: Cognitive interview report
Question 40 (Local PD) / Question 43 (Sheriff)
Findings
This question asks if the agency has an Early Intervention System for monitoring or responding to
problematic officer behavior. Participants were asked if they think there is a difference between an Early
Intervention System and an Early Warning System. All but two participants thought the two were
synonymous; the other two explained that they have an Early Warning System but not an Early
Intervention System because they are not actually intervening.
Recommendations (Based on Interviews)
Change the question wording to ask about an “Early Warning System or Early Intervention
System.”.
Additional Recommendations
Change the question to past tense to match the time period (“As of June 30, 2019”).
Attachment 4: Cognitive interview report
Question 41 (Local PD) / Question 44 (Sheriff)
Local PD:
Findings
This question asks how many formal citizen complaints were received during the fiscal year, by
current disposition status. These numbers were easy for participants to report, but eleven of them needed
to request these data from others in their agency (most commonly Internal Affairs).
Participants thought the three categories were adequate and they were able to map the categories
their agency uses into the provided categories. There was one exception, however—one participant noted
that their agency will close a case with no disposition if someone resigns before the investigation is
concluded.
Participants’ agencies differ in what they consider to be a “formal citizen complaint.” A local
police department participant from Illinois who explained that the system for complaints in Illinois is very
formal and a “formal complaint” is one that is notarized. Another approach was noted by three
participants who said a formal complaint is one that goes through Internal Affairs and/or an investigation
is launched. In some agencies, a formal complaint is any complaint submitted in writing (but one noted an
exception for complaints submitted via social media), and in other agencies a formal complaint is only
one in which the complainant fills out the designated paperwork. And finally, some agencies consider a
formal complaint to be any complaint received in any form (e.g., a voicemail). However, one participant
whose agency takes this approach shared two exceptions: (1) if the complainant is highly intoxicated, the
agency will follow up when they are sober to see if they still want to complain or if they were only
making a complaint as a result of their intoxication, and (2) if the supervisor asks the complainant if they
would like to file a formal complaint and they say no, then they would consider it to be only an informal
complaint.
Participants were asked how they would answer this question if some of the complaints contained
multiple allegations. One participant said he would count each of the allegations as a separate complaint
Attachment 4: Cognitive interview report
but noted that his approach would depend on the situation. This participant was from a small police
department so the number of complaints/allegations he receives may be considerably lower than many of
the other participants, who all said they would count a complaint only once even if it included multiple
allegations.
Recommendations (Based on Interviews)
Remove the question if differences in how agencies classify complaints as “formal” is
problematic. Alternatively, provide an instruction or additional question wording to define the term.
Additional Recommendations
The question might be more intuitive if the order of columns were flipped, since “All complaints”
is a total and tables tend to present totals in the rightmost column.
Question 42 (Local PD) / Question 45 (Sheriff)
Findings
None.
Recommendations (Based on Interviews)
None.
Additional Recommendations
None.
Attachment 4: Cognitive interview report
Question 43 (Local PD) / Question 46 (Sheriff)
Local PD:
Findings
None.
Recommendations (Based on Interviews)
None.
Additional Recommendations
Change the question to past tense to match the time period (“As of June 30, 2019”).
Attachment 4: Cognitive interview report
3. Miscellaneous Topics
Burden
Participants who completed the survey prior to the cognitive interview provided an estimate of
how long it took to complete. They reported the following completion times:
Mean
Median
Min
Max
Large PD
3 hours & 12 minutes
3 hours & 8 minutes
1 hour & 50 minutes
6 hours & 0 minutes
Sheriff
1 hour & 25 minutes
1 hour & 30 minutes
0 hours & 45 minutes
8 hours & 0 minutes
Participants were asked how they felt about the length of the questionnaire and the time needed to
complete it. The general consensus was that it was not too burdensome, but it is important to keep in mind
that recruitment was difficult – likely due to how busy many of the contacted agencies are – and those
that participated in the cognitive interviews may have more interest, availability, or staff support than is
typical.
At the end of the interview, participants shared comments on the survey’s burden, including the
following:
•
“It was time consuming having to hand count folks since they are grouped differently than the
question asks. It is definitely the longest survey I take during the year.”
•
“It is the longest survey we take during the year. I can only imagine how difficult it would be for
a large agency. We are small and it took me 2 hours which is quite the burden.”
•
“It would take us about 90 minutes to complete. The time to complete is not too bad.”
•
“It is reasonable, we track all the data asked about.”
•
“It took me a lot longer than the burden statement said, but it is a valuable survey”
•
“It’s not bad. It’s a little long, but for something that happens once every 3 years it’s adequate and
it should take a little time to get the real information.”
•
“A two-hour burden in the statement doesn’t sound unreasonable to me.”
•
“It is not too burdensome as we report on this regularly.”
•
“It wasn’t bad, I should have taken more time with a few of the questions and gotten specific data
instead of just guessing.”
Data Availability
For participants at the large agencies in particular, completing the survey required a group effort.
The large agencies reported needing to reach out to as many as eight or nine other people or departments
Attachment 4: Cognitive interview report
to gather the information requested in the survey. Participants at medium and small agencies were able to
complete more of the survey on their own, and some were able to complete all of it on their own.
One participant who needed to reach out to others to complete the survey explained, “I find it
cumbersome when I can’t answer the questions—it’s a pain in the butt when I have to wait for other
people.” Another participant said, “It was difficult having to wade through the written directives and
policies to answer these questions.”
A different issue of data availability was brought up by only one participant. This person
explained that their agency keeps data on gender and ethnicity but has only been doing that since 2013.
As a result, they could provide gender and ethnicity statistics only for personnel hired since 2013.
Attachment 4: Cognitive interview report
Appendix A: PERF Invitation Email
Good morning/afternoon [TITLE] [NAME],
My name is [PERF NAME] with the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF). We’re working with the
Bureau of Justice Statistics and RTI International (RTI) to develop the 2020 Law Enforcement
Management and Administrative Statistics (LEMAS) Core Survey. Next year, the survey will be sent to
approximately 3,500 law enforcement agencies nationwide.
However, before we send this survey out nationally, we need direct feedback from agencies to ensure
the survey questions and instructions are as clear as possible. I’m writing to ask for your agency’s
participation in providing feedback. This request is not going to a large number of agencies – yours was
specifically selected and we hope your agency can participate.
If you agree, we would:
-
provide a copy of the LEMAS draft survey to your agency’s point of contact;
ask him/her to complete the survey;
return it to us; and
schedule a brief phone interview (1 hour maximum) with RTI staff to discuss the survey.
We hope to collect this feedback throughout October and November, and our team can be flexible to
your schedule.
Please let me know whether or not your agency will help providing feedback on the 2020 LEMAS, or if
you have additional questions about this request.
Sincerely,
[PERF NAME]
Attachment 4: Cognitive interview report
Appendix B: BJS FedEx Letter
Dear [TITLE] [NAME],
I am writing to request your assistance with a special research project in support of the Bureau of Justice
Statistics’ Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics (LEMAS) survey. Your agency,
along with a small number of others, has been specifically selected to help guide us in the planning
phase of our research.
BJS is working with RTI International (RTI) and the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) to develop
the 2020 LEMAS. Conducted periodically since 1987, the survey collects data from a national sample of
3,500 law enforcement agencies. The 2020 LEMAS has been redesigned and tailored specifically for
[local police departments or sheriffs’ offices] in order to be more relevant to your agency.
Before we begin the national survey, we hope to receive feedback from [local police departments or
sheriffs’ offices] to (1) help ensure the survey questions and instructions are as clear as possible and (2)
the survey gathers data that are useful to law enforcement. RTI or PERF will contact your agency in the
coming days to request your participation and answer any questions you might have about this special
request. In the meantime, if you have any questions about participation, please contact Dr. Sean
Goodison at PERF ([email protected], 202-454-8319). If you have any general comments or
questions, please feel free to contact me at [email protected].
Sincerely,
Shelley Hyland
Bureau of Justice Statistics
Attachment 4: Cognitive interview report
Appendix C: BJS Invitation Emails
BJS Email – Local Police
Subject: Bureau of Justice Statistics - Special Request
Dear [TITLE] [NAME],
I am writing to request your assistance with a special research project in support of the Bureau of Justice
Statistics’ (BJS) Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics (LEMAS) survey. BJS
recently published findings from the 2016 LEMAS, including Local Police Departments, 2016: Personnel;
additional information about LEMAS and other reports from the study are available at
https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=dcdetail&iid=248.
Your agency, along with a small number of others, has been
specifically selected to help guide us as we plan the 2020
LEMAS survey. We have redesigned the survey to be more
relevant to agencies like your own, and we hope to discuss a
draft of the survey with you to help ensure (1) the survey
questions and instructions are as clear as possible and (2) the
survey gathers data that are useful to law enforcement. Our
research partners at RTI International (RTI) and/or the Police
Executive Research Forum (PERF) have been unsuccessful in
their previous attempts to contact you about this request, so
I wanted to personally reach out to see if I can address any
questions or concerns you may have about this request.
The LEMAS collects data from over
3,500 general purpose, county, and
local law enforcement agencies,
including data on
•
•
•
•
•
If you agree, we would provide a copy of the LEMAS draft
survey to your agency’s point of contact, ask him/her to
complete the survey and return it to us, and schedule a brief
phone interview (1 hour maximum) with RTI staff to discuss
the survey.
•
•
If this is something you could help us out with, you may click
here to schedule your agency’s 1-hour interview online.
Alternatively, you may contact Alexander Rabre of RTI
International at 919-541-1258.
•
•
•
•
policies and procedures,
hiring and retention,
job functions of sworn and
civilian employees,
officer salaries and special pay,
demographic characteristics of
officers,
weapons and armor policies,
education and training
requirements,
computers and information
systems,
operating expenditures,
special units, and
community policing activities.
Thank you for your consideration of this important request. If
you have any general comments or questions, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Shelley Hyland
Bureau of Justice Statistics
Attachment 4: Cognitive interview report
BJS Email – Sheriffs
Subject: Bureau of Justice Statistics - Special Request
Dear [TITLE] [NAME],
I am writing to request your assistance with a special research project in support of the Bureau of Justice
Statistics’ (BJS) Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics (LEMAS) survey. BJS
recently published findings from the 2016 LEMAS, including Sheriffs’ Offices, 2016: Personnel; additional
information about LEMAS and other reports from the study are available at
https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=dcdetail&iid=248.
Your agency, along with a small number of others, has been specifically selected to help guide us as
we plan the 2020 LEMAS survey. We have redesigned the survey to be more relevant to agencies like
your own, and we hope to discuss a draft of the survey with you to help ensure (1) the survey questions
and instructions are as clear as possible and (2) the survey gathers data that are useful to law
enforcement.
Our research partners at RTI International (RTI) and/or the
Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) have been
unsuccessful in their previous attempts to contact you about
this request, so I wanted to personally reach out to see if I
can address any questions or concerns you may have about
this request.
If you agree, we would provide a copy of the LEMAS draft
survey to your agency’s point of contact, ask him/her to
complete the survey and return it to us, and schedule a brief
phone interview (1 hour maximum) with RTI staff to discuss
the survey.
If this is something you could help us out with, you may click
here to schedule your agency’s 1-hour interview online.
Alternatively, you may contact Alexander Rabre of RTI
International at 919-541-1258.
Thank you for your consideration of this important request. If
you have any general comments or questions, please feel
free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Shelley Hyland
Bureau of Justice Statistics
The LEMAS collects data from over
3,500 general purpose, county, and
local law enforcement agencies,
including data on
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
policies and procedures,
hiring and retention,
job functions of sworn and
civilian employees,
officer salaries and special pay,
demographic characteristics of
officers,
weapons and armor policies,
education and training
requirements,
computers and information
systems,
operating expenditures,
special units, and
community policing activities.
Attachment 4: Cognitive interview report
Appendix D: Cognitive Interview Participants
Table D1. Participating Agencies
LEAR ID
635934
637686
641279
637011
636563
632314
641896
636444
638944
636458
630972
635311
641906
636956
635566
632399
633575
646544
636005
633273
Agency Size
Large
Large
Large
Large
Large
Large
Large
Medium
Medium
Medium
Small
Large
Large
Large
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Small
Agency Type
Local PD
Local PD
Local PD
Local PD
Local PD
Local PD
Local PD
Local PD
Local PD
Local PD
Local PD
Sheriffs
Sheriffs
Sheriffs
Sheriffs
Sheriffs
Sheriffs
Sheriffs
Sheriffs
Sheriffs
Agency Name
San Diego Police Department
Sandy Springs Police Department
Shreveport Police Department
Tallahassee Police Department
Waterbury Police Department
Alexandria Police Department
Prince George's County Police Department
Brookfield Police Department
Lemont Police Department
Darien Police Department
Moorcroft Police Department
Pima County Sheriff's Department
St. Mary's County Sheriff's Office
Pinellas County Sheriff's Office
Colusa County Sheriff's Office
Dinwiddie County Sheriff's Office
Kershaw County Sheriff's Office
Logan County Sheriff's Office
Sierra County Sheriff's Office
Campbell County Sheriff's Office
Attachment 4: Cognitive interview report
Appendix E: Invitation Letter
Dear [TITLE] [NAME],
Recently, you were asked by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) and its data collection agent,
RTI International (RTI), to assist with a special effort related to the Law Enforcement
Management and Administrative Statistics (LEMAS) Core Survey. Conducted periodically since
1987, the LEMAS is the only systematic, national-level data collection providing a snapshot of
the organizational characteristics of law enforcement agencies (LEAs) and allowing for
comparisons of how LEAs have changed over time. The upcoming 2020 LEMAS will include a
sample of approximately 3,500 local, county and state LEAs nationwide.
As part of this effort, we are asking a small number of LEAs to complete the attached survey and
provide feedback. As you are completing the survey, please take note of any of the following:
•
•
•
Instructions, terms, or questions that are vague or insufficiently defined;
Answer choices that are unclear, confusing, or insufficient; and
How you arrived at your response.
I would also appreciate if you could record how long it takes you to complete the survey. As
arranged previously, I will call you at [TIME] on [DAY], [DATE] to discuss your responses
and experience answering the questions. If possible, please submit your survey 1 week before
the call—this will allow for a more efficient discussion. Once completed, you can return your
questionnaire to me by email or fax ([FAX_PHONE]).
If you have any questions about this special request, please contact me at [PHONE] or [EMAIL].
If you have any general comments about the LEMAS, please contact Shelley Hyland, the
LEMAS Program Manager at BJS, at [email protected].
Sincerely,
[INTERVIEWER NAME], [DEGREE]
[JOB TITLE]
RTI International
Attachment 4: Cognitive interview report
Appendix F: Questionnaires
Attachment 4: Cognitive interview report
Attachment 4: Cognitive interview report
Attachment 4: Cognitive interview report
Attachment 4: Cognitive interview report
Attachment 4: Cognitive interview report
Attachment 4: Cognitive interview report
Attachment 4: Cognitive interview report
Attachment 4: Cognitive interview report
Attachment 4: Cognitive interview report
Attachment 4: Cognitive interview report
Attachment 4: Cognitive interview report
Attachment 4: Cognitive interview report
Attachment 4: Cognitive interview report
Attachment 4: Cognitive interview report
Attachment 4: Cognitive interview report
Attachment 4: Cognitive interview report
Sheriff:
Attachment 4: Cognitive interview report
Attachment 4: Cognitive interview report
Attachment 4: Cognitive interview report
Attachment 4: Cognitive interview report
Attachment 4: Cognitive interview report
Attachment 4: Cognitive interview report
Attachment 4: Cognitive interview report
Attachment 4: Cognitive interview report
Attachment 4: Cognitive interview report
Attachment 4: Cognitive interview report
Attachment 4: Cognitive interview report
Attachment 4: Cognitive interview report
Attachment 4: Cognitive interview report
Attachment 4: Cognitive interview report
Attachment 4: Cognitive interview report
Attachment 4: Cognitive interview report
Appendix G: Cognitive Interview Protocols
Attachment 4: Cognitive interview report
2020 LEMAS Police Department Survey: Cognitive Interview Protocol
DATE: ___ ___ / ___ ___ / 2 0 1 9
M M
D D
START TIME: ___ ___ : ___ ___ AM / PM
[BASIC GREETING…]
Thanks for agreeing to help us develop the questionnaire for the 2020 Law Enforcement Management
and Administrative Statistics Survey. The call will take about an hour. If this time still works for you, I’d
like to start with a short summary of the goals for today’s call and explain a bit about how I’ll conduct
the interview.
IF NO LONGER A GOOD TIME, OFFER TO RESCHEDULE
IF STILL GOOD TIME, CONTINUE
As you may know, the Bureau of Justice Statistics and RTI are preparing to conduct the LEMAS survey in
early 2020. As we get ready for the study, we are asking representatives from law enforcement agencies
to review the draft questionnaire. During this call, I’ll ask for your reactions to the draft questions –
including things like how the questions are worded, ways to clarify instructions, and the information
your agency tracks that is related to the survey questions.
Please keep in mind that there are no right or wrong answers to my questions. One of our main goals is
to draft questions that make sense, so if anything about the questions is confusing or unclear, you can
help by pointing this out. Also, if you’re not sure how you would respond to any of the questions, please
tell me that, too.
I am interested in hearing all of your feedback on the survey, but because there are a lot of topics to
discuss and we only have an hour, sometimes I might ask that we move on to the next question before
you’ve had a chance to share everything on your mind. At the end of the interview you can share any
important feedback that you didn’t have a chance to share earlier.
Do you have any questions before we begin?
First, do you happen to recall approximately how much time you spent completing the questionnaire?
Please include the time you and any others at your agency spent gathering information needed to
answer the questions.
__________ HOURS
__________ MINUTES
Attachment 4: Cognitive interview report
I’m planning to discuss only some of the questions on the questionnaire, but if you have comments or
concerns about any of the questions I skip, please feel free to share them with me at any time.
1. The first question I’d like to discuss is Question 1. This question asks about full-time versus parttime staff.
a. Do you have any staff who don’t clearly fit into the full-time or part-time classifications?
(FOR INSTANCE: IF THEY WORK A VARIED SCHEDULE EACH WEEK.)
i. IF YES: How would you decide whether to report those staff under full-time or
part-time?
2. Question 2 asks about vacancies in full-time sworn officers.
a. What criteria did you use when thinking about vacancies? (FOR INSTANCE, WERE YOU
THINKING ABOUT A TARGET NUMBER OF OFFICERS, THE NUMBER OF OFFICERS
ALLOWED IN THE BUDGET, OR SOMETHING ELSE?)
b. How easy or difficult is it for you to report this number?
c. How would the difficulty compare if you were asked to report vacancies for all staff?
3. Now let’s look at Question 3.
a. In your own words, how would you define “primary job responsibility?”
b. How easy or difficult is it for you to access the data needed to answer this question?
c. Did you report any personnel in more than one row? (IF YES: Explain.)
d. Did you have any difficulty deciding in which rows to report certain staff? (IF YES,
EXPLAIN: In which rows did you ultimately report them? What types of staff were they?)
e. 3b contains three rows: The first row is for operations overall, the second row, labeled
with a 1, is for patrol and field officers only, and the third row, labeled with a 2, is for
detectives and investigators only.
i. IF 3b1+3b2=3b:
1. When answering this question, did you feel that the number of patrol
and field officers plus the number of detectives and investigators
needed to add up to the number reported in 3b, Operations?
2. Did you have any personnel who did not clearly fit into one of the
categories? (IF YES: How did you decide where to report them?)
ii. IF 3b1+3b2≠3b:
1. What types of personnel did you report in each of these categories?
2. Did you have any personnel who did not clearly fit into one of the
categories? (IF YES: How did you decide where to report them?)
4. The next question I’d like to discuss is Question 6.
a. What types of officers were you thinking of under the “Intermediate Supervisor”
category? IF NECESSARY: Did you include any executive staff? (IF YES: Who?)
b. How about the “Sergeant or equivalent first-line supervisor” category—what ranks or
positions did you consider for this category?
5. Now let’s go to Question 8.
a. This question uses the term “specialized unit.” How would you define a “specialized
unit?” (IF NECESSARY: What does that mean, in your own words?)
Attachment 4: Cognitive interview report
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
b. The question asks about “personnel” designated to address the problem or task. How
did you define ”personnel” when you answered this question?
c. Did you include full- and part-time staff in columns 2 and 3 or only full-time staff?
d. Did you include sworn and non-sworn staff in columns 2 and 3 or only sworn staff?
e. Did you have any difficulty deciding which column to select when providing any of your
answers? (IF YES, EXPLAIN.)
f. Thinking about the categories of problems or tasks that are listed in the rows—
i. Can you think of any additional categories that are missing and should be listed
in this question? (IF YES, EXPLAIN.)
ii. Do you think any of these existing categories overlap? (IF YES, EXPLAIN.)
iii. Are any of the categories confusing or unclear?
Next, please look at Question 9c.
a. In your own words, what does it mean to say that there is a “line item” in an agencies
budget?
b. IF YES: Can you tell me what sorts of activities are covered in that line item?
c. IF NO: The question refers to “community policing activities.” What sorts of activities
did you consider when answering this question?
Please look at Question 11 next.
a. In your own words, what is a “problem-solving partnership”?
b. Is it the same as a written agreement, or do they differ? [IF DIFFER: SPECIFY HOW.]
Please look at Question 12.
a. How did you interpret “solicit feedback” as it is used in this question? What does that
mean?
Moving on to Question 14a…
a. Does your agency have the same education requirements for all recruits? (IF YES,
EXPLAIN.)
i. IF NO (IF NECESSARY): Are the requirements different for full-time sworn versus
part-time sworn?
ii. IF NO (IF NECESSARY): Are the requirements different for limited sworn versus
fully sworn?
b. Do the education requirements for any recruits change from the time of hiring to within
two years of hiring? (IF YES: HOW?)
Next, I’d like to talk about Question 16.
a. In your own words, what would you say “non-lateral” is referring to in this question?
b. The question includes an instruction to include law enforcement training only. Did that
lead you to exclude any types of training that your recruits receive? (IF YES, EXPLAIN.)
c. Does the number of training hours differ for recruits who are full-time sworn versus
part-time sworn? (IF YES, EXPLAIN.)
Now I’d like to talk about questions in Section V, Hiring and Retention. Let’s start with Question
18.
a. How easy or difficult is it for you to access the data needed to answer this question?
Attachment 4: Cognitive interview report
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
b. 18a and 18b use the terms “non-lateral” and “lateral.” What is the difference between
these two, or are you not sure?
c. 18c asks about “Other new hires.” Can you give me some examples of what types of
hires you would include in this category?
Question 19 asks about the average number of weeks to hire an entry-level sworn officer.
a. What starting point did you use when calculating the number of weeks? (THE QUESTION
SAYS TO START WITH “APPLICATION SUBMISSION.” DID THEY DO THAT? HOW DID THEY
DEFINE APPLICATION SUBMISSION? FOR INSTANCE, IF THE POSITION IS UNABLE TO BE
FILLED WHEN THE APPLICATION IS SUBMITTED, DID THEY STILL USE THAT AS THE
STARTING POINT?)
b. Do the number of weeks vary by type of recruit?
i. IF YES: How did you come up with the overall average number you reported?
Question 20 asks about special recruitment efforts.
a. What do you think “special recruitment efforts” means in this context?
[ASK IF ANY YES RESPONSE ON Q21]: Question 21 asks about incentives for entry level sworn
officer hires.
a. Are these incentives offered for all hires or only some hires?
i. IF SOME: Did you answer “yes” or “no” for the incentives that are only offered
to some hires?
Question 22 asks about officers who separated from your agency.
a. Did you report any officers in more than one row?
b. Did you think individuals who were in the academy when they separated from the
department should be considered when answering this question?
[INTERVIEWER, IF N/A RESPONSE WAS ENTERED ON Q24, NOTE WHERE ON THE FORM THEY
ENTERED IT.]
a. [ASK IF NO N/A RESPONSE ON Q24]: Question 24 asks about salaries. It includes an
instruction to enter “NA” if a position does not exist on a full-time basis in your agency.
Where would you enter NA if you needed to?
Question 25 asks about special pay for sworn officers. Does your agency offer any additional
types of special pay that are not included in this question?
Let’s skip ahead now to Question 28.
a. The question asks about weapons or actions that were authorized for use. In your own
words, what does “authorized” mean as it is used in this question? (E.G., ARE THEY
THINKING ABOUT A FORMAL, WRITTEN POLICY? OR SIMPLY WHAT IS DOES IN PRACTICE
BASED ON WHAT THE SHERIFF IS ASSUMED TO ALLOW?)
b. Did you have any difficulty answering this question? (EXPLAIN)
c. Are there any weapons that your agency authorizes for use only some of the time or in
certain situations?
i. IF YES: Did that impact the way you answered this question? (EXPLAIN)
Question 29 asks about video cameras operated by your agency on a regular basis as of June 30,
2019.
Attachment 4: Cognitive interview report
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
a. What do you think the phrase “operated by your agency” means as it is used in this
question?
b. How did you interpret the term “regular basis” when you were answering this question?
What does that mean to you? (IF NECESSARY: Does it differ for various items?)
c. How easy or difficult is it for you to access the data needed to answer this question?
[ASK IF 30b WAS ANSWERED] Question 30b asks about activities that K-9s engage in, and item e
asks about “public enforcement.” What do you think that refers to?
Now I’d like you to look at Question 34. Item e asks about “predictive policing.” What do you
think that refers to?
Question 35 asks about written policies and procedural directives your agency may have.
a. How did you interpret item b? For instance, were you thinking about only regular
assignments? Or did you think about other types of work, such as overtime, special
duty, or work performed at another job or secondary employment?
i. [ASK IF 35b = YES] When you reported the maximum number of hours allowed,
what time period where you thinking of? (E.G., PER DAY, PER WEEK, ETC.)
b. What do you think item c, “off-duty conduct,” refers to?
c. [ASK IF 35d = YES] Did you answer 35d “yes” because your agency has a deadly force
policy, a firearm discharge policy, or both?
d. [ASK IF 35d = NO] Can you walk me through your thought process as you answered this
question and describe how you chose your answer?
Question 36 asks about checking immigration status.
a. Does your agency have a policy regarding checking immigration status?
b. How would you define the word “regularly” as it is used in this question?
c. Did you have any difficulty answering this question? (EXPLAIN)
[ASK IF 36 = YES] Question 38 asks if your officers verify immigration status with the Department
of Homeland Security.
a. (NOTE: THIS PROCESS INCLUDES CALLING THE LAW ENFORCEMENT SUPPORT CENTER
(LESC), WHICH IS RUN BY IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, THE LARGEST
INVESTIGATIVE AGENCY WITHIN DHS. THE ONLY WAY TO VERIFY IMMIGRATION STATUS
IS BY CALLING LESC)
b. Is this something that your officers always approach the same way, meaning, they
always do it or they never do it? Or is it something that varies—they might do it in some
circumstances and not in others?
c. Does your agency ever verify immigration status without checking with the Department
of Homeland Security? (IF YES, HOW?)
[ASK IF 36 = NO] Question 39 lists several reasons why an agency might not check the
immigration status of persons detained.
a. Are there any additional reasons that you think should be listed in this question?
b. In your own words, what do you think item e, “Concerned about the perception of racial
profiling,” refers to?
Question 40 asks about Early Intervention Systems.
Attachment 4: Cognitive interview report
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
a. [ASK IF 40 = NO] I see that you indicated your agency does not have an Early
Intervention System. Do you have an Early Warning System?
b. Do you think there is a difference between the meaning of an Early Intervention System
versus an Early Warning System? (EXPLAIN.)
i. IF NO: Which term are you most familiar with or which do you use more often?
I’m almost finished with my questions. Let’s move on to Question 41, which asks about formal
citizen complaints.
a. How does your agency define a formal citizen complaint?
b. Are there any kinds of complaints that you would not count as a formal citizen
complaint, for example complaints to a supervisor in the field? (EXPLAIN.)
c. Does your agency track both allegations and complaints?
i. IF YES: For a complaint with multiple allegations, would you report it here as a
single complaint or multiple complaints?
d. How easy or difficult is it for you to access the data needed to answer this question?
e. What sources did you use to gather these data?
f. The question breaks complaints down by disposition status: sustained, other, and
pending.
i. Were you able to report all complaints received by the agency? (EXPLAIN.)
ii. Do you think any other disposition statuses should be included? (EXPLAIN.)
Now think about the survey overall. Did you have difficulty with any aspect of the survey that
we have not already discussed?
How much of the information needed to answer these questions do you have available? What
did you need to get from other people at your agency?
How do you feel about the length and time needed to complete the questionnaire?
Your feedback on these questions has been very helpful. Before we conclude, do you have any
other feedback or suggestions to improve the questionnaire?
Thank you very much for taking the time to provide feedback. We will combine your comments with
feedback from other participants into an overall report. That report will help BJS evaluate the
questionnaire and determine whether to make any changes.
Is there anything else you would like to talk about today?
Thanks again!
END TIME: ___ ___ : ___ ___ AM / PM
Attachment 4: Cognitive interview report
2020 LEMAS Sheriff’s Survey: Cognitive Interview Protocol
DATE: ___ ___ / ___ ___ / 2 0 1 9
M M
D D
START TIME: ___ ___ : ___ ___ AM / PM
[BASIC GREETING…]
Thanks for agreeing to help us develop the questionnaire for the 2020 Law Enforcement Management
and Administrative Statistics Survey. The call will take about an hour. If this time still works for you, I’d
like to start with a short summary of the goals for today’s call and explain a bit about how I’ll conduct
the interview.
IF NO LONGER A GOOD TIME, OFFER TO RESCHEDULE
IF STILL GOOD TIME, CONTINUE
As you may know, the Bureau of Justice Statistics and RTI are preparing to conduct the LEMAS survey in
early 2020. As we get ready for the study, we are asking representatives from sheriff’s offices to review
the draft questionnaire. During this call, I’ll ask for your reactions to the draft questions – including
things like how the questions are worded, ways to clarify instructions, and the information your office
tracks that is related to the survey questions.
Please keep in mind that there are no right or wrong answers to my questions. One of our main goals is
to draft questions that make sense, so if anything about the questions is confusing or unclear, you can
help by pointing this out. Also, if you’re not sure how you would respond to any of the questions, please
tell me that, too.
I am interested in hearing all of your feedback on the survey, but because there are a lot of topics to
discuss and we only have an hour, sometimes I might ask that we move on to the next question before
you’ve had a chance to share everything on your mind. At the end of the interview you can share any
important feedback that you didn’t have a chance to share earlier.
Do you have any questions before we begin?
First, do you happen to recall approximately how much time you spent completing the questionnaire?
Please include the time you and any others at your office spent gathering information needed to answer
the questions.
__________ HOURS
__________ MINUTES
Attachment 4: Cognitive interview report
I’m planning to discuss only some of the questions on the questionnaire, but if you have comments or
concerns about any of the questions I skip, please feel free to share them with me at any time.
1. The first question I’d like to discuss is Question 1. This question asks about full-time versus parttime staff.
a. Do you have any staff who don’t clearly fit into the full-time or part-time classifications?
(FOR INSTANCE: IF THEY WORK A VARIED SCHEDULE EACH WEEK.)
i. IF YES: How would you decide whether to report those staff under full-time or
part-time?
b. Looking at 1b, what do you think “limited or no arrest powers” means as it’s used in this
question?
i. Which types of personnel did you include in this item?
c. Do the examples in rows a and b accurately describe the arrest power differences
between your agency’s officers/deputies?
2. Question 2 asks about vacancies in full-time sworn officers.
a. What criteria did you use when thinking about vacancies? (FOR INSTANCE, WERE YOU
THINKING ABOUT A TARGET NUMBER OF OFFICERS, THE NUMBER OF OFFICERS
ALLOWED IN THE BUDGET, OR SOMETHING ELSE?)
b. How easy or difficult is it for you to report this number?
c. How would the difficulty compare if you were asked to report vacancies for all staff?
3. Now let’s look at Question 3.
a. In your own words, how would you define “primary job responsibility?”
b. How easy or difficult is it for you to access the data needed to answer this question?
c. Did you report any personnel in more than one row? (IF YES: Explain.)
d. Did you have any difficulty deciding in which rows to report certain staff? (IF YES,
EXPLAIN: In which rows did you ultimately report them? What types of staff were they?)
e. 3b contains three rows: The first row is for operations overall, the second row, labeled
with a 1, is for road officers and deputies only, and the third row, labeled with a 2, is for
detectives and investigators only.
i. IF 3b1+3b2=3b:
1. When answering this question, did you feel that the number of road
officers or deputies plus the number of detectives and investigators
needed to add up to the number reported in 3b, Operations?
2. Did you have any personnel who did not clearly fit into one of the
categories? (IF YES: How did you decide where to report them?)
ii. IF 3b1+3b2≠3b:
1. What types of personnel did you report in each of these categories?
2. Did you have any personnel who did not clearly fit into one of the
categories? (IF YES: How did you decide where to report them?)
f. 3f is similar—it contains a row for support staff overall and the row below it is for
dispatchers only. In which row or rows did you report dispatchers? (DETERMINE IF
REPORTED IN MULTIPLE ROWS.)
Attachment 4: Cognitive interview report
4. The next question I’d like to discuss is Question 6.
a. What types of officers were you thinking of under the “Intermediate Supervisor”
category? IF NECESSARY: Did you include any executive staff? (IF YES: Who?)
b. How about the “Sergeant or equivalent first-line supervisor” category—what ranks or
positions did you consider for this category?
5. Now let’s go to Question 8.
a. This question uses the term “specialized unit.” How would you define a “specialized
unit?” (IF NECESSARY: What does that mean, in your own words?)
b. The question asks about “personnel” designated to address the problem or task. How
did you define ”personnel” when you answered this question?
c. Did you include full- and part-time staff in columns 2 and 3 or only full-time staff?
d. Did you include sworn and non-sworn staff in columns 2 and 3 or only sworn staff?
e. Did you have any difficulty deciding which column to select when providing any of your
answers? (IF YES, EXPLAIN.)
f. Thinking about the categories of problems or tasks that are listed in the rows—
i. Can you think of any additional categories that are missing and should be listed
in this question? (IF YES, EXPLAIN.)
ii. Do you think any of these existing categories overlap? (IF YES, EXPLAIN.)
iii. Are any of the categories confusing or unclear?
6. Next, please look at Question 9c.
a. In your own words, what does it mean to say that there is a “line item” in an agencies
budget?
b. IF YES: Can you tell me what sorts of activities are covered in that line item?
c. IF NO: The question refers to “community policing activities.” What sorts of activities
did you consider when answering this question?
7. Next, I’d like to talk about Question 10.
a. On Question 10a, in your own words, what does it mean to “oversee a jail?”
b. What time period were you thinking about when you answered this question
(QUESTION 10a)?
c. [ASK IF 10a = YES] Did you include jail administration costs in the total operating budget
you reported in Question 9a?
d. When you read this question about jails, did you consider a temporary holding facility as
a jail?
8. Now let’s look at Question 12.
a. In your own words, what does “service area” mean as it is used in this question?
b. How did you come up with your answer to this question?
9. Next, I’d like to ask about Question 13.
a. How did you interpret “primary responsibility” as it is used in this question? What does
that mean?
b. Does your agency provide policing services under contract to cities within the county?
i. IF YES: Did you include these contract cities in your population count?
Attachment 4: Cognitive interview report
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
c. Does the population you serve vary over time due to temporary residents such as
university students?
i. IF YES: How did you take this variation into account when coming up with your
answer?
d. Did you include population counts of cities or jurisdictions that have their own law
enforcement agencies?
i. IF YES: Would you be able to provide the population served while excluding
places that have their own agency?
Next I would like to ask you about Section IV, Community Policing.
a. Overall, do you feel these questions are applicable to your agency?
i. IF NO: Why not?
b. Please look at Question 14 next.
i. In your own words, what is a “problem-solving partnership”?
ii. Is it the same as a written agreement, or do they differ? [IF DIFFER: SPECIFY
HOW.]
c. Please look at Question 15.
i. How did you interpret “solicit feedback” as it is used in this question? What
does that mean?
Moving on to Question 17a…
a. Does your agency have the same minimum education requirements for all recruits? (IF
YES, EXPLAIN.)
i. IF NO (IF NECESSARY): Are the requirements different for full-time sworn versus
part-time sworn?
ii. IF NO (IF NECESSARY): Are the requirements different for limited sworn versus
fully sworn?
b. Do the education requirements for any recruits change from the time of hiring to within
two years of hiring? (IF YES: HOW?)
Next, I’d like to talk about Question 19.
a. In your own words, what would you say “non-lateral” is referring to in this question?
b. The question includes an instruction to include law enforcement training only. Did that
lead you to exclude any types of training that your recruits receive? (IF YES, EXPLAIN.)
c. Did you report training hours for training on jail operations?
d. Does the number of training hours differ for recruits who are full-time sworn versus
part-time sworn? (IF YES, EXPLAIN.)
Now I’d like to talk about questions in Section VI, Hiring and Retention. Let’s start with Question
21.
a. How easy or difficult is it for you to access the data needed to answer this question?
b. 21a and 21b use the terms “non-lateral” and “lateral.” What is the difference between
these two, or are you not sure?
c. 21c asks about “Other new hires.” Can you give me some examples of what types of
hires you would include in this category?
Question 22 asks about the average number of weeks to hire an entry-level sworn officer.
Attachment 4: Cognitive interview report
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
a. What starting point did you use when calculating the number of weeks? (THE QUESTION
SAYS TO START WITH “APPLICATION SUBMISSION.” DID THEY DO THAT? HOW DID THEY
DEFINE APPLICATION SUBMISSION? FOR INSTANCE, IF THE POSITION IS UNABLE TO BE
FILLED WHEN THE APPLICATION IS SUBMITTED, DID THEY STILL USE THAT AS THE
STARTING POINT?)
b. Do the number of weeks vary by type of recruit?
i. IF YES: How did you come up with the overall average number you reported?
Question 23 asks about special recruitment efforts.
a. What do you think “special recruitment efforts” means in this context?
[ASK IF ANY YES RESPONSE ON Q24]: Question 24 asks about incentives for entry level sworn
officer hires.
a. Are these incentives offered for all hires or only some hires?
i. IF SOME: Did you answer “yes” or “no” for the incentives that are only offered
to some hires?
Question 25 asks about officers who separated from your agency.
a. Did you report any officers in more than one row?
b. Did you think individuals who were in the academy when they separated from the
department should be considered when answering this question?
[INTERVIEWER, IF N/A RESPONSE WAS ENTERED ON Q27, NOTE WHERE ON THE FORM THEY
ENTERED IT.]
a. [ASK IF NO N/A RESPONSE ON Q27]: Question 27 asks about salaries. It includes an
instruction to enter “NA” if a position does not exist on a full-time basis in your agency.
Where would you enter NA if you needed to?
Question 28 asks about special pay for sworn officers. Does your agency offer any additional
types of special pay that are not included in this question?
Let’s skip ahead now to Question 31.
a. The question asks about weapons or actions that were authorized for use. In your own
words, what does “authorized” mean as it is used in this question? (E.G., ARE THEY
THINKING ABOUT A FORMAL, WRITTEN POLICY? OR SIMPLY WHAT IS DOES IN PRACTICE
BASED ON WHAT THE SHERIFF IS ASSUMED TO ALLOW?)
b. Did you have any difficulty answering this question? (EXPLAIN)
c. Are there any weapons that your agency authorizes for use only some of the time or in
certain situations?
i. IF YES: Did that impact the way you answered this question? (EXPLAIN)
Question 32 asks about video cameras operated by your agency on a regular basis as of June 30,
2019.
a. What do you think the phrase “operated by your agency” means as it is used in this
question?
b. How did you interpret the term “regular basis” when you were answering this question?
What does that mean to you? (IF NECESSARY: Does it differ for various items?)
c. How easy or difficult is it for you to access the data needed to answer this question?
Attachment 4: Cognitive interview report
22. [ASK IF 33b WAS ANSWERED] Question 33b asks about activities that K-9s engage in, and item e
asks about “public enforcement.” What do you think that refers to?
23. Now I’d like you to look at Question 37. Item e asks about “predictive policing.” What do you
think that refers to?
24. Question 38 asks about written policies and procedural directives your agency may have.
a. How did you interpret item b? For instance, were you thinking about only regular
assignments? Or did you think about other types of work, such as overtime, special
duty, or work performed at another job or secondary employment?
i. [ASK IF 38b = YES] When you reported the maximum number of hours allowed,
what time period where you thinking of? (E.G., PER DAY, PER WEEK, ETC.)
b. What do you think item c, “off-duty conduct,” refers to?
c. [ASK IF 38d = YES] Did you answer 38d “yes” because your agency has a deadly force
policy, a firearm discharge policy, or both?
d. [ASK IF 38d = NO] Can you walk me through your thought process as you answered this
question and describe how you chose your answer?
25. Question 39 asks about checking immigration status.
a. Does your agency have a policy regarding checking immigration status?
b. How would you define the word “regularly” as it is used in this question?
c. Did you have any difficulty answering this question? (EXPLAIN)
26. [ASK IF 39 = YES] Question 41 asks if your officers verify immigration status with the Department
of Homeland Security.
a. (NOTE: THIS PROCESS INCLUDES CALLING THE LAW ENFORCEMENT SUPPORT CENTER
(LESC), WHICH IS RUN BY IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, THE LARGEST
INVESTIGATIVE AGENCY WITHIN DHS. THE ONLY WAY TO VERIFY IMMIGRATION STATUS
IS BY CALLING LESC.)
b. Is this something that your officers always approach the same way, meaning, they
always do it or they never do it? Or is it something that varies—they might do it in some
circumstances and not in others?
c. Does your agency ever verify immigration status without checking with the Department
of Homeland Security? (IF YES, HOW?)
27. [ASK IF 39 = NO] Question 42 lists several reasons why an agency might not check the
immigration status of persons detained.
a. Are there any additional reasons that you think should be listed in this question?
b. In your own words, what do you think item e, “Concerned about the perception of racial
profiling,” refers to?
28. Question 43 asks about Early Intervention Systems.
a. [ASK IF 43 = NO] I see that you indicated your agency does not have an Early
Intervention System. Do you have an Early Warning System?
b. Do you think there is a difference between the meaning of an Early Intervention System
versus an Early Warning System? (EXPLAIN.)
i. IF NO: Which term are you most familiar with or which do you use more often?
Attachment 4: Cognitive interview report
29. I’m almost finished with my questions. Let’s move on to Question 44, which asks about formal
citizen complaints.
a. How does your agency define a formal citizen complaint?
b. Are there any kinds of complaints that you would not count as a formal citizen
complaint, for example complaints to a supervisor in the field? (EXPLAIN.)
c. Does your agency track both allegations and complaints?
i. IF YES: For a complaint with multiple allegations, would you report it here as a
single complaint or multiple complaints?
d. How easy or difficult is it for you to access the data needed to answer this question?
e. What sources did you use to gather these data?
f. The question breaks complaints down by disposition status: sustained, other, and
pending.
i. Were you able to report all complaints received by the agency? (EXPLAIN.)
ii. Do you think any other disposition statuses should be included? (EXPLAIN.)
30. Now think about the survey overall. Did you have difficulty with any aspect of the survey that
we have not already discussed?
31. How much of the information needed to answer these questions do you have available? What
did you need to get from other people at your agency?
32. How do you feel about the length and time needed to complete the questionnaire?
33. Your feedback on these questions has been very helpful. Before we conclude, do you have any
other feedback or suggestions to improve the questionnaire?
Thank you very much for taking the time to provide feedback. We will combine your comments with
feedback from other participants into an overall report. That report will help BJS evaluate the
questionnaire and determine whether to make any changes.
Is there anything else you would like to talk about today?
Thanks again!
END TIME: ___ ___ : ___ ___ AM / PM
Attachment 5: 60-day notice
Attachment 6: 30-day notice
Attachment 6: 30-day notice
Attachment 7: Public comment in response to 60-day notice
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Deepak Premkumar
Davis, Elizabeth (OJP)
Comments for LEMAS Improvement
Wednesday, April 29, 2020 2:14:33 PM
Elizabeth Davis,
Hello! My name is Deepak Premkumar, and I am a PhD Candidate at UC Berkeley, who
researches the economics of crime and policing. (Here is my website if you're curious.) I
wanted to suggest some proposed additions to the LEMAS survey if it is not too late. Overall,
the LEMAS survey is crucial to the gamut of researchers studying policing. The main
suggestion I have is to continue producing them in more regular intervals and every year is
possible. That would great aide the robustness of a handful of research findings.
Additionally, I would like to see a few questions on the survey related to civil asset forfeiture.
I know you have a few already, but the added granularity is important to answer important
research questions: (1) How much proceeds were acquired from forfeitures/seizures in the last
year?; (1a) How much of that number is from equitable sharing with the federal government?
Please specify separate numbers from allocations from the Department of Justice and
Treasury; (1b) How much of that number is from joint investigations with state agencies? (2)
How many seizures did you department undertake in the last year? (3) How much of the
seizures were drug related? Their value? (4) How many officers were arrested for misconduct
in the last year?
I hope you agree that these questions are not time intensive and would be beneficial for their
inclusion. I personally have research questions that would use LEMAS for them, and I know
of a few other researchers who would as well, in addition to all of the other great data that
LEMAS contains. Thanks so much for your great work!
Stay safe and be well,
Deepak
--
Deepak Premkumar
Ph.D. Candidate
Ag. & Resource Economics
University of California, Berkeley
"Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth
a tiny ripple of hope, and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring, those ripples build a
current that can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance." -- Robert F. Kennedy (Capetown, South
Africa)
Attachment 8. Prenotification Letter to Agency Heads
<> <<NAME>>
OR CURRENT CHIEF EXECUTIVE
<<AGENCYNAME>>
<<ADDRESS1>>
<<ADDRESS2>>
<<ADDRESS3>>
<<CITY>>, <<STATE>> <<ZIP>>
DATE
Dear <<Title>> <Name>>:
I am pleased to announce that the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) has begun preparations for the 2020
Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics (LEMAS) survey. LEMAS is an important
part of BJS’s Law Enforcement Core Statistics program, which coordinates several law enforcement
agency surveys conducted by BJS. BJS has periodically administered the LEMAS since 1987 to gather
information on key agency characteristics like personnel, policies, and activities. By comparing survey
data over time, BJS is able to show how the nature of law enforcement has changed.
In the next few weeks, BJS will invite <<AgencyName>> to participate in the 2020 LEMAS; specifically,
your agency will be asked to complete an online survey focusing on personnel, expenditures and pay,
operations, equipment, computers and information systems, and policies and procedures.
I appreciate that you receive a number of data requests throughout the year and I thank you for your
support of LEMAS. If you have questions about LEMAS, please contact the data collection team via
phone or email at 800-XXX-XXXX or lemas@rti.org. If you have any general comments about this data
collection, please contact the BJS Program Manager, Shelley Hyland, at Shelley.Hyland@usdoj.gov.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey H. Anderson
Director
Bureau of Justice Statistics
<<ControlNumber>>
Attachment 9. Survey Invitation to Agency Points of Contact (Letter)
<<TITLE>> <<NAME>>
OR CURRENT CHIEF EXECUTIVE
<<AGENCYNAME>>
<<ADDRESS1>>
<<ADDRESS2>>
<<ADDRESS3>>
<<CITY>>, <<STATE>> <<ZIP>>
Dear «TITLE» «NAME»:
I am writing to ask for your participation in the 2020 Law Enforcement Management and Administrative
Statistics (LEMAS) survey. Since 1987, LEMAS has periodically gathered information on key agency
characteristics related to personnel, policies, and agency activities. Your response to the 2020 LEMAS is
critical to the Bureau of Justice Statistics’ effort to produce national estimates of personnel, expenditures
and pay, operations, equipment, computers and information systems, and policies and procedures.
To complete your survey, please access the questionnaire online at https://bjslecs.org/lemas2020. You
may start and stop as needed. Your agency-specific information is:
Username:
Password:
«WebUsername»
«PIN»
Please complete this questionnaire online by November 23, 2020.
The questionnaire takes approximately 2 hours to complete including time to research or find information
you may not have readily available. A copy of the survey can be downloaded from the website to assist
you in gathering the necessary data. You may share it with others at your agency who can assist you in
providing the requested information.
If you need to change the point of contact for your agency or update your contact information (including
email address), go to https://bjslecs.org/lemas2020 using the username and password shown above and
follow the instruction provided on the website. If you have questions about LEMAS, please contact the
LEMAS data collection team via phone or email at 800-XXX-XXXX or LEMAS@rti.org. If you have
any general comments about this data collection, please contact me at 202-616-1706 or
Shelley.Hyland@usdoj.gov.
BJS uses the data collected in LEMAS only for research and statistical purposes, as described in Title 34,
USC §10134. RTI International, the LEMAS data collection agent, is required to adhere to BJS Data
Protection Guidelines, which summarize the many federal statutes, regulations, and other authorities that
govern all BJS data and data collected and maintained under BJS’s authority. The Guidelines may be
found at http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/BJS_Data_Protection_Guidelines.pdf.
Thank you in advance for your agency’s participation in LEMAS. We appreciate your time and effort.
Sincerely,
Shelley S. Hyland, PhD, Program Manager, Bureau of Justice Statistics
Enclosures: 2020 LEMAS Study Flyer
Agency Point of Contact Update Form
2020 LEMAS Survey Content
<<ControlNumber>>
Attachment 10. Letter of Support (Police Department)
<<TITLE>> <<NAME>>
OR CURRENT CHIEF EXECUTIVE
<<AGENCYNAME>>
<<ADDRESS1>>
<<ADDRESS2>>
<<ADDRESS3>>
<<CITY>>, <<STATE>> <<ZIP>>
DATE
Dear <<Title>> <Name>>:
The Bureau of Justice Statistics, working with RTI International and the Police Executive Research
Forum (PERF), is fielding the 2020 Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics
(LEMAS) survey. Conducted periodically since 1987, the LEMAS is the only survey of general purpose
law enforcement agencies that gathers nationally representative information on key agency characteristics
in the U.S.
Recognizing the importance of this work, the nation’s law enforcement community as represented
by the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), Major Cities Chiefs Association
(MCCA), the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives (NOBLE), the National
Sheriffs Association (NSA), and the Major County Sheriffs of America (MCSA) provide their full
support of these efforts. These organizations recognize the importance of this national data collection
and encourage their members and other law enforcement agency professionals to participate.
Your participation will help ensure that the 2020 LEMAS is a success and that the results can be used by
law enforcement, policy-makers, and researchers with confidence. We know that your staff have many
responsibilities and limited time, but we hope that you will provide the requested information and
contribute to this effort. No other data collection provides such a complete accounting of the functions
and personnel of law enforcement agencies throughout the country.
We thank you in advance for your participation in this important study.
Sincerely,
Attachment 11. Letter of Support (Sheriff’s Office)
<<TITLE>> <<NAME>>
OR CURRENT CHIEF EXECUTIVE
<<AGENCYNAME>>
<<ADDRESS1>>
<<ADDRESS2>>
<<ADDRESS3>>
<<CITY>>, <<STATE>> <<ZIP>>
DATE
Dear <<Title>> <Name>>:
The Bureau of Justice Statistics, working with RTI International and the Police Executive Research
Forum (PERF), is fielding the 2020 Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics
(LEMAS) survey. Conducted periodically since 1987, the LEMAS is the only survey of general purpose
law enforcement agencies that gathers nationally representative information on key agency characteristics
in the U.S.
Recognizing the importance of this work, the nation’s law enforcement community as represented
by the National Sheriffs Association (NSA), the Major County Sheriffs of America (MCSA), the
National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives (NOBLE), the International
Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), and Major Cities Chiefs Association (MCCA) provide their
full support of these efforts. These organizations recognize the importance of this national data
collection and encourage their members and other law enforcement agency professionals to participate.
Your participation will help ensure that the 2020 LEMAS is a success and that the results can be used by
law enforcement, policy-makers, and researchers with confidence. We know that your staff have many
responsibilities and limited time, but we hope that you will provide the requested information and
contribute to this effort. No other data collection provides such a complete accounting of the functions
and personnel of law enforcement agencies throughout the country.
We thank you in advance for your participation in this important study.
Sincerely,
Attachment 12: Survey flyer
2020 Law Enforcement Management
and Administrative Statistics (LEMAS)
Core Survey
Conducted by:
Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice
RTI International
Police Executive Research Forum
FAQs
The Law Enforcement Management and
Administrative Statistics (LEMAS) core 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 local, county, and state general purpose
agencies are randomly selected to participate
in this survey. The next LEMAS core will begin
administration in the fall of 2020. The following
presents some frequently asked questions we obtain
from law enforcement agencies on the LEMAS.
LEMAS
What information does the LEMAS
core survey collect?
The LEMAS core collects important information on
personnel, expenditures and pay, hiring and retention,
equipment and operations, technology, and policies and
procedures. This information is used to create national
estimates for all law enforcement agencies in the United
States.
Why is the LEMAS important?
The LEMAS is the only survey of general purpose 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.
What is the difference between the LEMAS
core and LEMAS supplement?
The LEMAS is moving to a new core + topical supplement
model. The LEMAS core will focus on long-term issues in
policing revolving around staffing, strategies and tactics, and
organizational structure and will be administered every four
years. The LEMAS supplements will cover a single topic
pertaining to specific issues in law enforcement and will
change over time. The most recent LEMAS supplement was
the 2018 Census of Law Enforcement Training Acadmies. The
LEMAS core and supplements are critically important to
understanding characteristics, policies, and procedures of law
enforcement agencies across the country. If invited, you
should complete the LEMAS core and LEMAS supplements.
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 given 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 given a paper copy of the survey if they prefer to submit
the survey by mail, email, or fax.
Attachment 12: Survey flyer
2020 LEMAS Core Survey Schedule
Fall 2020–Spring 2021
will send out a letter inviting law enforcement
• BJS
agency chief executives to participate in the
LEMAS core survey
executives invited to participate in the
• Chief
LEMAS core survey will be asked to designate a
point of contact who will complete the survey
will provide LEAs with access to the survey
• RTI
website and collect the survey data
Summer–Fall 2021
• Results will be processed and analyzed
• BJS and RTI will draft a report on survey findings
Winter 2021
• BJS will publish preliminary survey findings
For questions about the LEMAS core
survey, contact:
For information about BJS’s Law Enforcement
Core Statistics Program, contact:
Travis Taniguchi, PhD
Research Criminologist
RTI International
3040 E Cornwallis Blvd, RTP, NC 27709
taniguchi@rti.org
919-248-8501
Shelley Hyland, PhD
Statistician
Bureau of Justice Statistics
810 7th Street NW, Washington, DC 20531
Shelley.Hyland@usdoj.gov
202-616-1706
Attachment 13. Agency Point of Contact Update Form
2020 LEMAS Contact Form
Below is the contact information we have on record for your agency. Please confirm or update this information using the mode that is most convenient for
you. To confirm or update by:
• Mail: Via the enclosed postage-paid return envelope when you return your questionnaire
• Email: lemas@rti.org
• Phone: 800-XXX-XXXX
• Fax: 866-XXX-XXXX
Primary Contact: The Primary Contact is the point of contact we have on file for
LEMAS Survey Contact: The Survey Contact is the person at your agency who
your agency. This is typically the chief executive of the law enforcement agency and
the person BJS will contact for survey requests.
will actually complete this LEMAS survey. This person might be the same as the
Primary Contact or it could be a different person.
Check here if the LEMAS Survey Contact is the same as the Primary
Contact. If not, please enter the Survey Contact’s information below.
Law Enforcement Agency:
<<agency>>
Title: <<title>>
LEMAS Survey Contact Name: __________________________________
Contact Name (first and last): <<name>>
Title: ______________________________________________________
Address: <<address1>>, <<address2>>
<<city>>, <<state>> zip
Address: ____________________________________________________
Telephone: <<Phone>>
City: _______________________________________________________
Email: <<Email>>
Check here if ALL information currently on record is correct.
If any information is incorrect, please update it below.
Contact Name: ___________________________________________
Title: ___________________________________________________
State: ______________________________________________________
Zip: _________________________________________________________
Telephone: __________________________________________________
Email: _______________________________________________________
Address: ________________________________________________
City: ___________________________________________________
State: _______________________
Zip: ______________________
Telephone: ______________________________________________
Email: ___________________________________________________
Please check this box if you would like to receive a paper questionnaire
and return envelope in the mail.
I would like to receive a paper questionnaire and return envelope.
Attachment 14. 2020 LEMAS Survey Content
2020 Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics
Core Survey
Questionnaire Content
The 2020 Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics core survey gathers
information on key characteristics of law enforcement agencies. The reference date for most
questions is June 30, 2020.
LEMAS addresses the following topics:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Personnel
o Number of full-time and part-time paid employees by: sworn status, job
responsibility, sex, and race and Hispanic origin
o Number of full-time sworn officer vacancies
o Use of specialized units or staffing assignments to address specific problems or
tasks (e.g., child abuse/endangerment, domestic violence, cybercrime, opioids,
parking enforcement, school safety)
Budget
o Total operating budget
Selection and training of recruits
o Education requirements
o Screening techniques
o Required academy, field training, and in-service hours
Hiring and retention
o Number of full-time sworn officers hired and separated
o Special recruitment efforts
o Salary schedule and special pay for sworn officers
o Retention methods
Equipment and operations
o Authorized weapons
o Use of video cameras and K-9 units
Policies and procedures
o Officer conduct, dealing with special populations and procedures (e.g., civilian
complaints, immigration checks, motor vehicle stops)
Attachment 15. Survey Invitation to Agency Points of Contact (Email)
SUBJECT: Law Enforcment Management and Administrative Statistics Core Survey
Dear «TITLE» «NAME»:
Last week, materials related to the 2020 Law Enforcment Management and Administrative
Statistics (LEMAS) Core Survey were sent to you by mail. This email message is to request
confirmation that this material has successfully reached you and encourage you to contact us if
you have any questions related to the data collection.
Please reply to this message to confirm that we have reached <<AGENCY NAME>>.
The information contained in the mailed materials is provided below.
<<TITLE>> <<NAME>>
OR CURRENT CHIEF EXECUTIVE
<<AGENCYNAME>>
<<ADDRESS1>>
<<ADDRESS2>>
<<ADDRESS3>>
<<CITY>>, <<STATE>> <<ZIP>>
Dear «TITLE» «NAME»:
I am writing to ask for your participation in the 2020 Law Enforcement Management and Administrative
Statistics (LEMAS) survey. Since 1987, LEMAS has periodically gathered information on key agency
characteristics related to personnel, policies, and agency activities. Your response to the 2020 LEMAS is
critical to the Bureau of Justice Statistics’ effort to produce national estimates of personnel, expenditures
and pay, operations, equipment, computers and information systems, and policies and procedures.
To complete your survey, please access the questionnaire online at https://bjslecs.org/lemas2020. You
may start and stop as needed. Your agency-specific information is:
Username:
Password:
«WebUsername»
«PIN»
Please complete this questionnaire online by November 23, 2020.
The questionnaire takes approximately 2 hours to complete including time to research or find information
you may not have readily available. A copy of the survey can be downloaded from the website to assist
you in gathering the necessary data. You may share it with others at your agency who can assist you in
providing the requested information.
If you need to change the point of contact for your agency or update your contact information (including
email address), go to https://bjslecs.org/lemas2020 using the username and password shown above and
follow the instruction provided on the website. If you have questions about LEMAS, please contact the
LEMAS data collection team via phone or email at 800-XXX-XXXX or LEMAS@rti.org. If you have
any general comments about this data collection, please contact me at 202-616-1706 or
Shelley.Hyland@usdoj.gov.
BJS uses the data collected in LEMAS only for research and statistical purposes, as described in Title 34,
USC §10134. RTI International, the LEMAS data collection agent, is required to adhere to BJS Data
Protection Guidelines, which summarize the many federal statutes, regulations, and other authorities that
govern all BJS data and data collected and maintained under BJS’s authority. The Guidelines may be
found at http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/BJS_Data_Protection_Guidelines.pdf.
Thank you in advance for your agency’s participation in LEMAS. We appreciate your time and effort.
Sincerely,
Shelley S. Hyland, PhD, Program Manager, Bureau of Justice Statistics
Enclosures: 2020 LEMAS Study Flyer
Agency Point of Contact Update Form
2020 LEMAS Survey Content
ATTACH PDFs of FLYER, POC UPDATE FORM, AND SURVEY CONTENT
Attachment 16. Survey Respondent Thank You Email and Letter
«TITLE» «NAME»
OR CURRENT CHIEF EXECUTIVE
«AGENCY»
«ADDRESS1», «ADDRESS2»
«CITY», «STATE» «ZIP»
Dear «TITLE» «NAME»:
On behalf of the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) and RTI International, I would like to thank
you for your participation in the 2020 Law Enforcement Management and Administrative
Statistics (LEMAS) core survey. I truly appreciate your support in completing this survey.
This letter confirms that we have received your survey and are currently processing the data. RTI
will contact you if there are any questions about the answers submitted. We anticipate all survey
responses will be collected by the end of 2021. A copy of the report will be available through
BJS and the LECS website in 2022.
If you have any comments or questions, please feel free to contact me at 202-616-1706 or
Shelley.Hyland@usdoj.gov. If you have questions about LEMAS, need to change the point of
contact at your agency, or need to update your contact information (including email address),
please contact the LEMAS support team at 800-XXX-XXXX or lemas@rti.org.
Sincerely,
Shelley S. Hyland, PhD
Program Manager
Bureau of Justice Statistics
Case ID: «caseid»
Attachment 17. First Reminder to Nonrespondents (Letter)
«TITLE» «NAME»
OR CURRENT CHIEF EXECUTIVE
«AGENCY»
«ADDRESS1», «ADDRESS2»
«CITY», «STATE» «ZIP»
Dear «TITLE» «NAME»:
«AGENCY» has been asked to participate in the Bureau of Justice Statistics’ (BJS) Law
Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics (LEMAS) core survey. LEMAS data are
used by law enforcement agencies, policy makers, and researchers to better understand and
respond to agency needs. The LEMAS is the only survey of general purpose law enforcement agencies
that gathers nationally representative information on key agency characteristics in the U.S.
I recognize that you may not have received the previous correspondence 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 your agency. The questionnaire
addresses topics that are relevant to all agencies and your responses are essential to our ability to
provide the information needed by local law enforcement and other stakeholders.
Please complete the questionnaire by using this link http://bjslecs.org/lemas2021 and
entering the following information:
Username:
Password:
<<WebUsername>>
<<PIN>>
Alternatively, you can submit your data by mail using the enclosed hard copy questionnaire and
business reply envelope.
The questionnaire due date is November 23, 2020. Please submit your questionnaire as soon as
possible. If you have questions about the LEMAS or have difficulty accessing the website, please
contact the LEMAS data collection team via phone or email at 800-XXX-XXXX or
lemas@rti.org. If you have any general comments about this data collection, please contact
Shelley Hyland, BJS Program Manager, at 202-616-1706 or Shelley.Hyland@usdoj.gov.
Sincerely,
Kevin M. Scott, PhD
Law Enforcement Statistics Unit Chief
Bureau of Justice Statistics, Office of Justice Programs, Department of Justice
Enclosures: LEMAS questionnaire; Business reply envelope
Case ID: «caseID»
Attachment 18: Local and primary state police agencies survey
Form CJ-44LP
OMB No. 1121-0240: Approval Expires XX/XX/202X
2020 LAW ENFORCEMENT MANAGEMENT AND ADMINSTRATIVE
STATISTICS (LEMAS) SURVEY
LOCAL DEPARTMENTS AND PRIMARY STATE POLICE AGENCIES
In correspondence about this survey, please refer to the Agency ID 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
TITLE
TELEPHONE Area Code
Number
Extension
FAX
Area Code
Number
EMAIL ADDRESS
Completion and Return Instructions
•
Unless otherwise noted, please answer all questions using June 30, 2020 as a reference.
•
Please do not leave any items blank. If the answer to a question is none or zero, write “0” in the space provided. When exact numeric
answers are not available, please provide estimates.
•
Use an X when marking an answer in a response circle or box.
•
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
Scan and email the survey to TBD@rti.org
o
Fax each page of the survey to XXX-XXX-XXXX (toll-free)
•
Please submit your completed questionnaire by November 23, 2020.
•
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 TBD@rti.org 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 Shelley.Hyland@usdoj.gov.
•
Please retain a copy of your completed survey for one year. Questionnaires completed through the online option can be printed for your
records.
Burden Statement
Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 2.5 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. The Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, as amended (34 U.S.C. § 10132), authorizes this information collection. Although
this survey is voluntary, we urgently need and appreciate your cooperation to make the results comprehensive, accurate, and timely.
AGENCY ID: ___________
1
Attachment 18: Local and primary state police agencies survey
Section I: Personnel
Unless otherwise noted, please answer all questions using June 30, 2020, as a reference.
1. Enter the number of full-time and part-time paid agency employees for the pay period that included June 30,
2020. Count employees who are regularly scheduled to work less than 35 hours per week as part-time. If none,
enter '0'.
Full-time
Part-time
a. Sworn officers with general arrest powers
b. Non-sworn/civilian personnel
c. Total paid employees (sum of rows a and b)
2. Enter the number of full-time sworn officer vacancies for the pay period that included June 30, 2020.
Number of full-time sworn officer vacancies
3. Enter the number of full-time personnel according to their primary job responsibility for the pay period that
included June 30, 2020. Count each full-time staff person ONLY once. If a person performed 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’.
Sworn officers
Non-sworn /
with general
civilian
arrest powers
personnel
a. Administration -- Chief of police, assistants and other personnel who
work in administrative capacity. Include finance, human resources and
internal affairs.
b. Total operations – Police officers, detectives, inspectors, supervisors,
and other personnel providing direct law enforcement services. Include
traffic, patrol, investigations and special operations.
1. Officers – Patrol/field officers, police officers, traffic, SROs, etc.
2. Detectives/investigators
3. All other operations personnel–Inspectors, supervisors, special
operations, and other personnel providing direct law enforcement
services.
c. Total support – Dispatchers, records clerks, crime analysts, crime lab
technicians and other personnel providing support services other than
administrative. Include communications, crime lab, fleet management
and training.
1. Dispatchers
2. All other support personnel– Records clerks, crime analysts,
crime lab technicians, and other personnel providing support
services other than administrative. Include communications, crime
lab, fleet management, and training.
d. Other personnel not included above (e.g., crossing guards, parking
enforcement, etc.)
AGENCY ID: ___________
2
Attachment 18: Local and primary state police agencies survey
4.
Enter the number of full-time sworn officers by race, Hispanic origin and sex for the pay period that
included June 30, 2020. If none, enter ‘0’.
Male
Female
a. White, non-Hispanic
b. Black or African American, non-Hispanic
c. Hispanic or Latino
d. American Indian or Alaska Native, non-Hispanic
e. Asian, non-Hispanic
f. Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, non-Hispanic
g. Two or more races
h. Not known
i. Total full-time sworn officers (sum of rows a-h)
5. Enter the sex, race and Hispanic origin of the chief executive (i.e., Chief of Police, Commissioner) for the
pay period that included June 30, 2020.
a. Sex
Male
Female
b. Hispanic Origin
Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino
Not Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino
c. Race (select all that apply)
White
Black or African American
American Indian or Alaskan Native
Asian
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander
Other (please specify):
AGENCY ID: ___________
3
Attachment 18: Local and primary state police agencies survey
6.
Enter the number of full-time sworn officers by race, Hispanic origin and sex who held the following
supervisory positions for the pay period that included June 30, 2020. If a position did not exist in your
agency, select ‘N/A’. If none, enter ‘0’.
Intermediate
supervisor
(below chief executive
and above sergeant or
first-line supervisor)
Sergeant or
equivalent
first-line supervisor
N/A
N/A
a. White, non-Hispanic
b. Black or African American, non-Hispanic
c. Hispanic or Latino
d. American Indian or Alaska Native, non-Hispanic
e. Asian, non-Hispanic
f. Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, non-Hispanic
g. Two or more races
h. Not known
i. Total full-time sworn officers (sum of rows a-h)
j. Male
k. Female
l. Total full-time sworn officers (sum of rows j and k)
7.
Enter the number of full-time agency personnel who were bi- or multilingual as of June 30, 2020. Full-time
employees are those regularly scheduled for 35 or more hours per week. If none, enter ‘0’.
Bilingual or Multilingual
Full-Time Personnel
a. Sworn with general arrest powers
b. Non-sworn/civilian personnel
AGENCY ID: ___________
4
Attachment 18: Local and primary state police agencies survey
8.
As of June 30, 2020, how did your agency address the following problems/tasks? Mark the most appropriate
choice for each problem/task listed below. Consider FULL-TIME sworn officers with general arrest powers and
FULL-TIME non-sworn/civilian personnel. Mark ONLY ONE choice per row.
Agency DID NOT HAVE a specialized unit
with full-time personnel
(1)
Agency had a
(3)
specialized
Agency
unit with
(2)
addressed this
(5)
personnel
Agency had problem/task,
(4)
Agency’s
assigned full- designated
but did not Agency did not jurisdiction
time to address personnel to
have
formally
did not have
this
address this
designated
address this this problem
Type of problem/task
problem/task problem/task
personnel
problem/task
(N/A)
a. Agency standards/accreditation
b. Bias/hate crime
c. Bomb/explosive disposal
d. Child abuse/endangerment
e. Community policing
f. Crime analysis
g. Cybercrime
h. Domestic violence
i. Firearms
j. Gangs
k. Homelessness
l. Human trafficking
m. Impaired drivers (DUI/DWI)
n. Internal affairs
o. Juvenile crimes
p. Mental health/crisis
intervention
q. Methamphetamine labs
r. Missing children
s. Opioids
t. Parking enforcement
u. Public relations
v. Research and planning
w. School safety
x. Sexual assault
y. Special operations (e.g.
SWAT)
z. Terrorism/homeland security
aa. Traffic enforcement
bb. Victim assistance
AGENCY ID: ___________
5
Attachment 18: Local and primary state police agencies survey
Section II: Budget
9a. Enter your agency's total operating budget for the fiscal year that included June 30, 2020. If the budget is
not available, provide an estimate and check the box below. DO NOT include building construction costs or
major equipment purchases.
$
,
,
,
.00
Please mark here if this figure is an estimate
9b. Please indicate the start and end dates of your agency’s fiscal year that included June 30, 2020:
Start:
/
/
MM / D D / Y Y Y Y
End:
/
M M/
/
D D / Y Y Y Y
10. 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, 2020. 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'.
$ ,
,
,
.00
Please mark here if this figure is an estimate
Section III: Community Policing (LOCAL POLICE ONLY)
11. During the fiscal year including June 30, 2020, did your agency have an informal problem-solving
partnership or formal written agreement with any of the following?
Yes
No
a. Academic/university staff
b. Advocacy groups
c. Business groups
d. Federal law enforcement agencies
e. Law enforcement organizations (e.g., IACP, National Police Foundation)
f. Neighborhood associations
g. Non-law enforcement government agencies
h. State or local law enforcement agencies
i. Victim service providers
j. Other (please specify):
AGENCY ID: ___________
6
Attachment 18: Local and primary state police agencies survey
12. During the fiscal year including June 30, 2020, did your agency solicit feedback from the community for
any of the following? Include informal (e.g., via social media, community listening sessions) and formal (e.g.,
via a community survey or advisory council) feedback received.
Yes
No
a. Allocating resources to neighborhoods
b. Assessing community trust
c. Evaluating officer or agency performance
d. Informing agency policies and procedures
e. Prioritizing crime/disorder problems
f. Training development
13. During the fiscal year including June 30, 2020, which of the following did your agency do?
Yes
No
a. Maintain a written community policing plan
b. Conduct a citizen police academy
c. Conduct citizen range days
d. Work with a Community Advisory Committee
e. Other (please specify):
Section IV: Selection and Training
14a. Indicate your agency's minimum education requirement which new sworn personnel recruits must have at
hiring or within two years of hiring. Mark ONLY ONE response.
Four-year college degree required
Two-year college degree required
Some college, but no degree required
Total credit hours required:
High school diploma or equivalent required
No formal education requirement SKIP to #15
14b. Does your agency consider military service as an exemption to this minimum education
requirement?
Yes
No
AGENCY ID: ___________
7
Attachment 18: Local and primary state police agencies survey
15. Which of the following screening techniques are used by your agency in selecting new sworn officer
recruits?
Background check
Yes
No
a. Credit history check
b. Criminal history check
c. Driving record check
d. Social media check
Personal attributes
Yes
No
Yes
No
e. Cognitive ability assessment (e.g., writing, reading
comprehension, analytical skills)
f. Interpersonal skills assessment
g. Personality/Psychological inventory
h. Psychological interview
i. Polygraph exam
Physical attributes
j. Drug test
k. Medical exam
l. Vision test
m. Physical agility/fitness test
If no, SKIP to #16
n. (If yes to #15m) Does your agency have different
standards based on sex?
16. How many total hours of academy training and field training (e.g., with FTO) are required of your
agency’s new (non-lateral) sworn officer recruits? Include law enforcement training ONLY. If no training of
that type is required, enter ‘0’.
Academy training hours
Field training hours
a. State mandated hours
b. Additional training hours
c. Total hours of training (sum of rows a and b)
17. What is the minimum annual number of in-service hours of training that is required for your agency’s
full-time sworn officers? Include law enforcement training ONLY. If no training of that type is required,
enter ‘0’.
Minimum annual hours
per officer
a. State mandated hours
b. Additional training hours
c. Total hours of training (sum of rows a and b)
AGENCY ID: ___________
8
Attachment 18: Local and primary state police agencies survey
Section V: Hiring and Retention
18a. How many full-time sworn officers were hired by your agency during the fiscal year including June 30,
2020? Include all full-time sworn personnel hired whether they are currently employed by the agency or not.
Number of full-time sworn officers hired
If 0, SKIP to #22a on page 10.
18b. (If at least one new hire) How many of those hires were:
Number of Full-Time
Sworn Officers Hired
a. Entry-level hires (non-lateral)
b. Lateral transfers/hires
c. Other new hires
If #18b, row a (entry-level hires) is 0, SKIP to #22a on page 10.
19. Based on the most recent class of entry-level sworn officers hired, on average, how many weeks
pass from the time they submit their application to the time they are offered employment? DO
NOT include basic academy training.
Average number of weeks until hire
20. Which of the following types of applicants for entry-level sworn officer hires were targeted
through special recruitment efforts during the fiscal year including June 30, 2020?
Yes
No
a. 4-year college graduates
b. Military veterans
c. Multi-lingual speaking
d. People with prior law enforcement experience
e. Racial/ethnic minorities
f. Women
g. Other (please specify):
21. Did your agency offer any of the following incentives for entry-level sworn officer hires during
the fiscal year including June 30, 2020?
Yes
No
a. Employment signing bonus
b. Free or reimbursed academy training
c. Salary paid during academy training
d. Training academy graduation bonus
e. Relocation assistance (e.g., moving, travel costs)
f. Other (please specify):
AGENCY ID: ___________
9
Attachment 18: Local and primary state police agencies survey
22a. How many full-time sworn officers separated from your agency during the fiscal year including June 30,
2020? DO NOT include sworn officer recruits who separated prior to completing academy training. If none,
enter ‘0’.
Number of full-time sworn officers separated
If 0, SKIP to #23
22b. (If at least one separation) How many of those separations were:
Number of Full-Time
Sworn Officers Separated
a. Probationary rejections
b. Dismissals
c. Medical/disability retirements
d. Non-medical retirements
e. Resignations
f. Other/unknown
23. Which of the following best describes your agency's exit interview policy used to assess full-time sworn
officers' reasons for departure? Mark ONLY ONE response.
Exit interviews conducted with officers selected by the agency
Exit interviews conducted with officers if they request one
Exit interviews conducted based on other policy
Exit interviews typically not conducted
24. Enter the base annual salary schedule for the following full-time sworn positions as of June 30, 2020. If a
position does not exist on a full-time basis in your agency, select 'NA.' In cases where there is not a range in
salary, please enter the same salary for minimum and maximum.
Base ANNUAL Salary
Minimum
Maximum
N/A
a. Chief executive (chief, director, etc.)
b. Sergeant or equivalent first-line supervisor
c. Entry-level officer (post-academy)
AGENCY ID: ___________
$
$
$
,
,
,
10
.00 $
.00 $
.00 $
,
,
,
.00
.00
.00
Attachment 18: Local and primary state police agencies survey
25. Did your agency authorize or provide any of the following special pay for sworn officers during the fiscal
year including June 30, 2020?
Yes
No
a. Bilingual ability pay
b. Education incentive pay
c. Hazardous duty pay
d. Merit/performance pay
e. Military service pay
f. Residential incentive pay
g. Shift differential pay
h. Special skills proficiency pay
26. Did your agency offer the following benefits to increase retention among full-time sworn officers during the
fiscal year including June 30, 2020?
Yes
No
a. College tuition reimbursement
b. Employee Assistance Program
c. Enhanced medical benefits
d. Enhanced retirement benefits
e. Extra overtime opportunities
f. Flexible hours to attend college
g. Free or financial allowance for uniforms
h. Housing allowance or mortgage discount program
i. Increased pay at specific service milestones
j. Job sharing or time splits
k. On-duty time allowance for fitness maintenance
l. Paid maternity leave
m. Paid paternity leave
n. Peer support program
o. Relaxed residency requirements
p. Take home vehicle
q. Other (please specify):
27. What is the standard shift length for sworn patrol/road officers in your agency?
Hours per Day
AGENCY ID: ___________
11
Attachment 18: Local and primary state police agencies survey
Section VI: Equipment and Operations
28. As of June 30, 2020, which of the following types of weapons or actions were authorized for use by your
agency’s full-time sworn officers?
On duty
Firearms
a. Handgun
b. Shotgun or manual rifle
c. Semi-automatic rifle (e.g., AR-15)
d. Fully automatic rifle (e.g., M-16)
Authorized
Not
authorized
On duty
Less-lethal
e. Open hand techniques
f. Closed hand techniques
g. Takedown techniques (e.g., straight arm bar)
h. Hold or neck restraint (e.g., carotid hold)
i. Leg hobble or other restraints (not including
handcuffs)
j. OC spray/foam
k. Chemical agent projectile (e.g., CS/tear gas, OC
pellets)
l. Baton
m. Blunt force projectile (e.g., bean bag, rubber bullets)
n. Conducted energy device (e.g., Taser, stun gun,
Stinger)
o. Other (please specify):
Authorized
Not
Authorized
Off duty
Authorized
Not
authorized
Off duty
Authorized
Not
authorized
29. As of June 30, 2020, how many of the following types of video cameras were operated by your agency on a
regular basis? If none, enter ‘0’.
Total Number
a. Fixed-site surveillance in public areas
b. Mobile surveillance
c. On aerial drones
d. In patrol cars
e. On police officers (e.g., body-worn cameras)
f.
On weapons
AGENCY ID: ___________
12
Attachment 18: Local and primary state police agencies survey
30a. As of June 30, 2020, how many handlers and K-9s did your agency employ? If none, enter ‘0’.
Handlers
K-9s
If your agency did not have any K-9s, SKIP to #31.
30b. (If at least one K-9) What types of activities did your K-9s engage in?
Activity
Yes
No
a. Bomb/explosive detecting
b. Cadaver
c. Drug detecting
d. Person trailing
e. General enforcement (e.g., patrol, traffic
enforcement, crowd control, etc.)
f. Other (please specify):
Section VII: Technology
31. As of June 30, 2020, did your agency maintain a website?
Yes
No
32. As of June 30, 2020, did your agency use social media to communicate with the public?
Yes
No
33. As of June 30, 2020, did your agency use any of the following on a regular basis?
Yes
No
a. Computer aided dispatch (CAD)
b. Record management system (RMS)
c. Automated Fingerprint Identification System (AFIS) or
Next Generation Identification (NGI)
d. Geographic information systems (GIS)
e. Facial recognition
f.
Infrared (thermal) imagers
g. License plate readers (LPR)
h. Tire deflation devices
i.
Gunshot detection (e.g., ShotSpotter)
j.
Firearm tracing (e.g., eTrace)
k. Ballistic imaging (e.g., NIBIN, IBIS)
AGENCY ID: ___________
13
Attachment 18: Local and primary state police agencies survey
34. As of June 30, 2020, did your agency use data for any of the following activities?
Yes
No
a. Budget allocation
b. Hot spot analysis
c. Intelligence analysis
d. Patrol allocation
e. Predictive policing (i.e., using computer models to predict where
crime will occur)
f. Social network analysis
g. Targeted enforcement
Section VIII: Policies and Procedures
35. Does your agency have written policy or procedural directives on the following?
Officer conduct
Yes
No
a. Code of conduct and appearance
b. Maximum work hours allowed per day. Please specify:
c.
d.
e.
f.
Off-duty conduct
Firearm discharge
Use of deadly force
Use of less-lethal force
Dealing with special populations/situations
g. Domestic disputes
h. Homeless persons
i. Juveniles
j. Mentally ill persons
k. Persons with intellectual or developmental disabilities
Yes
No
Procedural
l. Active shooter
m. Body-worn cameras
n. Civilian complaints
o. Checking on immigration status by patrol officers
p. Detaining federal immigration violators
q. In-custody deaths
r. Mass demonstrations
s. Motor vehicle stops
t. Prisoner transport
u. Racial profiling or unbiased policing
v. Reporting use of force
w. Social media use
x. Stop and frisk
y. Strip searches
z. Vehicle pursuits
Yes
No
AGENCY ID: ___________
14
Attachment 18: Local and primary state police agencies survey
36. Under what circumstances do your full-time sworn officers regularly check immigration status?
Yes
No
a. During a street/pedestrian stop
b. During a traffic stop
c. After arrest for a misdemeanor offense
d. After arrest for a felony offense
e. Only when suspected of a federal immigration violation
If you answered “No” to all rows on #36, SKIP to #38
37. (If yes to at least one row on #36) Do your full-time sworn officers verify immigration status with the
Department of Homeland Security?
Yes
No
SKIP to 39
38. (If no to all rows on #36) What are the reasons your full-time sworn officers do not regularly check
immigration status of persons detained?
Yes
No
a. Prohibited by departmental policy
b. Prohibited by local or state legislation
c. Unable to verify status while in the field
d. Concerned about victims not reporting to police
e. Concerned that officers will be perceived as using racial
profiling.”
f. Concerned about losing the public’s trust
g. Other (please specify):
39. As of June 30, 2020, did your agency have an operational computerized Early Warning System or Early
Intervention System for monitoring or responding to problematic officer behavior?
Yes
No
AGENCY ID: ___________
15
Attachment 18: Local and primary state police agencies survey
40. Enter the number of citizen complaints received during the fiscal year including June 30, 2020, by current
disposition status. If none, enter ‘0’.
All complaints
Use of force complaints
a. Sustained
(sufficient evidence to justify disciplinary
action against the officer(s))
b. Other disposition
(e.g., unfounded, exonerated, not sustained,
withdrawn)
c. Pending
(final disposition of the allegation has not been
made)
d. Total complaints received
(sum of rows a-c)
41. Is there a civilian complaint review board or agency in your jurisdiction that reviews complaints against
officers in your agency?
Yes
No
42. As of June 30, 2020, did your agency require another law enforcement agency to conduct an investigation
in the following situations? ONLY include investigations conducted by another law enforcement or criminal
investigative body. DO NOT include civilian reviews.
Yes
a. Discharge of a firearm at or in the direction of a person
b. Use of force resulting in a subject sustaining serious bodily injury
c. Use of force resulting in a subject’s death
d. In-custody death not due to use of force (e.g., suicide, intoxication or accident)
Thank You!
Thank you for participating in this survey.
Please retain a copy for your records as project staff may call to clarify responses.
Submit this form using one of the following four methods:
E-mail: TBD@rti.org
Fax: xxx-xxx-xxxx (toll-free)
Mail: Use the enclosed postage-paid envelope,
or mail to:
RTI International
ATTN: Data Capture
(XXXXXX.XXX.XXX.XXX)
5265 Capital Blvd.
Raleigh, NC 27616-2925
AGENCY ID: ___________
16
No
Attachment 19: Sheriffs’ offices survey
Form CJ-44SO
OMB No. 1121-0240: Approval Expires XX/XX/202X
2020 LAW ENFORCEMENT MANAGEMENT AND ADMINSTRATIVE
STATISTICS (LEMAS) SURVEY
SHERIFFS’ OFFICES
In correspondence about this survey, please refer to the Agency ID 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
TITLE
TELEPHONE Area Code
Number
Extension
FAX
Area Code
Number
EMAIL ADDRESS
Completion and Return Instructions
•
Unless otherwise noted, please answer all questions using June 30, 2020 as a reference.
•
Please do not leave any items blank. If the answer to a question is none or zero, write “0” in the space provided. When exact numeric
answers are not available, please provide estimates.
•
Use an X when marking an answer in a response circle or box.
•
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
Scan and email the survey to TBD@rti.org
o
Fax each page of the survey to XXX-XXX-XXXX (toll-free)
•
Please submit your completed questionnaire by November 23, 2020.
•
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 TBD@rti.org 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 Shelley.Hyland@usdoj.gov.
•
Please retain a copy of your completed survey for one year. Questionnaires completed through the online option can be printed for your
records.
Burden Statement
Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 2.5 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. The Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, as amended (34 U.S.C. § 10132), authorizes this information collection. Although
this survey is voluntary, we urgently need and appreciate your cooperation to make the results comprehensive, accurate, and timely.
AGENCY ID: ___________
1
Attachment 19: Sheriffs’ offices survey
Section I: Personnel
Unless otherwise noted, please answer all questions using June 30, 2020, as a reference.
1. Enter the number of full-time and part-time paid agency employees for the pay period that included June 30,
2020. Count employees who are regularly scheduled to work less than 35 hours per week as part-time. If none, enter '0'.
Full-time
Part-time
a. Sworn deputies with general arrest powers (e.g., road
deputies)
b. Deputies with limited or no arrest powers (e.g.,
jail/correctional deputies)
c. Non-sworn/civilian personnel
d. Total paid employees (sum of rows a-c)
2.
Enter the number of full-time sworn deputy vacancies for the pay period that included June 30, 2020.
Number of full-time sworn deputy vacancies
3.
Enter the number of full-time personnel according to their primary job responsibility for the pay period that
included June 30, 2020. Count each full-time staff person ONLY once. If a person performed 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’.
Sworn deputies Deputies with
Non-sworn/
with general
limited or no
civilian
arrest powers
arrest powers
personnel
a. Administration – Sheriff, assistants and other personnel who
work in administrative capacity. Include finance, human resources
and internal affairs.
b. Total operations – Road deputies, detectives, inspectors,
supervisors, and other personnel providing direct law enforcement
services. Include traffic, patrol, investigations, and special
operations.
1. Deputies – Road deputies, traffic, patrol, SROs, etc.
2. Detectives/investigators
3. All other operations personnel – Inspectors, supervisors,
special operations, and other personnel providing direct law
enforcement services.
c. Jail-related duties – Correctional deputies, guards, and other
support personnel who primarily work in a jail system.
d. Court related duties – Bailiffs, security guards, etc.
e. Civil process duties – Process servers, real estate administrators,
etc.
f. Other support personnel – Dispatchers, records clerks, crime
analysts, crime lab technicians, and other personnel providing
support services other than administrative. Include communications,
crime lab, fleet management, and training.
1. Dispatchers
2. All other support personnel
g. Other (e.g., crossing guards, parking enforcement, etc.)
AGENCY ID: ___________
2
Attachment 19: Sheriffs’ offices survey
4.
Enter the number of full-time sworn deputies by race, Hispanic origin and sex for the pay period that included
June 30, 2020. If none, enter ‘0’.
Male
Female
a. White, non-Hispanic
b. Black or African American, non-Hispanic
c. Hispanic or Latino
d. American Indian or Alaska Native, non-Hispanic
e. Asian, non-Hispanic
f. Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, non-Hispanic
g. Two or more races
h. Not known
i. Total full-time sworn deputies (sum of rows a-h)
5. Enter the sex, race and Hispanic origin of the Sheriff for the pay period that included June 30, 2020.
a. Sex
Male
Female
b. Hispanic Origin
Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino
Not Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino
c. Race (select all that apply)
White
Black or African American
American Indian or Alaskan Native
Asian
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander
Other (please specify):
AGENCY ID: ___________
3
Attachment 19: Sheriffs’ offices survey
6.
Enter the number of full-time sworn deputies by race, Hispanic origin and sex who held the following
supervisory positions for the pay period that included June 30, 2020. If a position did not exist in your agency,
select ‘N/A’. If none, enter ‘0’.
Intermediate
supervisor
(below sheriff and
above sergeant or firstline supervisor)
Sergeant or equivalent
first-line supervisor
N/A
N/A
a. White, non-Hispanic
b. Black or African American, non-Hispanic
c. Hispanic or Latino
d. American Indian or Alaska Native, non-Hispanic
e. Asian, non-Hispanic
f. Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, non-Hispanic
g. Two or more races
h. Not known
i. Total full-time sworn deputies (sum of rows a-h)
j. Male
k. Female
l. Total full-time sworn deputies (sum of rows j and k)
7.
Enter the number of full-time agency personnel who were bi- or multilingual as of June 30, 2020. Full-time
employees are those regularly scheduled for 35 or more hours per week. If none, enter ‘0’.
Bilingual or Multilingual
Full-Time Personnel
a. Sworn with general arrest powers (e.g., road deputies)
b. Deputies with limited or no arrest powers (e.g., jail/correctional deputies)
c. Non-sworn/civilian personnel
AGENCY ID: ___________
4
Attachment 19: Sheriffs’ offices survey
8.
As of June 30, 2020, how did your agency address the following problems/tasks? Mark the most appropriate
choice for each problem/task listed below. Consider FULL-TIME sworn deputies with general arrest powers and
FULL-TIME non-sworn/civilian personnel. Mark ONLY ONE choice per row.
Type of problem/task
a. Agency standards/accreditation
Agency DID NOT HAVE a specialized unit
with full-time personnel
(1)
Agency had a
(3)
specialized unit
(2)
Agency
with personnel Agency had addressed this
(4)
(5)
assigned fulldesignated
problem/task, Agency did not
Agency’s
time to address personnel to
but did not
formally
jurisdiction did
this
address this have designated address this
not have this
problem/task problem/task
personnel
problem/task problem (N/A)
b. Bias/hate crime
c. Bomb/explosive disposal
d. Child abuse/endangerment
e. Community Policing
f. Crime analysis
g. Cybercrime
h. Domestic violence
i. Firearms
j. Gangs
k. Homelessness
l. Human trafficking
m. Impaired drivers (DUI/DWI)
n. Internal affairs
o. Juvenile crimes
p. Mental health/crisis intervention
q. Methamphetamine labs
r. Missing children
s. Opioids
t. Parking enforcement
u. Public relations
v. Research and planning
w. School safety
x. Sexual assault
y. Special operations (e.g. SWAT)
z. Terrorism/homeland security
aa. Traffic enforcement
bb. Victim assistance
AGENCY ID: ___________
5
Attachment 19: Sheriffs’ offices survey
Section II: Budget
9a. Enter your agency's total operating budget for the fiscal year that included June 30, 2020. If the budget is not
available, provide an estimate and check the box below. Include jail administration costs. DO NOT include building
construction costs or major equipment purchases.
$
,
,
,
.00
Please mark here if this figure is an estimate
9b. Does your agency operate a jail?
Yes
No If no, SKIP to #9d
9c. How much of the above total operating budget was for jail administration?
$
,
,
,
.00
Please mark here if this figure is an estimate
9d. Please indicate the start and end dates of your agency’s fiscal year that included June 30, 2020:
Start:
/
/
MM / D D / Y Y Y Y
End:
/
M M/
/
D D / Y Y Y Y
10. 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, 2020. 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'.
$ ,
,
,
.00
Please mark here if this figure is an estimate
Section III: Service Area
11. Enter the total square mileage of your agency’s service area.
Square miles
12. Enter the total resident population for your agency’s service area. Only count the residential population for which
your agency has primary responsibility for providing law enforcement services.
Number of residents for which your agency
,
,
has primary law enforcement responsibility
AGENCY ID: ___________
6
Attachment 19: Sheriffs’ offices survey
Section IV: Community Policing
13. During the fiscal year including June 30, 2020, did your agency have an informal problem-solving
partnership or formal written agreement with any of the following?”
Yes
No
a. Academic/university staff
b. Advocacy groups
c. Business groups
d. Federal law enforcement agencies
e. Law enforcement organizations (e.g., IACP, National Police Foundation)
f. Neighborhood associations
g. Non-law enforcement government agencies
h. State or local law enforcement agencies
i. Victim service providers
j. Other (please specify):
14. During the fiscal year including June 30, 2020, did your agency solicit feedback from the community for
any of the following? Include informal (e.g., via social media, community listening sessions) and formal (e.g.,
via a community survey or advisory council) feedback received.
Yes
No
a. Allocating resources to neighborhoods
b. Assessing community trust
c. Evaluating deputy or agency performance
d. Informing agency policies and procedures
e. Prioritizing crime/disorder problems
f. Training development
15. During the fiscal year including June 30, 2020, which of the following did your agency do?
Yes
a. Maintain a written community policing plan
b. Conduct a citizen police academy
c. Conduct citizen range days
d. Work with a Community Advisory Committee
e. Other (please specify):
AGENCY ID: ___________
7
No
Attachment 19: Sheriffs’ offices survey
Section V: Selection and Training
16a. Indicate your agency's minimum education requirement which new sworn personnel recruits must have at
hiring or within two years of hiring. Mark ONLY ONE response.
Four-year college degree required
Two-year college degree required
Some college, but no degree required
Total credit hours required:
High school diploma or equivalent required
No formal education requirement SKIP to #17
16b. Does your agency consider military service as an exemption to this minimum education requirement?
Yes
No
17. Which of the following screening techniques are used by your agency in selecting new sworn deputy
recruits?
Background check
Yes
No
a. Credit history check
b. Criminal history check
c. Driving record check
d. Social media check
Personal attributes
Yes
No
Yes
No
e. Cognitive ability assessment (e.g., writing, reading
comprehension, analytical skills)
f. Interpersonal skills assessment
g. Personality/Psychological inventory
h. Psychological interview
i. Polygraph exam
Physical attributes
j. Drug test
k. Medical exam
l. Vision test
m. Physical agility/fitness test
If no, SKIP to #18
n. (If yes to #17m) Does your agency have different
standards based on sex?
AGENCY ID: ___________
8
Attachment 19: Sheriffs’ offices survey
18. How many total hours of academy training and field training (e.g., with FTO) are required of your agency’s
new (non-lateral) sworn deputy recruits? Include law enforcement training ONLY. If no training of that type is
required, enter ‘0’.
Academy training hours
Field training hours
a. State mandated hours
b. Additional training hours
c. Total hours of training (sum of rows a and b)
19. What is the minimum annual number of in-service hours of training that is required for your agency’s fulltime sworn deputies? Include law enforcement training ONLY. If no training of that type is required, enter ‘0’.
Minimum annual hours
per deputy
a. State mandated hours
b. Additional training hours
c. Total hours of training (sum of rows a and b)
Section VI: Hiring and Retention
20a. How many full-time sworn deputies were hired by your agency during the fiscal year including June 30,
2020? Include all full-time sworn personnel hired whether they are currently employed by the agency or not.
Number of full-time sworn deputies hired
If 0, SKIP to #24a on page 10.
20b. (If at least one new hire) How many of those hires were:
Number of Full-Time
Sworn Deputies Hired
a. Entry-level hires (non-lateral)
b. Lateral transfers/hires
c. Other new hires
If #20b, row a (entry-level hires) is 0, SKIP to #24a on page 10.
21. Based on the most recent class of entry-level sworn deputies hired, on average, how many
weeks pass from the time they submit their application to the time they are offered
employment? DO NOT include basic academy training.
Average number of weeks until hire
AGENCY ID: ___________
9
Attachment 19: Sheriffs’ offices survey
22. Which of the following types of applicants for entry-level sworn deputy hires were targeted
through special recruitment efforts during the fiscal year including June 30, 2020?
Yes
No
a. 4-year college graduates
b. Military veterans
c. Multi-lingual speaking
d. People with prior law enforcement experience
e. Racial/ethnic minorities
f. Women
g. Other (please specify):
23. Did your agency offer any of the following incentives for entry-level sworn deputy hires during the
fiscal year including June 30, 2020?
Yes
No
a. Employment signing bonus
b. Free or reimbursed academy training
c. Salary paid during academy training
d. Training academy graduation bonus
e. Relocation assistance (e.g., moving, travel costs)
f. Other (please specify):
24a. How many full-time sworn deputies separated from your agency during the fiscal year including June 30,
2020? DO NOT include sworn deputy recruits who separated prior to completing academy training. If none,
enter ‘0’.
Number of full-time sworn deputies separated
If 0, SKIP to #25
24b. (If at least one separation) How many of those separations were:
Number of Full-Time Sworn
Deputies Separated
a. Probationary rejections
b. Dismissals
c. Medical/disability retirements
d. Non-medical retirements
e. Resignations
f. Other/unknown
25. Which of the following best describes your agency's exit interview policy used to assess full-time sworn deputies'
reasons for departure? Mark ONLY ONE response.
Exit interviews conducted with deputies selected by the agency
Exit interviews conducted with deputies if they request one
Exit interviews conducted based on other policy
Exit interviews typically not conducted
AGENCY ID: ___________
10
Attachment 19: Sheriffs’ offices survey
26. Enter the base annual salary schedule for the following full-time sworn positions as of June 30, 2020. If a
position does not exist on a full-time basis in your agency, select 'N/A.' In cases where there is not a range in salary,
please enter the same salary for minimum and maximum.
Base ANNUAL Salary
Minimum
Maximum
N/A
$
b. Sergeant or equivalent first-line supervisor $
c. Entry-level deputy (post-academy)
$
,
,
,
a. Sheriff
.00 $
.00 $
.00 $
,
,
,
.00
.00
.00
27. Did your agency authorize or provide any of the following special pay for sworn deputies during the fiscal year
including June 30, 2020?
Yes
No
a. Bilingual ability pay
b. Education incentive pay
c. Hazardous duty pay
d. Merit/performance pay
e. Military service pay
f. Residential incentive pay
g. Shift differential pay
h. Special skills proficiency pay
28. Did your agency offer the following benefits to increase retention among full-time sworn deputies during the fiscal
year including June 30, 2020?
Yes
No
a. College tuition reimbursement
b. Employee Assistance Program
c. Enhanced medical benefits
d. Enhanced retirement benefits
e. Extra overtime opportunities
f. Flexible hours to attend college
g. Free or financial allowance for uniforms
h. Housing allowance or mortgage discount program
i. Increased pay at specific service milestones
j. Job sharing or time splits
k. On-duty time allowance for fitness maintenance
l. Paid maternity leave
m. Paid paternity leave
n. Peer support program
o. Relaxed residency requirements
p. Take home vehicle
q. Other (please specify):
AGENCY ID: ___________
11
Attachment 19: Sheriffs’ offices survey
29. What is the standard shift length for sworn patrol/road deputies in your agency?
Hours per Day
Section VII: Equipment and Operations
30. As of June 30, 2020, which of the following types of weapons or actions were authorized for use by your agency’s
full-time sworn deputies?
On duty
Off duty
Not
Not
Firearms
Authorized authorized Authorized authorized
a. Handgun
b. Shotgun or manual rifle
c. Semi-automatic rifle (e.g., AR-15)
d. Fully automatic rifle (e.g., M-16)
On duty
Less-lethal
e. Open hand techniques
Authorized
Not
authorized
Off duty
Authorized
Not
authorized
f. Closed hand techniques
g. Takedown techniques (e.g., straight arm bar)
h. Hold or neck restraint (e.g., carotid hold)
i. Leg hobble or other restraints (not including handcuffs)
j. OC spray/foam
k. Chemical agent projectile (e.g., CS/tear gas, OC pellets)
l. Baton
m. Blunt force projectile (e.g., bean bag, rubber bullets)
n. Conducted energy device (e.g., Taser, stun gun, Stinger)
o. Other (please specify):
31. As of June 30, 2020, how many of the following types of video cameras were operated by your agency on a regular
basis? If none, enter ‘0’.
Total Number
a.
Fixed-site surveillance in public areas
b. Mobile surveillance
c.
On aerial drones
d. In patrol cars
e.
On deputies (e.g., body-worn cameras)
f.
On weapons
AGENCY ID: ___________
12
Attachment 19: Sheriffs’ offices survey
32a. As of June 30, 2020, how many handlers and K-9s did your agency employ? If none, enter ‘0’.
Handlers
K-9s
If your agency did not have any K-9s, SKIP to #33.
32b. (If at least one K-9) What types of activities did your K-9s engage in?
Activity
Yes
No
a. Bomb/explosive detecting
b. Cadaver
c. Drug detecting
d. Person trailing
e. General enforcement (e.g., patrol, traffic
enforcement, crowd control, etc.)
f. Other (please specify):
Section VIII: Technology
33. As of June 30, 2020, did your agency maintain a website?
Yes
No
34. As of June 30, 2020, did your agency use social media to communicate with the public?
Yes
No
35. As of June 30, 2020, did your agency use any of the following on a regular basis?
Yes
No
a.
Computer aided dispatch (CAD)
b. Record management system (RMS)
c.
Automated Fingerprint Identification System (AFIS) or
Next Generation Identification (NGI)
d. Geographic information systems (GIS)
e.
Facial recognition
f.
Infrared (thermal) imagers
g. License plate readers (LPR)
h. Tire deflation devices
i.
Gunshot detection (e.g., ShotSpotter)
j.
Firearm tracing (e.g., eTrace)
k. Ballistic imaging (e.g., NIBIN, IBIS)
AGENCY ID: ___________
13
Attachment 19: Sheriffs’ offices survey
36. As of June 30, 2020, did your agency use data for any of the following activities?
Yes
No
a. Budget allocation
b. Hot spot analysis
c. Intelligence analysis
d. Patrol allocation
e. Predictive policing (i.e., using computer models to predict where
crime will occur)
f. Social network analysis
g. Targeted enforcement
Section IX: Policies and Procedures
37. Does your agency have written policy or procedural directives on the following?
Deputy conduct
Yes
a. Code of conduct and appearance
No
b. Maximum work hours allowed per day. Please specify:
c.
d.
e.
f.
Off-duty conduct
Firearm discharge
Use of deadly force
Use of less-lethal force
Dealing with special populations/situations
g. Domestic disputes
h. Homeless persons
i. Juveniles
j. Mentally ill persons
k. Persons with intellectual or developmental disabilities
Yes
No
Procedural
l. Active shooter
m. Body-worn cameras
n. Civilian complaints
o. Checking on immigration status by deputies
p. Detaining federal immigration violators
q. In-custody deaths
r. Mass demonstrations
s. Motor vehicle stops
t. Prisoner transport
u. Racial profiling or unbiased policing
v. Reporting use of force
w. Social media use
x. Stop and frisk
y. Strip searches
z. Vehicle pursuits
Yes
No
AGENCY ID: ___________
14
Attachment 19: Sheriffs’ offices survey
38. Under what circumstances do your full-time sworn deputies regularly check immigration status?
Yes
No
a. During a street/pedestrian stop
b. During a traffic stop
c. After arrest for a misdemeanor offense
d. After arrest for a felony offense
e. Only when suspected of a federal immigration violation
If you answered “No” to all rows on #38, SKIP to #40
39. (If yes to at least one row on #38) Do your full-time sworn deputies verify immigration status with the
Department of Homeland Security?
Yes
No
SKIP to #41
40. (If no to all rows on #38) What are the reasons your full-time sworn deputies do not regularly check
immigration status?
Yes
No
a. Prohibited by departmental policy
b. Prohibited by local or state legislation
c. Unable to verify status while in the field
d. Concerned about victims not reporting to police
e. Concerned that deputies will be perceived as using racial
profiling.
f. Concerned about losing the public’s trust
g. Other (please specify):
41. As of June 30, 2020, did your agency have an operational computerized Early Warning System or Early
Intervention System for monitoring or responding to problematic deputy behavior?
Yes
No
AGENCY ID: ___________
15
Attachment 19: Sheriffs’ offices survey
42. Enter the number of citizen complaints received during the fiscal year including June 30, 2020, by current
disposition status. If none, enter ‘0’.
All complaints
Use of force complaints
a. Sustained
(sufficient evidence to justify disciplinary action
against the deputy or deputies)
b. Other disposition
(e.g., unfounded, exonerated, not sustained,
withdrawn)
c. Pending
(final disposition of the allegation has not been
made)
d. Total complaints received
(sum of rows a-c)
43. Is there a civilian complaint review board or agency in your jurisdiction that reviews complaints against
deputies in your agency?
Yes
No
44. As of June 30, 2020, did your agency require another law enforcement agency to conduct an 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. Discharge of a firearm at or in the direction of a person
b. Use of force resulting in a subject sustaining serious bodily injury
c. Use of force resulting in a subject’s death
d. In-custody death not due to use of force (e.g., suicide, intoxication or accident)
Thank You!
Thank you for participating in this survey.
Please retain a copy for your records as project staff may call to clarify responses.
Submit this form using one of the following four methods:
E-mail: TBD@rti.org
Fax: xxx-xxx-xxxx (toll-free)
Mail: Use the enclosed postage-paid envelope,
or mail to:
RTI International
ATTN: Data Capture
(XXXXXX.XXX.XXX.XXX)
5265 Capital Blvd.
Raleigh, NC 27616-2925
AGENCY ID: ___________
16
Attachment 20. Second Reminder to Nonrespondents (Email)
Dear «TITLE» «NAME»:
The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) recently mailed materials to you requesting your agency’s
participation in the 2020 Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics (LEMAS) core
survey. The questionnaire due date is November 23, 2020 and we hope that you will be able to respond by
then. If you have already completed the questionnaire, please accept my sincere thank you.
If you have not completed your questionnaire, I ask you to complete it as soon as possible. Developing
and maintaining an accurate picture of the nation’s law enforcement workforce is paramount to
understanding the current state of law enforcement in the United States.
Please complete the questionnaire by using the following link: http://bjslecs.org/lemas2020 and
entering the following information:
Username:
Password:
«WebUsername»
«PIN»
If you would prefer to complete the questionnaire on paper, you may download and print a paper version
by visiting http://bjslecs.org/lemas2020 with your username and password. You may also request a paper
questionnaire by emailing RTI International at lemas@rti.org or calling 1-800-XXX-XXXX. Upon
receipt of your agency’s request, you will receive a paper version and a postage paid return envelope
within 5 business days. If you have any general comments about this data collection, please contact me at
202-616-1706 or Shelley.Hyland@usdoj.gov.
Sincerely,
Shelley S. Hyland, PhD
Program Manager
Bureau of Justice Statistics
Case ID: <<caseID>>
Attachment 21. Third Reminder to Nonrespondents (Postcard)
Final complete version to be sent separately. Image of draft text shown below.
Attachment 22. Fourth Reminder to Nonrespondents (Email)
SUBJECT: Reminder – Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics Core Survey
Dear «TITLE» «NAME»:
On behalf of the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), RTI International and the Police Executive Research
Forum are conducting the 2020 Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics (LEMAS)
core survey. This letter is to remind you that <<AGENCY>> has been invited to participate in LEMAS.
Our records indicate that as of November 20, we have not received your questionnaire.
The survey due date is today, November 23. This is the date by which we would like all agencies to
submit their surveys so that we can ensure the timely sharing of study findings with the respondents and
other law enforcement agencies, policy makers, and additional stakeholders.
This email message is to request confirmation that we have successfully reached you and encourage you
to contact us if you have any questions related to the data collection.
Please reply to this message to confirm that we have reached <<AGENCY NAME>>.
You may also access the questionnaire online at http://bjslecs.org/lemas2020 and then entering the
following information:
Username:
Password:
«WebUsername»
«PIN»
If you have questions about LEMAS, need to change the point of contact at your agency, or need to
update your contact information (including email address), please contact the RTI team via phone or
email at 800-XXX-XXXX or lemas@rti.org. If you have any general comments about this data
collection, please contact me at 202-616-1706 or Shelley.Hyland@usdoj.gov.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Shelley Hyland, PhD
Program Manager
Bureau of Justice Statistics
Attachment 23. Fifth Reminder to Nonrespondents (Letter)
<<TITLE>> <<NAME>>
OR CURRENT CHIEF EXECUTIVE
<<AGENCYNAME>>
<<ADDRESS1>>
<<ADDRESS2>>
<<ADDRESS3>>
<<CITY>>, <<STATE>> <<ZIP>>
DATE
Dear «TITLE» «NAME»:
On behalf of the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), RTI International the Police Executive Research Forum are
conducting the 2020 Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics (LEMAS) core survey. The
LEMAS gathers information that relevant to all law enforcement agencies – regardless of agency size or type.
<<AGENCY>> has been invited to participate and reliability of the study depends on your participation; your
agency cannot be replaced.
The original due date was November 23, 2020. Please complete the LEMAS questionnaire as soon as possible. I
understand that you receive a number survey requests and I genuinely appreciate your attention to this request.
You may still access the questionnaire online at http://bjslecs.org/lemas2020 and then entering the following
information:
Username:
Password:
«WebUsername»
«PIN»
Alternatively, enclosed in this packet you will find a paper version of the questionnaire and a business reply
envelope if you prefer to submit your response via mail. Please feel free to share the questionnaire with others at
your agency who can assist you in providing the requested information.
BJS will use the data collected in this questionnaire only for research and statistical purposes. Your response is very
important to help law enforcement agencies and policy makers understand administrative aspects of your agency and
others like yours.
If you have questions about LEMAS, need to change the point of contact at your agency, or need to update your
contact information (including email address), please contact the RTI team via phone or email at 800-XXX-XXX or
lemas@rti.org. If you have any general comments about this data collection, please contact me at 202-616-1706 or
Shelley.Hyland@usdoj.gov.
Again, I thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Shelley Hyland, PhD
Program Manager
Bureau of Justice Statistics
Attachment 24. Phone Follow-up Sample Script
NT00.
PROGRAMMER, DISPLAY:
STATUS, DATE OF LAST CALL, NUMBER OF ATTEMPTS
QINT1. Hello, this is <<INTERVIEWER NAME>>, calling on behalf of the Bureau of Justice Statistics in the
U.S. Department of Justice regarding the 2020 Law Enforcement Management and
Administrative Statistics survey, also known as LEMAS.
To ensure I’ve contacted the correct law enforcement agency, I would like to ask a few brief
questions. I have the name as…[PROGRAMMER: FILL AGENCY NAME.] Is that correct?
1 YES [GO TO QINT3]
2 NO [GO TO QINT2]
QINT2. What is the agency’s name?
______________________
QINT3. What is the agency’s address?
[PROGRAMMER: FILL ADDRESS]
1
YES – MATCH TO RECORDS [GO TO QINT5]
2 NO – DOES NOT MATCH RECORDS [GO TO NEW_ADDR1]
NEW_ADDR1. INTERVIEWER: RECORD ADDRESS, ASKING RESPONDENT TO REPEAT IF NECESSARY.
ADDRESS 1:
ADDRESS 2:
CITY:
STATE:
ZIP:
QINT5. Let me just check to see if the information we have on record is up to date.
[PROGRAMMER: DISPLAY AGENCY NAME, ADDRESS, NEW INFORMATION JUST PROVIDED AND
VICINITY LIST.]
INTERVIEWER: USE LOOKUP TABLE TO IDENTIFY ANY AGENCIES WITH NAMES
THAT ARE SIMILAR TO THE NAME OF THE AGENCY TI IS TALKING TO. IF ANY
SIMILAR, DISCUSS WITH RESPONDENT. ONCE AGENCY IS CONFIRMED SELECT
FROM LIST AND CONTINUE.
QINT7. I’m following up on a survey invitation that we sent to <<AGENCY>>. Have I reached <<area >><<phone>>?
1
2
3
CORRECT NUMBER [GO TO QINT10]
NOT CORRECT [GO TO QINT8]
WOULD LIKE TO BE CALLED ON A NEW NUMBER [GO TO TEL06]
QINT8. What phone number have I reached?
________________________
[PROGRAMMER: APPEND THE PHONE NUMBER TO THIS CASE.]
[GO TO QINT10]
TEL06. What is the number you would like to be contacted at?
________________________
(ENTER NUMBER WITH NO DASHES, SPACES OR OTHER PUNCTION)
INTERVIEWER: RECORD THE NUMBER, THEN CALL THE RESPONDENT BACK ON THE NEW
NUMBER.
[PROGRAMMER: APPEND THE PHONE NUMBER TO THIS CASE.]
[GO TO QINT10]
QINT10. Which one of the following best describes your agency?
1
2
3
4
-1
-2
State law enforcement agency
Sheriff’s agency
County law enforcement agency
Local law enforcement agency
DON’T KNOW
REFUSED
QINT11. [PROGRAMMER: DISPLAY AGENCY’S ORI NUMBER.]
What is your agency’s ORI number?
INTERVIEWER: DO THEY MATCH OR ARE THEY DIFFERENT?
1 MATCH
2 DIFFERENT
-1 DON’T KNOW
PROGRAMMER: IF QINT1 AND QINT3 = 1, OR IF QINT1 AND QINT11=1 (IF APPLICABLE), OR IF
QINT3 AND QINT11=1 (IF APPLICABLE), CONTINUE. IF QINT5=2, GO TO QINT30. ELSE, GO TO
QINT30.
QINT12. May I speak with <<Title>> <<name>>?
1
2
3
4
5
TRANSFER TO POC (LIVE) [GO TO QINT15]
GATEKEEPER IS POC [GO TO QINT15]
TRANSFER TO VM FOR POC [GO TO ANSPROMPT1]
NO/NOT AVAILABLE – SCHEDULE CALLBACK [GO TO INT06]
POC NO LONGER CHIEF/SHERIFF/AGENCY OR POC/PERSON NO LONGER IN AGENCY [GO TO
QINT13]
-2 REFUSED [GO TO QINT18]
QINT13. What is the new (chief’s/sheriff’s/agency head’s) name?
_______________________
9 REFUSED
[GO TO QINT14]
QINT14. May I speak with the (chief/sheriff/agency head)?
1
2
3
4
5
TRANSFER TO POC (LIVE) [GO TO QINT15]
GATEKEEPER IS POC [GO TO QINT15]
TRANSFER TO VM FOR POC [GO TO ANSPROMPT1]
NO/NOT AVAILABLE – SCHEDULE CALLBACK [GO TO INT06]
REFUSED [GO TO QINT18]
QINT15. [IF Q12=1 OR Q14=1 OR Q16=2, FILL: Hello, this is <<INTERVIEWER NAME>> calling on behalf of
the Bureau of Justice Statistics in the U.S. Department of Justice regarding the 2020 Law
Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics Survey, also known as LEMAS.]
I’m following up on our invitation that asked your agency to participate in the LEMAS survey.
Since we did not hear back from your agency, I wanted to call to see if you received the
invitation.
1
2
3
4
-2
YES [GO TO QINT18]
NO [GO TO QINT20]
NO ANSWER [END CALL]
WENT TO VOICEMAIL [GO TO ANSPROMPT1]
REFUSED [GO TO QINT18]
ANSPROMPT1. [DISPLAY FOR CALLING ROUNDS 1 AND 2]
Hello, this is _____________, calling on behalf of the Bureau of Justice Statistics in the U.S.
Department of Justice regarding the 2020 Law Enforcement and Administrative Statistics
Survey, also known as LEMAS. This message is for <<POC NAME>>. Our records show that we
have not yet received your completed survey. We hope that you can complete the survey
within the next week. If you have any questions about the survey, please call our toll-free
number, 800-XXX-XXXX.
[DISPLAY FOR CALLING ROUND 3]
Hello, this is _____________, calling on behalf of the Bureau of Justice Statistics in the U.S.
Department of Justice regarding the 2020 Law Enforcement Management and Administrative
Statistics Survey, also known as LEMAS. This message is for <<POC NAME>>. Our records show
that we have not yet received your completed survey. Your participation helps to ensure the
accuracy of the study results and we cannot substitute another agency for yours. We hope that
you can complete the survey by [DATE]. If you like, please call our toll-free number 800-XXXXXXX and a member of the research team can assist you.
1
2
3
LEFT MESSAGE. END CALL.
SOMEONE PICKED UP. [GO TO QINT15]
UNABLE TO LEAVE MESSAGE. END CALL.
INT06. When would be a better time to call back?
INTERVIEWER: IF RESPONDENT INDICATES THAT THEY ARE WILLING TO TALK NOW BUT THEY
ARE DRIVING, SAY: I’m sorry, but for your safety we’re not able to continue while you’re driving.
IS THIS CALLBACK SET BY THE RESPONDENT OR SOMEONE ELSE?
(INTERVIEWER NOTES: CALLBACK SHOULD ONLY BE SET IF THE RESPONDENT REQUESTED OR
AGREED TO BE CALLED BACK.)
CALLBACK DEFINITION:
CALLBACK BY SUBJECT: THE RESPONDENT SELECTED TO COMPLETE THE INTERVIEW
PROVIDED A SPECIFIC TIME AND DATE FOR THE APPOINTMENT.
CALLBACK BY OTHER: SOMEONE OTHER THAN THE SELECTED RESPONDENT ASKED FOR US
TO CALLBACK, OR THE SELECTED RESPONDENT DID NOT PROVIDE A SPECIFIC DATE AND
TIME TO BE CALLED BACK.
1
2
3
APPOINTMENT BY SUBJECT [GO TO APPOINTMENT SCHEDULE SCREENS AND THEN QINT29]
APPOINTMENT BY OTHER [GO TO APPOINTMENT SCHEDULE SCREENS AND THEN QINT29]
REFUSED. I will just try again later. [GO TO QINT29]
QINT18. [PROGRAMMER: IF AGENCY HAS NOT RECEIVED COMMUNICATIONS (Q15=2), DO NOT ASK.
ELSE, ASK OF EACH AGENCY THAT HAS NOT REFUSED.]
Your agency’s participation helps to ensure our study accurately represents law enforcement
agencies across the country. We cannot substitute another agency for yours. Would you please
tell me more about your agency’s reasons for not participating?
INTERVIEWER: ENTER VERBATIM IN OPEN ENDED BOX FOR CODE 00, THEN CODE THE RESPONSE
___________________________________________
SELECT ALL THAT APPLY:
0 ENTER VERBATIM
1 COMPLETE — AGENCY CLAIMS THAT SURVEY HAS BEEN SUBMITTED/SENT
2 DUE DATE — CANNOT RESPOND BY DUE DATE
3 LIMITED TIME/RESOURCES — NOT RELATED TO DUE DATE
4 APPLICABILITY — AGENCY THOUGHT SURVEY DID NOT APPLY TO THEM
5 NO INTEREST – AGENCY STAFF ARE UNINTERESTED IN THE SURVEY TOPIC OR GOALS
6 NO BENEFIT – AGENCY RECEIVES NO BENEFIT FROM PARTICIPATION/SURVEY
7 VOLUNTARY – PARTICIPATION IS NOT MANDATED BY LAW
8 SURVEY FATIGUE — AGENCY RECEIVES TOO MANY SURVEY REQUESTS
9 LACK OF DATA — DATA NOT AVAILABLE DURING SURVEY PERIOD
10 LACK OF DATA — DATA DO NOT EXIST OR ARE NOT MAINTAINED
11 INACCESSIBLE DATA – DATA EXIST, BUT ARE NOT EASILY ACCESSIBLE
12 POOR QUALITY DATA – DATA EXIST, BUT ARE OF QUESTIONABLE/POOR QUALITY
13 CONFIDENTIALITY – DATA ARE NOT TO BE SHARED OUTSIDE OF AGENCY/AUTHORITY
14 FEDERAL ROLE – FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT BE INVOLVED IN LOCAL ISSUES
15 JURISDICTION RULE – JURISDICTION DOES NOT PARTICIPATE IN RESEARCH
16 OTHER
17 REFUSED TO GIVE REASON FOR DELAY/REFUSAL
QINT19. INTERVIEWER: IF REFUSAL, DO NOT ASK; CODE 05 [NO, will not complete survey]
ELSE: How would you prefer to complete the survey? You have the option to complete it online
or by hard copy.
1
2
3
4
5
POC has completed web survey or sent hard copy [GO TO QINT28]
YES, will complete survey online [GO TO QINT21]
YES, will complete a hard copy [GO TO QINT23]
YES, will complete a hard copy already received [GO TO QINT28]
NO, will not complete survey [GO TO QINT29]
QINT20. IF QINT15=2: Let me send you the survey again. You have the option to complete it online or by
hard copy. Which do you prefer?
1 YES, will complete survey online [GO TO QINT21]
2 YES, will complete a hard copy [GO TO QINT23]
3 NO, will not complete survey [GO TO QINT18]
QINT21. Would you like me to send the survey link and login information to you again?
1
2
Yes [GO TO QINT22]
No [GO TO QINT28]
QINT22. What is your email address?
________________________________
[GO TO QINT26]
QINT23. Would you like me to mail you another copy of the survey?
1
2
Yes [GO TO QINT24]
No [GO TO QINT28]
QINT24. Should I use the address we have on file for you or another address?
1
2
Address on file [GO TO QINT27]
Another address [GO TO QINT25]
QINT25. What is that address?
________________________________
[GO TO QINT27]
QINT26. We will send a link to the survey and the access code by email. We look forward to receiving your
completed survey. I appreciate you taking the time to speak with me today. Have a nice day.
INTERVIEWER: END CALL.
QINT27. We will mail the questionnaire in the next day or two. We look forward to receiving your
completed survey. I appreciate you taking the time to speak with me today. Have a nice day.
INTERVIEWER: END CALL.
QINT28. We look forward to receiving your completed survey. I appreciate you taking the time to speak
with me today. Have a nice day.
INTERVIEWER: END CALL.
QINT29. I appreciate you taking the time to speak with me today. Have a nice day.
INTERVIEWER: END CALL.
QINT30. Thank you for answering these questions. I need to discuss our records with my supervisor to
determine if your agency is eligible to participate in this survey. If your agency is eligible,
someone from the study team will be in touch. Have a nice day.
INTERVIEWER: END CALL.
Attachment 25. Sixth Reminder to Nonrespondents (Letter)
«TITLE» «NAME»
OR CURRENT CHIEF EXECUTIVE
«AGENCY NAME»
«ADDRESS1», «ADDRESS2»
«CITY», «STATE» «ZIP»
Dear «TITLE» «NAME»:
We have made several attempts to contact you over the past few months regarding the participation of
<<AGENCY NAME>> in the Bureau of Justice Statistics’ (BJS) 2020 Law Enforcement Management
and Administrative Statistics (LEMAS) core survey. Your responses are vital to the success of the project.
I am writing today to notify you that there are only a couple of weeks remaining to complete the
questionnaire. We must receive your response soon to ensure that the study results accurately reflect the
characteristics and activities of your agency. The reliability of the study’s results directly depends on the
participation of all law enforcement agencies invited to participate in the study. <<AGENCY NAME >>
cannot be replaced with another law enforcement agency.
The questionnaire may be accessed online at http://bjslecs.org/lemas2020 and then entering the
following information:
Username:
Password:
«WebUsername»
«PIN»
Alternatively, if you would prefer to complete the questionnaire on paper, we are happy to send you a
hard copy or you may download and print a paper version upon entering your questionnaire access code
on the LEMAS questionnaire website.
If you have questions about LEMAS or need to update your contact information (including email
address), please contact the LEMAS data collection team via phone or email at 800-XXX-XXXX or
LEMAS@rti.org. If you have any general comments about this data collection, please contact me at 202616-1706 or Shelley.Hyland@usdoj.gov.
I greatly appreciate your consideration.
Sincerely,
Shelley S. Hyland, PhD
Program Manager
Bureau of Justice Statistics
Attachment 26. Seventh Reminder to Nonrespondents (Email)
SUBJECT: Final Reminder – Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics Core Survey
Dear «TITLE» «NAME»:
The data collection period for the 2020 Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics
(LEMAS) core survey is ending in the next few weeks. This letter is to remind you that <<AGENCY>>
has been invited to participate in LEMAS and our records indicate that as of February 8, we have not
received your questionnaire.
Please access the questionnaire online as soon as possible at http://bjslecs.org/lemas2020 and then
entering the following information:
Username:
Password:
«WebUsername»
«PIN»
I understand that your time is limited; however, the reliability of the study directly depends on the
participation of your agency. The questionnaire addresses topics that are relevant to all agencies and your
responses are essential to our ability to provide the information needed by local law enforcement and
other stakeholders.
If you have questions about LEMAS, need to change the point of contact at your agency, or need to
update your contact information (including email address), please contact the RTI team via phone or
email at 800-XXX-XXXX or lemas@rti.org. If you have any general comments about this data
collection, please contact me at 202-616-1706 or Shelley.Hyland@usdoj.gov.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Shelley Hyland, PhD
Program Manager
Bureau of Justice Statistics
Attachment 27. End-of-Study Notification (Letter)
«TITLE» «NAME»
OR CURRENT CHIEF EXECUTIVE
«AGENCY NAME»
«ADDRESS1», «ADDRESS2»
«CITY», «STATE» «ZIP»
Dear «TITLE» «NAME»:
The Bureau of Justice Statistics’ (BJS) and RTI International, our data collection agent, began conducting
the 2020 Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics (LEMAS) core survey in
September 2020. We sent <<AGENCY NAME>> an invitation to participate in the study at that time.
Unfortunately, we have not yet received your completed survey. Your participation is vital to the success
of the project.
In order for your agency to contribute to the study findings, we must receive your completed survey by
March 20, 2021. Please access the questionnaire online at http://bjslecs.org/lemas2020 and then
entering the following information:
Username:
Password:
«WebUsername»
«PIN»
If you have questions about LEMAS or need to update your contact information (including email
address), please contact the LEMAS data collection team via phone or email at 800-XXX-XXXX or
LEMAS@rti.org. If you have any general comments about this data collection, please contact me at 202616-1706 or Shelley.Hyland@usdoj.gov.
I greatly appreciate your consideration.
Sincerely,
Shelley S. Hyland, PhD
Program Manager
Bureau of Justice Statistics
Attachment 28. End-of-Study Notification (Email)
SUBJECT: End of Study Notification – Law Enforcment Management and Administrative
Statistics Core Survey
Dear «TITLE» «NAME»:
Yesterday, we sent a letter to <<AGENCY NAME>> explaining that the data collection period
for the 2020 Law Enforcment Management and Administrative Statistics (LEMAS) Core Survey
is ending and that surveys must be received by March 20 to be included in the study results.
This email message is to ensure that you receive notification of this request in a timely manner
and encourage you to contact us if you have any questions related to the data collection.
The information contained in the mailed materials is provided below.
Dear «TITLE» «NAME»:
The Bureau of Justice Statistics’ (BJS) and RTI International, our data collection agent, began conducting
the 2020 Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics (LEMAS) core survey in
September 2020. We sent <<AGENCY NAME>> an invitation to participate in the study at that time.
Unfortunately, we have not yet received your completed survey. Your participation is vital to the success
of the project.
In order for your agency to contribute to the study findings, we must receive your completed survey by
March 20, 2021. Please access the questionnaire online at http://bjslecs.org/lemas2020 and then
entering the following information:
Username:
Password:
«WebUsername»
«PIN»
If you have questions about LEMAS or need to update your contact information (including email
address), please contact the LEMAS data collection team via phone or email at 800-XXX-XXXX or
LEMAS@rti.org. If you have any general comments about this data collection, please contact me at 202616-1706 or Shelley.Hyland@usdoj.gov.
I greatly appreciate your consideration.
Sincerely,
Shelley S. Hyland, PhD
Program Manager
Bureau of Justice Statistics
</pre><Table class="table"><tr><Td>File Type</td><td>application/pdf</td></tr><tr><Td>Author</td><td>Davis, Elizabeth</td></tr><tr><Td>File Modified</td><td>2020-06-01</td></tr><tr><Td>File Created</td><td>2020-06-01</td></tr></table></div></div></div><hr>
© 2024 OMB.report | <a href="/privacy_policy.php" rel="nofollow">Privacy Policy</a>
<hr >
</div>
</body>
<script defer async src="/js/instant.page.3.0.0.js" type="module" data-cfasync="false"></script>
</html><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script>