Sign the Resolution for a Federal
Commission on Drug Policy Sign the Resolution for a Federal
Commission on Drug Policy
Contents | Feedback | Search | DRCNet Home Page | Join DRCNet
DRCNet Library | Schaffer Library | Government Publications
U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
Bureau of Justice Statistics
Special Report
Drug Enforcement by Police
and Sheriffs' Department, 1990:
A LEMAS Report
May 1992
NCJ-134505
Full text with tables available from:
BJS Justice Statistics Clearinghouse
1-800-732-3277
Box 6000
Rockville, MD 10850
Few issues are as important in law enforcement today as how governments at
all levels respond to the challenge to rid our society of illicit drugs.
This report is drawn from the second triennial survey conducted by the Law
Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics program. The survey
included new questions about drugs seized, drug enforcement techniques, and
testing of arrestees and employees. State and local law enforcement
agencies have provided a national understanding of the innovations in the
fight against drugs-special drug enforcement units, interagency task
forces, and drug asset forfeiture programs. We salute the departments in
their cooperation with LEMAS and trust that this profile will prove
valuable in their assessments and planning.
Steven D. Dillingham, Ph.D.
Director
Drug Enforcement by Police
and Sheriffs' Department, 1990:
A LEMAS Report
By Brian A. Reaves, Ph.D.
BJS Statistician
In 1990, about 9,300 local police departments and 2,500 sheriffs'
departments had primary responsibility for the enforcement of drug laws.
Collectively, these agencies employed 466,000 full-time officers, 92% of
all local police and sheriffs' officers nationwide. In addition, 34 State
police departments, employing 43,000 officers, had primary drug enforcement
responsibilities.
This report presents information collected from State and local law
enforcement agencies with primary drug enforcement responsibilities. It
includes information on types of illegal drugs seized, operation of special
drug units, multi-agency task force participation, and receipts from drug
asset forfeiture programs.
For all agencies the report also summarizes how drug testing policies apply
to arrestees, applicants for sworn positions, and employees.
Major findings include the following:
*Among agencies with primary drug enforcement responsibilities that served
50,000 or more residents, over 90% of the police departments and over 80%
of the sheriffs' departments operated special drug enforcement units.
*Nationwide, more than 16,000 local police and sheriffs' officers, and over
2,000 State police officers were assigned full time to special drug units.
*Half of local police and sheriffs' departments with primary drug
enforcement responsibilities were participating in a multi-agency drug
enforcement task force. These 6,500 agencies had assigned nearly 10,000
officers full time to such task forces.
*Among departments with primary drug enforcement responsibilities, over 90%
of the police departments serving a population of 50,000 or more, and over
90% of the sheriffs' departments serving 250,000 or more residents,
received money or goods from a drug asset forfeiture program.
*Among the State police departments with primary drug enforcement
responsibilities, 85% operated a special drug unit, 91% participated in a
multi-agency drug enforcement task force, and 94% received money or goods
from drug asset forfeitures.
*About 2 in 3 State police departments and 2 in 5 local police and
sheriffs' departments reported that at least some of the persons they
arrested were required to take a test for illegal drugs.
*A majority of State police departments and local police departments
serving a population of 25,000 or more required that all applicants for
sworn positions take a test for illegal drugs.
*About 3% of local law enforcement officers worked for agencies that had a
mandatory drug testing program for regular field officers; 17% were
employed by agencies that had a random selection testing program for
officers.
*Nonprobationary officers could be dismissed after one positive test in
about two-thirds of local police and sheriffs' departments and in about
three-fourths of State police departments. Nearly all departments had a
policy specifying dismissal for two positive drug tests.
*Treatment alternatives were a part of the drug testing policy for
employees in about half of State and local police departments and two-
fifths of sheriffs' departments. Such alternatives were generally limited
to the first positive test results only.
THE LEMAS SURVEY
The 1990 Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics (LEMAS)
survey questionnaire was mailed to all 780 State and local law enforcement
agencies with 100 or more sworn officers and to a sample of 2,338 agencies
with fewer than 100 officers. Of the 3,118 agencies receiving the LEMAS
questionnaire, 2,945 (94.5%) responded. The survey used a sampling frame
based on personnel data from the 1986 Directory Survey of Law Enforcement
Agencies. (See Methodology for further discussion of sampling.)
The local police departments included in this report are general purpose
agencies operated by municipal or county governments. The State police
departments included in this report are the primary general purpose
agencies in all States except Hawaii, which does not have a State police
department.
This report presents only data collected on drug-related policies. The BJS
Bulletins State and Local Police Departments, 1990 (NCJ-133284) and
Sheriffs' Departments, 1990 (NCJ-133283) present other data collected in
the LEMAS survey.
The first section of this report, on drug enforcement activities, includes
only agencies with primary drug enforcement responsibilities. Agencies
involved in drug enforcement only in a backup capacity, or those whose
responsibilities are limited to traffic enforcement, jail operation, court
operations or other such duties are not included. The second section, on
drug testing policies, includes all local police, sheriffs', and State
police departments.
Drug enforcement activities
State and local law enforcement agencies made an estimated 1.1 million
arrests for drug law violations during 1990, according to the Uniform Crime
Reports (UCR) of the FBI. Excluding traffic violations, 1 in every 13
arrests made during the year was for a drug-related offense.
Local police and sheriffs' departments
During 1990, 77% of the Nation's local police and sheriffs' departments
reported they had primary responsibility for the enforcement of drug laws
in areas under their jurisdiction. These 11,800 agencies employed 466,000
full-time officers, 92% of all local officers nationwide.
Over 9,000 local police departments, employing 96% of all local police
officers, reported they had primary drug enforcement responsibilities.
Nearly all of the police departments in jurisdictions of 10,000 or more in
population had such responsibilities. These 2,800 departments employed
approximately 300,000 full-time officers. Departments in towns with a
population of 2,500 to 9,999 (83%), or a population less than 2,500 (60%),
were less likely to have primary drug enforcement responsibilities. These
6,500 departments in smaller communities employed about 46,000 officers.
About 2,500 (81%) of the sheriffs' departments nationwide reported having
primary drug enforcement responsibilities in 1990. Sheriffs' departments
located in jurisdictions with a population of under 100,000 were somewhat
more likely to have drug enforcement responsibilities than those in larger
jurisdictions (83% versus 65%); however, the departments serving a
population of 100,000 or more employed more officers than those in smaller
jurisdictions (77,000 versus 42,000).
Local police and sheriffs' departments with primary drug enforcement
responsibilities seized numerous types of illegal drugs during the 12-month
period ending on June 30, 1990. Across all categories, departments in
larger jurisdictions were more likely to have seized each type of drug than
those in smaller jurisdictions.
Most of the police and sheriffs' departments serving a population of 50,000
or more seized nearly all of the types of drugs asked about in the survey.
In the smallest jurisdictions, marijuana and cocaine were the only drugs
seized by more than a third of all departments, and only marijuana was
seized by more than half.
Eighty-six percent of local police depart-ments and 94% of sheriffs'
departments made seizures of marijuana--higher percentages than for any
other drug. The percentage of departments making marijuana seizures was
94% or higher for departments in all population categories, except for
sheriffs' departments serving a population of 10,000 or less (88%) and
police departments serving a population of 2,500 or less (70%).
According to UCR data for 1990, 30% of all arrests for drug law violations
were marijuana-related. About 4 in 5 marijuana arrests were for
possession, and the remainder, for offenses related to trafficking.
Cocaine was seized by 72% of local police and sheriffs' departments, the
second highest total percentage for any drug type. All police departments
serving a population of 100,000 or more, and over 90% of those serving
10,000 to 99,999 residents, reported making seizures of cocaine. Over 95%
of the sheriffs' departments serving 50,000 or more residents reported
making seizures of cocaine. Only among police departments serving under
2,500 residents (39%), and sheriffs' departments serving under 10,000
residents (50%) did less than 75% of the departments in a population
category report making cocaine seizures. Among police and sheriffs'
departments that did seize cocaine, nearly all of them reported seizing the
powdered form of the drug, and a majority of them also seized crack
cocaine.
A majority of the police departments serving a population of 25,000 or more
made heroin seizures, including all of those serving 500,000 or more
residents. More than two-thirds of the sheriffs' departments in
jurisdictions with a population of 250,000 or more also reported seizing
heroin.
Amphetamine seizures were made by 40% of all police and sheriffs'
departments, including more than 70% of those serving a population of
50,000 or more. More than half of the departments serving a population of
50,000 or more also reported making seizures of barbiturates, methampheta-
mines, and LSD. PCP was seized by most of the police departments serving a
population of 250,000 or more and the sheriffs' departments serving 500,000
or more. An aspect of the drug enforcement effort in many jurisdictions
involves the operation of special drug enforcement units. Where they
exist, such units are an integral part of the law enforcement response to
drug trafficking and use. Since they focus directly on conducting
sophisticated investigations of drug traffickers, these special units
accumulate substantial knowledge about drugs in general and about drug-
related activity in the community.
Nationwide, an estimated 3,270 local police and sheriffs' departments were
operating a special drug unit during the 12-month period ending on June 30,
1990 (table 3). Overall, these agencies had over 16,000 officers assigned
to special drug units on a full-time basis. Included in this total were an
estimated 12,715 police officers and 3,805 sheriffs' officers.
Over 90% of local police departments serving 50,000 or more residents were
operating a special drug unit, and 75% of all local police officers
assigned to a drug unit nationwide were in one of these departments.
Police departments serving 1 million or more residents had the largest
special drug units, an average of 240 full-time officers each. These 13
departments accounted for a fourth of the local police officers assigned to
drug units nationwide.
A majority (62%) of the police departments in jurisdictions with 25,000 to
49,999 residents also operated a special drug unit. Local police
departments in small towns were the least likely to operate a special drug
unit. About 19% of those serving a population of 2,500 to 9,999 and 5% of
those serving a population of under 2,500 had such a unit.
Among sheriffs' departments, over 90% of those serving a population of
500,000 or more and over 75% of those serving a population of 50,000 to
499,999 operated a special drug unit. About 44% of the sheriffs'
departments serving a population of 25,000 to 49,999 operated a drug unit.
In the smallest jurisdictions (under 10,000 residents), 11% of the
sheriffs' departments had a drug unit.
The average size of special drug units in sheriffs' departments ranged from
34 full-time officers in departments serving a population of 1 million or
more to 1 officer in jurisdictions with fewer than 10,000 residents.
Many local police and sheriffs' departments operated other types of special
units that were important to their drug control effort. Over 90% of large
police and sheriffs' departments (100 or more officers) with primary drug
enforcement responsibilities operated a special unit for drug education in
schools during 1990, and nearly 60% were operating a special unit on gangs.
Law enforcement agencies recognize the value of coordinating their efforts
to reduce drug abuse. For many police and sheriffs' departments, this
coordination involves participating in a multiagency drug enforcement task
force. Organizationally, such task forces often involve the cooperation of
law enforcement agencies across jurisdictional boundaries and governmental
levels.
The police and sheriffs' departments in multiagency task forces develop
coordinated enforcement strategies aimed at accumulating the evidence
needed to arrest, prosecute, and convict known drug distributors.
Typically, these strategies involve the use of informants, surveillance,
and undercover operations. They may also include complex financial
investigations designed to trace drug distribution networks. The resources
of special drug units often play an important role in implementing task
force strategies. Multiagency drug task forces may also attempt to reduce
problems associated with the illegal drug trade by including not only law
enforcement agencies but also other types of government agencies, nonprofit
organizations, business firms, and community groups. By coordinating
education and health initiatives these task forces attempt to reduce the
harm that illegal drugs do to the community.
Among agencies with drug enforcement responsibilities, about half of the
local police departments and two-thirds of the sheriffs' departments
participated in a task force during the 12-month period ending on June 30,
1990. Overall, an estimated 6,500 local police and sheriffs' departments
participated in multiagency drug enforcement task forces during this time
period.
Over 85% of the police and sheriffs' departments in each population
category of 100,000 or more participated in a task force, including over
95% of the departments serving a population of 500,000 or more.
Approximately 80% of the police and sheriffs' departments serving a
population of 25,000 to 99,999, 65% of those serving a population of 10,000
to 24,999, and over 40% of those serving fewer than 10,000 residents
participated in a task force.
During the 12-month period ending June 30, 1990, approximately 6,100 local
police officers were assigned to a multiagency drug task force full time.
Although police departments serving a million or more residents had the
most officers assigned to a task force on average (29), over half of all
local police officers assigned to task forces nationwide were employed by
departments serving a population of under 25,000.
Sheriffs' departments had about 3,500 officers assigned full time to drug
task forces, ranging from an average of 10 officers per department in
jurisdictions with 1 million or more residents, to an average of 1 officer
per department in jurisdictions with fewer than 50,000 residents.
In addition to multiagency task forces, another innovation for drug
enforcement in many jurisdictions is the use of drug asset forfeiture
sanctions. Most States have laws that allow the government to seize
convicted drug traffickers' cash, bank accounts, planes, boats, cars,
homes, and other items purchased with proceeds from the illicit drug trade.
State laws vary regarding the disposition of forfeited assets. Most State
statutes require that outstanding liens be paid first, and many States
require that all forfeited drug assets go to the State and/or local
treasury. In some States, law enforcement agencies may keep property such
as cars, planes, and boats for official use. In other States, the agencies
can keep all property, cash, and proceeds from sales of what is forfeited.
About 4,700 local police and sheriffs' departments reported the receipt of
money or goods from a drug asset forfeiture program during fiscal 1990.
This represented 41% of all local law enforcement agencies with primary
drug enforcement responsibilities. A higher percentage of sheriffs'
departments (51%) than police departments (38%) had such receipts.
The percentage of local police departments with asset forfeiture receipts
was over 95% in jurisdictions with 50,000 to 999,999 residents. Among
departments serving 1 million or more residents and those serving 25,000 to
49,999 residents, about 85% received money or goods from an asset
forfeiture program. Receiving money or goods from an asset forfeiture
program was least likely for police departments serving a population of
under 2,500 (11%).
About 95% of sheriffs' departments in jurisdictions with 250,000 or more
residents, and about 85% of those serving 50,000 to 249,999 residents had
asset forfeiture pro-gram receipts during fiscal 1990. In the smallest
jurisdictions (under 10,000 residents), an estimated 27% of the sheriffs'
departments received money or goods from an asset forfeiture program.
State police departments
Thirty-four State police departments, employing approximately 43,000 full-
time officers, reported they had primary responsibility for the enforcement
of drug laws.
Number of Full-time
State police sworn officers
departments employed
Total 49 52,372
Departments with
primary responsibility
for drug enforcement 34 43,118
All 34 of these departments reported they made marijuana and cocaine
seizures during the 12-month period ending June 30, 1990 (table 6). A
large majority of them also seized amphetamines (94%), heroin (91%), LSD
(88%), methamphetamines (88%), barbiturates (85%), and PCP (74%).
Like those of local law enforcement agencies, State police drug enforcement
strategies often involve the operation of special units, participation in
multiagency drug enforcement task forces, and participation in a drug asset
forfeiture program.
Twenty-nine (85%) of the State police departments that had responsibility
for enforcing drug laws were operating special drug enforcement units.
These 29 departments had assigned a total of 2,138 officers to these units
on a full-time basis--an average of 74 officers per department.
Most of these departments (82%) also operated special units for drug
education in schools, and 29% of them had special units for gangs.
Thirty-one of the departments (91%) participated in a multiagency drug
enforcement task force during fiscal 1990. These departments had 900
officers assigned to drug task forces, an average of 29 per department.
All but two of the departments (94%) responsible for drug enforcement
reported they received money or goods from a drug asset forfeiture program
during the year.
Drug testing policies
Local police and sheriffs' departments
Nearly 40% of local police and sheriffs' departments reported that at least
some of their arrestees were tested for illegal drugs. Drug testing of
arrestees was most likely to exist in police departments serving a
population of 500,000 or more (56%) and in sheriffs' departments serving a
population of 1 million or more (60%).
Among local police departments that reported testing of arrestees, about 1
in 8 were responsible for operation of the testing program. In sheriffs'
departments with arrestee testing, about 1 in 4 operated the testing
program.
About a fourth of both local police and sheriffs' departments required all
applicants for sworn positions to submit to a drug test. The prevalence of
drug testing of applicants increased with the size of the population
served. Among local police departments, 80% of those serving a population
of 250,000 or more required all applicants for sworn positions to be tested
for illegal drugs. About 70% of those serving a population of 50,000 to
249,999 and just under 50% of those serving a population of 10,000 to
49,999 had such a requirement. The percentage of police departments with a
mandatory drug testing policy for applicants was smallest among those
serving 2,500 to 9,999 residents (25%) and those serving fewer than 2,500
residents (14%).
Slightly more than 40% of sheriffs' departments serving a population of
100,000 or more had a policy requiring drug testing of all applicants for
sworn positions. About 30% of departments serving from 25,000 to 100,000
residents had such a policy. Sheriffs' departments serving a population of
less than 25,000 (15%) were the least likely to require all applicants for
sworn positions to undergo tests for illegal drugs.
Small percentages of all local police and sheriffs' departments had a
mandatory drug testing requirement for probationary officers, regular field
officers, candidates for promotion, officers in drug-related positions, or
civilian personnel. In every population category, less than 25% of the
police and sheriffs' departments had mandatory drug testing for the above
personnel types, except the following: Probationary officers and officers
in drug-related positions in police departments serving a population of
500,000 or more.
Small percentages of local police and sheriff's departments were also using
random selection to test applicants or employees for illegal drugs. An
estimated 2% of all departments tested applicants through this method, and
the percentage of departments with random drug testing was no more than 5%
for any personnel position. Random selection testing was most common for
officers in drug-related positions employed by police departments serving a
population of 1 million or more (36%).
About 10% of all local police and sheriffs' departments required regular
field officers suspected of using illegal drugs to take a drug test. The
percentage of departments with suspicion-based testing was similar for
other types of employees. About 2% of the departments had such a policy
for applicants.
Departments in larger jurisdictions were more likely than those in smaller
jurisdictions to have a suspicion-based drug testing program. For example,
among local police departments, about two-thirds of local police
departments serving 250,000 or more residents authorized testing of regular
field officers suspected of drug use, compared to about half of those
serving a population of 50,000 to 249,999, about a third of those serving a
population of 25,000 to 49,999, and a ninth of those serving population of
2,500 to 9,999. In police departments serving a population of under 2,500,
roughly 1 in 30 authorized testing of regular field officers suspected of
illegal drug use.
About 40% of the sheriffs' departments serving a population of 1 million or
more had a policy authorizing testing of regular field officers suspected
of illegal drug use. About 30% of the departments serving a population of
500,000 to 999,999, and 20% of those serving a population of 100,000 to
499,999 had such a policy. Less than 10% of the sheriffs' departments
located in jurisdictions with fewer than 100,000 residents had a policy
that authorized drug testing of officers suspected of drug use.
Nationwide, the local police departments that had a suspicion-based drug
testing program for regular field officers employed 50% of all local police
officers. The sheriffs' departments with such a testing program employed
31% of all sheriff's officers. An estimated 17% of all local police
officers and 12% of sheriffs' officers worked for departments that had a
random selection program for regular field officers. About 3% of local
police officers and 4% of sheriffs' officers were employed by departments
that had a mandatory drug testing requirement for field officers.
Local police departments that tested civilian employees suspected of drug
use employed 45% of all such employees nationwide. About 30% of civilian
employees in sheriffs' departments worked in department with a suspicion-
based testing program for civilians.
Civilian employees in sheriffs' departments were more likely to be a part
of a random selection drug testing program than their counterparts in local
police departments (9% versus 3%). About 5% of the civilian employees in
local police and sheriffs' departments were subject to a mandatory drug
testing requirement.
For comparison, the results of a 1988 survey conducted by the Department of
Labor showed that 3% of private nonagricultural businesses had a drug
testing program of some type, including 43% of those with 1,000 or more
employees. Overall, about 20% of private sector employees worked for a
company with a drug testing program. (Bureau of Labor Statistics, Survey
of Employer Anti-drug Programs, Report 760, January 1990.)
Among local law enforcement agencies with an employee drug testing program,
an estimated 61% of the police departments and 69% of the sheriffs'
departments specified dismissal as a possible disciplinary sanction against
nonprobationary officers after one positive drug test.
Local police officers testing positive for the first time were most likely
to face dismissal as a possible sanction in larger jurisdictions. All
police departments serving a population of 1 million or more had a policy
specifying dismissal as a possible sanction after one positive drug test,
and 83% of those serving a population of 250,000 to 999,999 had such a
policy.
Suspension was the most serious disciplinary sanction specified for an
initial positive drug test in 14% of the police and sheriffs' departments
that tested employees for illegal drugs.
After a second positive drug test by a nonprobationary officer, the
percentage of local law enforcement agencies specifying dismissal as the
most serious disciplinary sanction increased to 93% for police departments
and to 98% for sheriffs' departments.
Treatment was specified as a possible alternative for nonprobationary
officers with positive drug test results in almost half of the local police
and sheriffs' departments with a testing program. The drug testing
policies of local police departments specified treatment alternatives more
often than those of sheriffs' departments (49% versus 39%). Treatment
alternatives were generally limited to the first offense.
Among police departments, treatment alternatives were most likely to exist
in jurisdictions with a population of 50,000 to 249,999, where two-thirds
of them had such a policy. Among sheriffs' departments, those serving
500,000 to 999,999 residents (62%) were the most likely to have treatment
alternatives specified in their drug testing policy.
Police departments serving a population of 1 million or more (20%) were the
least likely of all local law enforcement agencies to specify treatment as
a possible alternative for officers who test positive for drugs.
State police departments
Thirty-three (67%) of the 49 primary State police departments reported that
at least some of the persons they arrested were being tested for illegal
drugs. Four (8%) of the departments reported that they had primary
responsibility for operation of the testing program.
Percent of departments
in which at least some
arrestees are tested
Total 67%
Agency-operated
program 8
Not agency-operated 59
Just over half (55%) of State police departments reported they required
drug tests of all applicants for sworn positions. Two (4%) of the
departments reported they required all regular field officers to undergo
tests for illegal drugs, and five (10%) tested all officers working in
drug-related positions. None of the State police departments reported
having a mandatory drug testing policy for civilian personnel.
Some State police departments used a random selection process to test
probationary officers (12%), regular field officers (8%), candidates for
promotion (8%), and officers working in drug-related positions (10%). One
department (2%) had a random selection drug testing program for applicants,
and two departments (4%) required civilian personnel to be included in a
random selection drug testing program.
Although no State police departments had a mandatory drug testing
requirement for civilian employees, nearly half (45%) of all civilian State
police employees worked in departments that tested civilian employees
suspected of using illegal drugs. A similar proportion of sworn State
police employees (53%) were subject to suspicion-based drug testing. About
7% of State police officers were employed by departments with random
selection testing for regular field officers and an equal percentage worked
in departments with a mandatory drug testing requirement for such officers.
About three-fourths (77%) of the State police departments with a drug
testing program specified dismissal as a possible sanction against
probationary officers after one positive drug test. After a second
offense, dismissal was a possible sanction specified by 91% of the
departments.
Half of the departments with employee drug testing specified treatment as a
possible alternative after the first offense. As in local law enforcement
agencies, treatment alternatives were generally not available to State
police officers who tested positive for drugs a second time.
Methodology
The Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics (LEMAS) survey
collects data from a nationally representative sample of the nearly 17,000
publicly funded State and local law enforcement agencies in the United
States.
All 780 State and local law enforcement agencies in the United States with
100 or more sworn officers (as reported in the 1986 Directory Survey of Law
Enforcement Agencies) received the full-length LEMAS questionnaire. The
780 self-representing (SR) agencies were supplemented by a nationally
representative sample of all agencies with fewer than 100 sworn officers.
These nonself-representing (NSR) agencies were chosen using a stratified
random sample with cells based on the type of agency (local police,
sheriff, or special police), size of population served, and number of sworn
officers. The 2,338 NSR agencies received a slightly abbreviated LEMAS
questionnaire, which did not contain items about job classifications,
residency requirements, special pay, collective bargaining, police
membership organizations, special units, or written policy directives.
The initial mailing of the survey questionnaire was conducted in July 1990.
The pay period containing June 15, 1990, was used as the reference date for
personnel-related questions and June 30, 1990, for other questions. The
data were collected by the Bureau of the Census for the Bureau of Justice
Statistics.
After two followup mailings and additional telephone calls as needed, a
final total of 2,945 agencies responded to the LEMAS questionnaire,
including 738 SR agencies and 2,207 NSR agencies. The overall response
rate was 94.5%. The final data-base includes responses from 1,830 local
police departments, 840 sheriffs' departments, 226 special police
departments, and the 49 primary State police departments.
The base weight for all SR agencies is 1. For NSR local and special police
departments, the base weight is 8.128, and for NSR sheriffs' departments it
is 4.09857. The final weight associated with every agency, both SR and
NSR, is the product of the base weight and a factor that adjusted for any
nonresponding agencies in each sample cell. This agency nonresponse factor
was based on number of sworn officers for SR agencies and on number of
agencies for NSR agencies.
Some responding agencies did not completely answer the LEMAS questionnaire.
When an agency did not supply a response to an item, a donor agency was
randomly selected from responding agencies in the same sample cell. The
donor agency's value for the item was placed into the nonresponding
agency's response field with an indicator that the value had been imputed.
Complete documentation regarding sampling procedures and non-response
adjustments is available upon request.
Because the data from agencies with fewer than 100 sworn personnel were
collected from a sample, the results are subject to sampling error. All
statements of comparison in this report have been tested to ensure that
observed differences between values are significant at 2 standard errors
(the 95-percent confidence level) or higher.
References
Federal Bureau of Investigation, Crime
in the United States, 1990.
National Institute of Justice, Local-level drug enforcement: New drug
strategies, March 1989.
National Institute of Justice, Multijurisdictional drug law enforcement
strategies: Reducing supply and demand, December 1990.
National Institute of Justice, The police and drugs, September 1989.
How to order the data set
Data utilized in this report are available from the National Archive of
Criminal Justice Data at the University of Michigan, P.O. Box 1248, Ann
Arbor, MI 481 106; 1-800-999-0960. The dataset is archived as Law
Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics, 1990 (ICPSR 9749).
Brian Reaves, BJS Statistician, wrote this report. Tom Hester edited it.
Pheny Z. Smith provided statistical review. Lawrence A. Greenfeld and
Richard W. Dodge reviewed the publication. It was produced by Marilyn
Marbrook, Priscilla Middleton, Betty Sherman, and Jayne Pugh. The data
were collected by the Governments Division, Bureau of the Census.
May 1992, NCJ-134505
The Assistant Attorney General is responsible for matters of administration
and management with respect to the OJP agencies: Bureau of Justice
Assistance, Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Institute of Justice,
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and Office for
Victims of Crime. The Assistant Attorney General establishes polices and
priorities consistent with statutory purposes of the OJP agencies and the
priorities of the Department of Justice.
.
Contents | Feedback | Search | DRCNet Home Page | Join DRCNet
DRCNet Library | Schaffer Library | Government Publications