DOI: 10.3886/icpsr03335.v2
title: Longitudinal Evaluation of Chicago's Community Policing Program, 1993-2001
title: Version 2

description: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the long-term
organizational transition of the Chicago Police Department (CPD) to a
community policing model. The Chicago Alternative Policing Strategy
(CAPS) was an ambitious plan to reorganize the CPD, restructure its
management, redefine its mission, and forge a new relationship between
police and city residents. This evaluation of the CAPS program
included surveys of police officers, residents, and program activists.
In addition, observational data were collected from beat meetings, and
aggregate business establishment and land-use data were added to
describe the police beats and districts.
description: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the
 long-term organizational transition of the Chicago Police Department
 (CPD) to a community policing model. The Chicago Alternative Policing
 Strategy (CAPS) was an ambitious plan to reorganize the CPD,
 restructure its management, redefine its mission, and forge a new
 relationship between police and city residents. With more than 16,600
 employees, the CPD is the second largest police department in the
 United States, serving nearly three million people and responding to
 calls over a 225-square-mile area. The size and complexity of the CAPS
 initiative generated significant changes in the department's structure
 and goals during a multi-year implementation effort, which began in
 April of 1993. After an experimental period in five police districts,
 the program was expanded to encompass the entire city. A key aspect of
 the CAPS program was the implementation of a problem-solving model for
 policing. Within the CPD, a problem was defined as a group of related
 incidents or an ongoing situation that concerned a significant portion
 of those who lived or worked in a particular area. Although dealing
 with crime remained at the heart of the police mission, it was
 envisioned from the beginning that the police mandate would coordinate
 responses to a broad range of community concerns, including social
 disorder, municipal service problems, and code enforcement matters
 previously handled by civil courts. According to this strategy, teams
 of officers were given long-term assignments to each of the city's 279
 police beats. They were to spend most of their time responding to
 calls and working on prevention projects in their assigned areas. To
 enable them to do so, rapid response units were assigned to excess or
 low-priority calls. The problem-solving efforts of beat officers were
 supported by a coordinated system for delivering city services. Beat
 sergeants were responsible for coordinating their efforts across a
 24-hour clock. One mechanism for doing so was beat team meetings that
 brought together all of the officers serving the area on all
 watches. Beat sergeants, in turn, reported to a lieutenant charged
 with coordinating their projects across a larger geographical
 area. The views of the community were represented through District
 Advisory Committees (DAC), in which policies and strategies were
 discussed with commanders, and through monthly community meetings held
 in every beat. Another important feature of Chicago's problem-solving
 infrastructure was training for both neighborhood residents and
 police. Residents were expected to take an active role as partners
with the police and on their own.
description: This evaluation of the CAPS program included
 surveys of police officers, residents, and program activists. In
 addition, observational data were collected from beat meetings, and
 aggregate business establishment and land-use data were added to
 describe the police beats and districts. Parts 1-13 contain data from
 surveys of police officers conducted between 1993 and 1999. For Part 1
 (1993 Prototype District Training Officer Survey Data) surveys were
 distributed in the spring of 1993 to personnel serving in five CAPS
 prototype districts as they assembled in groups of 25 to 40 for an
 initial orientation session at the training academy. Twenty-four
 sessions were held over a few weeks. The questionnaires were briefly
 described by evaluation staff members who attended each briefing, and
 the same staff members collected the questionnaires for keying. The
 same questionnaire was also distributed to members of the exempt staff
 at a morning meeting in the summer of 1993. For Part 2 (1993
 Comparison Districts Roll Call Officer Survey Data) surveys were
 distributed during roll call in five districts selected to match the
 CAPS prototype areas. They were administered on all shifts to officers
 passing through roll call. This survey was much shorter than that for
 the prototype officers to facilitate roll-call administration. Part 3
 (1994 Supervisor Training Officer Survey Data) surveys were
 distributed during training for sergeants in all districts. They
 included 81 questions that were largely a subset of the 1993 prototype
 district survey (Part 1). Part 4 (1995 Patrol Division Training
 Officer Survey Data) surveys were conducted at the beginning of
 two-day training sessions on CAPS and problem-solving. Part 5 (1996
 Exempt Staff and Senior Managers Training Officer Survey Data) surveys
 were conducted during one of the last in a weekly series of training
 sessions for exempt staff and civilian managers. Part 6 (1997 Training
 for Assorted Managers Officer Survey Data) surveys were administered
 at training for captains, lieutenants, sergeants, and civilian
 employees at the 911 Center. The training covered leadership and
 management under CAPS. The questionnaire closely paralleled the one
 distributed during the 1996 exempt staff training (Part 5). Part 7
 (1997 Beat Team Leader Training Officer Survey Data) surveys were
 conducted at training for beat team leaders (sergeants) in beat plan
 development and supervision of patrol. Officers were trained in about
 15 different groups. At the first half of the sessions, the
 questionnaires were administered before the training began, and at the
 other half, at the end of training. Part 8 (1998 Beat Meeting Officer
 Survey Data) surveys were administered to officers attending beat
 community meetings. Due to the fluid nature of beat meetings with
 officers coming and going, and because some officers attended out of
 uniform, it was difficult for the observers to assess the completion
 rate for the survey. More complications were introduced by the fact
 that some officers attended multiple beat meetings at which
 questionnaires were distributed. They were to be completed each time,
 but some officers either misunderstood the request or did not want to
 complete a questionnaire that often. Part 9 (1998 Twenty-Five
 District Roll Call Officer Survey Data) surveys were administered
 during Monday through Thursday afternoon roll call. The 3:00 p.m. and
 4:00 p.m. roll calls were surveyed because these officers had the
 greatest involvement in CAPS, and officers who worked Mondays through
 Thursdays were most likely to be involved in community meetings and
 beat meetings. Generally the watch commander or sergeant in charge
 introduced the evaluation staff, who then explained the purpose of the
 survey and described its confidentiality. Officers were asked to put
 their completed questionnaires in a large envelope labeled
 "Northwestern University" before leaving roll call. For the most part,
 officers were receptive to the survey, but a few in each group refused
 to fill it out. Part 10 (1998 Beat Facilitation Training Officer
 Survey Data) surveys were administered to officers at beat
 facilitators training. Part 11 (1998 Beat Facilitation Training
 Citizen Survey Data) surveys were administered to civilian beat
 facilitators with questions similar to those in Part 10. Part 12 (1999
 Beat Team Leader (Sergeant) Training Officer Survey Data) surveyed
 sergeants during beat team leader training. Part 13 (1999 Sector Team
 Leader (Lieutenant) Training Officer Survey Data) surveyed lieutenants
 during beat team leader training. Parts 14-20 and 46 contain data from
 eight city-wide sample surveys conducted for the CAPS evaluation. The
 surveys were conducted by telephone using random-digit dialing
 samples. Part 14 (1993 Citizen Survey Data) was conducted in English
 only and the results for Latinos should be interpreted with
 care. Parts 15-20 and 46 (1994 through 1999 and 2001 Citizen Survey
 Data) allowed respondents to choose to be interviewed in Spanish.
 These files contain a variable that identifies the language in which
 the interview was conducted. Parts 14-20 and 46 contain weight
 variables that can be used to correct the observed sample for
 household size and number of telephone numbers. Surveys for Parts
 14-17 (1993 through 1996 Citizen Survey Data) were conducted by the
 Northwestern University Survey Research Laboratory. Surveys for Parts
 18-20 and 46 (1997 through 1999 and 2001 Citizen Survey Data) were
 conducted by the Survey Research Laboratory of the University of
 Illinois-Chicago. Detailed methodology reports for Parts 14-20 and 46
 from the principal investigators are provided in the PDF documentation
 for this data collection. Parts 21-26 contain data from two
 observational studies of beat community meetings in Chicago. Two kinds
 of data were collected: (1) systematic observations of the meetings,
 and (2) questionnaire responses from citizens who attended the
 meetings. Parts 21-23 contain data from beat community meetings
 conducted during 1995 and 1996. There was one observation in each of
 165 beats, which were selected to provide an approximately 50-percent
 sample of all beats in the city (Part 21). There were 2,145
 respondents to the participant survey (Part 22), and a sample of 291
 respondents were later recontacted and reinterviewed after four months
 to assess their subsequent involvement in problem-solving activities
 (Part 23). Parts 24-26 contain data from beat meetings observed in
 1998. There were a total of 459 observations of 253 beats. Part 24
 contains the data from the main observation form, and Part 25 contains
 the coding of problems and issues discussed. These two parts can be
 linked by beat and date. For city-wide analysis, a weight variable can
 be used to weight cases by the inverse of the number of times they
 were observed so that the apparent number of cases is 253, the number
 of beats observed. There were also 5,293 participants surveyed in
 either English or Spanish (Part 26). A methodology report for the 1998
 beat meeting observation study from the principal investigator is
 provided in the PDF documentation for this data collection. The
 approach for the data collection and difficulties in field operations
 described in this report were typical for the 1995 data collection as
 well. Parts 27 and 28 contain panel data from residential surveys
 conducted in the five original CAPS prototype districts and in a set
 of matched comparison areas. Part 27 contains the responses from Wave
 1 of the resident surveys conducted in 1993. Part 28 contains data
 from the same residents who were reinterviewed a year later. To
 prepare for the evaluation, 1990 Census tract data were used to select
 large, mainly contiguous sections of the city that closely matched the
 demography of the five newly-announced prototype areas. These
 comparison areas were used to represent what would have happened in
 the prototype districts if there had been no CAPS program, for the
 program was not put in motion there until the end of the prototyping
 period. The matching factors for selecting the comparison areas were
 race and ethnicity, home ownership, and the percentage of residents
 living in buildings of ten units or more. Because none of the CAPS
 prototypes included large blocks of public housing, those areas of the
 city were avoided. Parts 29-32 contain data from four annual surveys
 of CAPS activists. The data from 1996 to 1998 were collected by the
 Institute of Policy Research, while the 1999 survey was conducted by
 the Metropolitan Chicago Information Center. The samples were
 convenience samples of activists identified in a variety of ways, and
 each year complete respondents from the previous year were retained
 again in the sample. Each year the scope of the sampling base and the
 size of the survey grew. Respondents were selected from members of the
 District Advisory Committees (DAC), chairs of DAC subcommittees,
 activists nominated by the Chicago Alliance for Neighborhood Safety
 (CANS), trainees at CANS biannual training sessions, registrants at
 city-wide workshops, beat facilitators, executive directors of
 community organizations, and nominees of other respondents. For Part
 33, data were collected to evaluate a program to train citizens in
 problem-solving, in a joint effort between the Chicago Police
 Department and the Chicago Alliance for Neighborhood Safety.
 Questionnaires passed out at training sessions provided baseline data
 on trainees. Those questionnaires were also used to select respondents
 for follow-up telephone questionnaires, which were administered three
 months later (Part 34) to assess their later involvement in
 problem-solving activities. Parts 35-37 contain data from three
 neighborhood surveys. The survey in Part 35 was conducted by the
 Institute for Policy Research in 1997 as part of a problem-solving
 study in 15 Chicago neighborhoods. The survey in Part 36 was fielded
 in 1998 in 29 beats in anticipation of an effort by the city's CAPS
 Implementation Office to organize communities, increase attendance at
 beat meetings, and involve residents in problem-solving. Part 37
 contains data from a 1999 survey of six beats with predominantly
 African-American residents. Parts 38 and 39 contain data coded from
 police reports of beat community meetings. Police attending each beat
 meeting completed a two-sided report form titled "Beat Community
 Meeting Log," which was then approved by their sergeant. Part 38
 contains attendance information for every beat community meeting held
 between January 1995 and December 2000. For Part 39, three coders
 spent two months intensively coding 2,580 beat community meeting logs
 for 1998. They recorded basic information about the meeting, who
 attended, and what was talked about. There are data for 277 of 279
 beats, because no one attended the few meetings held in two completely
 nonresidential beats in the central business district. A few other
 nonresidential beats did manage to attract business owners and
 location association members, and they are also included in this data
 collection. Beats that were subdivided and held regular sub-beat
 meetings appear in the data file as separate records with the same
 beat number, and they are flagged by a sub-beat variable. Some beats
 also held joint meetings on occasion, and the data for these meetings
 are duplicated under each beat number in the data file. The data file
 contains a weight variable to adjust the data for multi-beat
 meetings. In Part 40, survey data were gathered from hundreds of
 organizational informants on the roles that their groups played in
 Chicago's community policing program in 1994. It documented how they
 mobilized to influence the shape of community policing in the city's
 five prototype areas. The goal of the survey was to determine to what
 degree community organizations in the five prototype districts were
 involved in and were promoting CAPS during its first year of
 implementation. In particular, the survey was designed to capture
 information on differences in CAPS involvement among various community
 organizations, and among the five prototype districts in which it was
 being tested. The operational definition of a community organization
 was a turf-based group with a name. The survey was budgeted to yield
 data on 50 organizations in each of the five prototype districts, or a
 total of 250 organizations. Each organization was to be represented by
 two respondents who were knowledgeable about their group. When they
 were available, the names of individual respondents associated with
 each organization were included on a call sheet for that group. These
 respondents were often the heads of the organizations, or other
 high-level personnel. When there was no valid name on the call sheet,
 interviewers were instructed to ask for the person who was most
 knowledgeable about the organization, perhaps the executive director
 or president of the organization. Interviewing was conducted by
 graduate students, professional interviewers, an Illinois Criminal
 Justice Information Authority (ICJIA) staff member, a temporary
 employee, and the project manager. Parts 41 and 42 contain counts of
 business establishment types for Chicago aggregated to the beat level
 and district level, respectively. These data were compiled from a
 proprietary database of 94,058 business address listings purchased
 from Claritas Corporation, dated circa 1998. Parts 43 and 44 contain
 land-use data aggregated to the beat level and district level,
 respectively. These data were aggregated from a parcel-level land-use
 file belonging to the city of Chicago. Part 45 provides a crosswalk
 between Census and Chicago Police Department area designations. The
file is organized so that each record is a census block group.
description: Parts 1-6 include variables about general job
 satisfaction and features of the officers' work, features they wanted
 to have in a job, the effectiveness of various patrol activities, the
 desired allocation of resources to traditional and new modes of
 service, how they spent their time, the activism of neighborhood
 residents, sources of information about their beat, their perceptions
 of police work, their personal qualifications for CAPS, and what they
 anticipated would be the impact of CAPS on assorted department
 activities. Additional variables specify sex, race, marital status,
 age, years on assignment, years with department, age when joining the
 department, rank, shift, education, and district assignment. Part 4
 also includes a nine-item quiz of officers' knowledge of CAPS
 procedures and concepts, their prototype experience, and their
 perceptions of summer 1994 roll-call training. Part 7 provides
 information from officers on public and department support for CAPS,
 how realistic assumptions were about supervisors, beat team officers,
 and the community, beat plans, Information Collection for Automated
 Mapping (ICAM) and city services, beat problems, beat team meetings,
 and a grade for their personal CAPS activities. Additional variables
 specify sex, race, age, rank, and district and beat assignments. Parts
 8-10 and Part 13 describe officers' attitudes toward beat meetings,
 their roles at the meetings, their perceptions of the community and
 problem-solving, the implementation of various elements of CAPS, their
 own problem-solving activities, the roles of their supervisors and
 their contacts with organizers and trainers. Also provided are
 officers' sex, race, and age. Part 11 includes the same variables as
 Part 10, as well as items about citizens' contacts with various
 police, beat, and district advisory committees, and contact with
 organizers and trainers. Other variables cover sex, age, race, length
 of residence, housing tenure, and education. Part 12 includes items
 similar to those in Part 10, as well as variables on public and
 department support for CAPS, beat team meetings, the roles of
 supervisors, views of the realism of assumptions about the
 capabilities of beat team officers and the community, beat and
 district plans, the use of ICAM and city service request forms,
 sources of information about problems, a self-rating of officers' own
 CAPS activities, when officers became beat team leaders, and what
 their regular job assignments and district assignments were. Variables
 in Parts 14-20 and 46 include how long the resident had lived in
 Chicago, types of problems in the neighborhood, satisfaction with
 quality of life in the neighborhood, evaluations of police
 performance, knowledge of community policing, and sources of news and
 other information. Demographic variables include age, sex, race and
 ethnicity, marital status, employment status. Political orientation is
 provided (only in Parts 14-20). Variables in Parts 21, 24, and 25
 include number of beat meeting participants by race, number of police
 officers by rank, number of representatives from block clubs,
 organizations, or political offices, duties for which residents and
 police officers were responsible, characteristics of police and
 citizens relations, types of problems discussed, solutions proposed,
 and actions taken, who led the meeting, whether there was an agenda,
 who dominated the discussion, whether crime reports or maps were
 available, and the types of information requested for the next
 meeting. Variables in Parts 22, 23, and 26 include evaluations of the
 abilities of police and citizens to address community problems,
 citizens' expectations of police, involvement in community groups and
 other organizations, how citizens learned about beat meetings, and
 types of problems in neighborhood. Demographic variables include sex,
 age, race, years of residence, household income, type of education
 completed, housing type, and language of interview. Variables in Parts
 27 and 28 include whether residents felt they were part of a
 neighborhood, their satisfaction with the neighborhood, problems in
 the neighborhood, whether residents participated in crime prevention
 meetings, knowledge about crime prevention programs, how safe they
 felt in their neighborhood, opinions about police, contact with the
 police, and crime victimization within the last year. Demographic
 variables include age, sex, race, employment status, marital status,
 household composition, educational attainment, household income, and
 language of the interview. For Parts 29-32 CAPS activists were asked
 how long they were involved with CAPS, how they rated the regularity
 and effectiveness of beat meetings, how they rated District Advisory
 Committees and subcommittees, and whether the police had improved
 their performance in terms of responsiveness to community concerns,
 working with residents, crime prevention, and their general level of
 concern regarding the community. Demographic variables include age,
 sex, race, education, home ownership, and police district. Variables
 in Part 33 include opinions about the abilities of police officers and
 citizens to solve problems, police expectations about citizens and
 citizens' expectations about police, citizens' willingness to take
 responsibility for problems, willingness to encourage other citizens
 to attend beat meetings, and participation in block clubs or other
 organizations. Demographic variables include age, sex, race/ethnicity,
 years of residence, type of housing, household income, and education
 completed. Part 34 variables repeat those in Part 33, and also include
 the number of beat meetings attended, how respondents heard about beat
 meetings, satisfaction with training sessions, whether respondents
 kept in touch with other participants from the training sessions,
 whether they tried to teach others about community policing, contacts
 with neighbors, police, city services, and politicians,
 problem-solving activities, community relations, and level of
 involvement in the community. Demographic variables include gender,
 marital status, number of children, labor force status, and language
 of questionnaire. In Parts 35-37, information is supplied on
 residents' views of neighborhood problems, their awareness of CAPS,
 their involvement in beat meetings, and reports of the quality of
 police service in their community. Other variables measured features
 identified as important components of the neighborhoods' capacity to
 deal with problems: residents' participation in community-based
 organizations and their perceptions of willingness of their neighbors
 to intervene to reestablish order. Part 40 presents information from
 organization leaders about when the organization had been established,
 by whom it was founded, its goals and activities, types of meetings
 held, contact with the media, fund-raising, CAPS-related activities,
 opinions about police, sources of funding, office space, number of
 staff, demographic composition of members, and the mission of the
 organization. Parts 41 and 42 contain counts of different types of
 business establishments, such as groceries, banks, restaurants,
 insurance sales, auto, sewage, liquor, and construction, as well as
 ranks of businesses based on size, sales, and employees. Parts 43 and
 44 contain information on the percentage of land used for residential,
 commercial, or manufacturing purposes, buildings, parks and
 recreation, education and culture, religion, and parking, as well as
 the condition and age of the buildings. Part 45 contains the census
 block group number, census tract number, district beat number, police
 district number, and Chicago community area number. This is a
crosswalk file linking census and police areas.
description: Response Rates: Parts 1-13, 21, 22, 24-26, 33, 34, 38, 39,
 41-45: Not applicable. The response rates for the citizen surveys
 were: 60 percent for Part 14, 58.8 percent for Part 15, 74 percent for
 Part 16, 65 percent for Part 17, 44.2 percent for Part 18, 41 percent
 for Part 19, 42.7 percent for Part 20, and 42 percent for Part 46. The
 response rate for Part 23 (1995 Beat Meeting Participant Recontact
 Data) was 73 percent. The response rate for the panel survey data was
 59.6 percent for Wave I (Part 27) and 59 percent for Wave II (Part
 28). The response rates for the 1996 to 1998 activist surveys (Parts
 29 to 31) are unknown. The response rate for the 1999 CAPS Activist
 Survey (Part 32) was 69.2 percent. The response rate for the 1995
 Citizen Training Follow-up Survey Data (Part 34) was 61 percent. The
 response rates for Parts 35 and 37, the 1997 and 1999 Neighborhood
 Survey Data, are not known. However, the response rate for 1998 (Part
 36) was 56 percent. The response rate for the 1994 Community
 Organizations Data (Part 40) was 81.6 percent. Parts 41 to 45: Not
applicable.
description: Presence of Common Scales: Several Likert-type scales were used.
description: For Parts 1-13, respondents consisted of all police
 officers attending respective meetings or training sessions. For Parts
 14-20 and 46, all households were reached via random-digit dialing, a
 standard telephone survey sampling technique that allows interviewing
 to be done with households regardless of whether or not their
 telephone number is listed. Use of this technique is important to
 gather representative data, as over one-third of the households had
 unlisted telephone numbers. In each household where an interview was
 conducted, one adult, 18 years of age or older, was interviewed. These
 individuals were randomly selected using the standard "last birthday"
 technique. The PDF documentation for this data collection contains
 methodology reports from the principal investigator that explain the
 sampling procedures in greater detail. In Parts 21-23, observational
 and participant survey data were collected for meetings in 165
 randomly selected beats, approximately 50 percent of all beats in the
 city. For Parts 24-26, observational and participant survey data were
 collected for meetings in 253 of 270 residential beats in the
 city. For Parts 27 and 28, the researchers were targeting relatively
 small geographical areas that did not match telephone company
 switching areas, so it was necessary to develop a sampling plan that
 reached the target areas in a cost-effective fashion. To accomplish
 this, half of the sample numbers for each area were selected at random
 from an up-to-date reverse telephone directory. Because they were
 listed numbers, the investigators could ensure that those households
 lay within the targeted areas. The remaining sample of telephone
 numbers was selected by randomly scrambling the last digits of the
 listed numbers. Households responding to those numbers were then asked
 a brief series of geographical screening questions to ensure that they
 were within the targeted areas. In the end, there were 1,294 completed
 randomly-sampled interviews and 1,278 listed-number interviews, for a
 total of 2,572 interviews. For Parts 29-32, respondents were selected
 by convenience and snowball sampling. For Part 33 beat training
 sessions were randomly selected and all participants in the selected
 sessions were surveyed. The sample also included all District Advisory
 Council members for the district. Part 34 consists of a random subset
 of the respondents surveyed in Part 33. For Parts 35-37, the telephone
 number samples for each area were randomly drawn from a recent reverse
 telephone directory to ensure that the numbers were within beat
 boundaries. Part 38 contains data for all beat community meetings held
 between 1995 and 2000. Part 39 contains data for beat meetings held in
 277 of 279 beats in 1998. For Part 40, a list of turf-based named
 groups, along with the names and telephone numbers of persons
 associated with them, was developed from several sources. A start-up
 list was contributed by a research team at DePaul University, which
 shared an inventory they had developed for their own community
 organization study. Northwestern and Illinois Criminal Justice
 Information Authority (ICJIA) staff members supplemented this list
 with organizations and contacts they came across while attending
 various CAPS-related meetings, or doing interviews. Each time an
 interview was conducted with an organizational informant they were
 asked about other organizations that they had run across, to
 contribute a snowball component to the sample. The investigators also
 culled local news articles and newsletters to locate additional
 organizations and named contacts to add to the list. Several key
 community contacts in prototype districts were asked to go through the
 lists for their areas and make additions and corrections to them. As
 part of the evaluation of CAPS, team members conducted interviews with
 district commanders, neighborhood relations officers, beat team
 members, and other officers. Among other topics, lists of group names
 and contacts were gleaned from these key informants. There was no
sampling for Parts 41-45.
description: Datasets: 
DS0: Study-Level Files
DS1: 1993 Prototype District Training Officer Survey Data
DS2: 1993 Comparison Districts Roll Call Officer Survey Data
DS3: 1994 Supervisor Training Officer Survey Data
DS4: 1995 Patrol Division Training Officer Survey Data
DS5: 1996 Exempt Staff and Senior Managers Training Officer Survey Data
DS6: 1997 Training for Assorted Managers Officer Survey Data
DS7: 1997 Beat Team Leader Training Officer Survey Data
DS8: 1998 Beat Meeting Officer Survey Data
DS9: 1998 Twenty-Five District Roll Call Officer Survey Data
DS10: 1998 Beat Facilitation Training Officer Survey Data
DS11: 1998 Beat Facilitation Training Civilian Survey Data
DS12: 1999 Beat Team Leader (Sergeant) Training Officer Survey Data
DS13: 1999 Sector Team Leader (Lieutenant) Training Officer Survey Data
DS14: 1993 Citizen Survey Data
DS15: 1994 Citizen Survey Data
DS16: 1995 Citizen Survey Data
DS17: 1996 Citizen Survey Data
DS18: 1997 Citizen Survey Data
DS19: 1998 Citizen Survey Data
DS20: 1999 Citizen Survey Data
DS21: 1995 Beat Meeting Observation Data
DS22: 1995 Beat Meeting Participant Questionnaire Data
DS23: 1995 Beat Meeting Participant Recontact Data
DS24: 1998 Beat Meeting Observation Data
DS25: 1998 Beat Meeting Observation Problem Data
DS26: 1998 Beat Meeting Participant Questionnaire Data
DS27: 1993 Wave I Resident Panel Survey Data
DS28: 1994 Waves I and II Resident Panel Survey Data
DS29: 1996 CAPS Activist Survey Data
DS30: 1997 CAPS Activist Survey Data
DS31: 1998 CAPS Activist Survey Data
DS32: 1999 CAPS Activist Survey Data
DS33: 1995 Citizen Training Survey Data
DS34: 1995 Citizen Training Follow-Up Survey Data
DS35: 1997 Neighborhood Survey Data
DS36: 1998 Neighborhood Survey Data
DS37: 1999 Neighborhood Survey Data
DS38: 1995-2000 Beat Meeting Attendance Data
DS39: 1998 Beat Meeting Log Data
DS40: 1994 Community Organizations Data
DS41: Beat-Level Aggregated Business Establishments Data
DS42: District-Level Aggregated Business Establishments Data
DS43: Beat-Level Aggregated Land-Use Data
DS44: District-Level Aggregated Land-Use Data
DS45: Census-Police Crosswalk Data
DS46: 2001 Citizen Survey Data
description: Residents and police officers of the city of Chicago from
1993 to 2001. Smallest Geographic Unit: Census tract
description: The user guide, codebook, and data collection
instruments are provided by ICPSR as Portable Document Format (PDF)
files. The PDF file format was developed by Adobe Systems Incorporated
and can be accessed using PDF reader software, such as the Adobe
Acrobat Reader. Information on how to obtain a copy of the Acrobat
Reader is provided on the ICPSR Web site.