DOI: 10.3886/icpsr36695
title: Impact of Forensic Evidence on Arrest and Prosecution (IFEAP) in Connecticut, 2006-2009 [United States]
title: Archival Version

description: These data are part of NACJD's Fast Track Release and are distributed as they were received from the data depositor. The files have been zipped by NACJD for release, but not checked or processed except for the removal of direct identifiers. Users should refer to the accompanying readme file for a brief description of the files available with this collection and consult the investigator(s) if further information is needed.
 This research was conducted in two phases. Phase one analyzed a random sample of approximately 2,000 case files from 2006 through 2009 that contain forensic analyses from the Connecticut State Forensic Science Laboratory, along with corresponding police and court case file data. As with Peterson, et al. (2010), this research had four objectives: 1) estimate the percentage of cases in which crime scene evidence is collected; 2) discover what kinds of forensic are being collected; 3)track such evidence through the criminal justice system; and 4)identify which forms of forensic evidence are most efficacious given the crime investigated.
Phase two consisted of a survey administered to detectives within the State of Connecticut regarding their comparative assessments of the utility of forensic evidence. These surveys further advance our understanding of how the success of forensic evidence in achieving arrests and convictions matches with detective opinion.
description: This study had four research objectives: 1) estimate the percentage of cases in which crime scene evidence is collected; 2) discover what kinds of forensic evidence are being collected; 3) track such evidence through the criminal justice system; and 4) identify which forms of forensic evidence are most efficacious given the crime investigated.
description: This study consisted of two phases. Phase one analyzed a random sample of approximately 2,000 case files from 2006 through 2009 that contain forensic analyses from the Connecticut State Forensic Science Laboratory, along with corresponding police and court case file data. Phase two consisted of a survey administered to detectives within the State of Connecticut regarding their comparative assessment of the utility of forensic evidence. These surveys further advance our understanding of how the success of forensic evidence in achieving arrests and convictions matches with detective opinion.
description: This study contains the 3 following data files: AGGREGATED_BY_CASE_NUMBER_DATA_SET.sav, ANALYSIS_FROM_CRIME_LAB_DATA_SET.sav, and IFEAP_survey.sav.The first file, "AGGREGATED_BY_CASE_NUMBER_DATA_SET.sav", contains 188 variables and 2801 cases. The variables are all related to the amount and type of forensic evidence in a case for example: victim and suspect demographics, DNA evidence, eye witnesses and whether or not a weapon was retrieved. File 2 "ANALYSIS_FROM_CRIME_LAB_DATA_SET.sav", has 135 variables and 6617 cases. The variables in this dataset are refer to what type of evidence was analyzed in the lab including: hairs and fibers, firearms, footwear, handwriting and suspect and victim demographics. The third data file "IFEAP_Survey.sav" contains 54 variables and 153 cases. These variables gauge importance of forensic evidence in a variety of crimes including burglary, homicide, and rape.
description: Presence of Common Scales: 
					none
description: Response Rates: 
					Approximately 50% of the police departments, an d50% of the detectives solicited.
description: Datasets: 
					
						DS1: Dataset
description: mixed mode
description: web-based survey
description: Forensic crime labs and detectives in the United States.
				   		Smallest Geographic Unit: Precinct
description: A random stratified sample of assaults, burglaries, robberies, and rapes were pulled from the Connecticut State Forensic Science Laboratory as well as all homicide cases. To be eligible for sampling, evidence collected in connection with a criminal investigation must have been submitted to the Connecticut State Forensic Science Laboratory between 2006 and 2009.