DOI: 10.3886/icpsr06481.v1
title: National Assessment Program Survey of Criminal Justice Agencies in the United States, 1992-1994
title: Version 1

description: The National Assessment Program (NAP) Survey was conducted
 to determine the needs and problems of state and local criminal
 justice agencies. At the local level in each sampled county, survey
 questionnaires were distributed to police chiefs of the largest city,
 sheriffs, jail administrators, prosecutors, public defenders, chief
 trial court judges, trial court administrators (where applicable), and
 probation and parole agency heads. Data were collected at the state
 level through surveys sent to attorneys general, commissioners of
 corrections, prison wardens, state court administrators, and directors
 of probation and parole. For the 1992-1994 survey, 13 separate
 questionnaires were used. Police chiefs and sheriffs received the same
 survey instruments, with a screening procedure employed to identify
 sheriffs who handled law enforcement responsibilities. Of the 411
 counties selected, 264 counties also employed trial court
 administrators. Judges and trial court administrators received
 identical survey instruments. A total of 546 surveys were mailed to
 probation and parole agencies, with the same questions asked of state
 and local officers. Counties that had separate agencies for probation
 and parole were sent two surveys. All survey instruments were divided
 into sections on workload (except that the wardens, jail
 administrators, and corrections commissioners were sent a section on
 jail use and crowding instead), staffing, operations and procedures,
 and background. The staffing section of each survey queried
 respondents on recruitment, retention, training, and number of
 staff. The other sections varied from instrument to instrument, with
 questions tailored to the responsibilities of the particular
 agency. Most of the questionnaires asked about use of automated
 information systems, programs, policies, or aspects of the facility or
 security needing improvement, agency responsibilities and
 jurisdictions, factors contributing to workload increases, budget,
 number of fulltime employees and other staff, and contracted
 services. Questions specific to police chiefs and sheriffs included
 activities aimed at drug problems and whether they anticipated
 increases in authorized strength in officers. Jail administrators,
 corrections commissioners, and wardens were asked about factors
 contributing to jail crowding, alternatives to jail, medical services
 offered, drug testing and drug-related admissions, and inmate
 classification. Topics covered by the surveys for prosecutors, public
 defenders, judges, and state and trial court administrators included
 types of cases handled, case timeliness, diversion and sentencing
 alternatives, and court and jury management. State and local probation
 and parole agency directors were asked about diagnostic tools,
 contracted services, and drug testing. Attorneys general were queried
 about operational issues, statutory authority, and legal services and
support provided to state and local criminal justice agencies.
description: The National Institute of Justice conducts the
 National Assessment Program (NAP) Survey approximately every three
 years to determine the needs and problems of state and local criminal
 justice agencies. Survey results indicate the extent to which heads of
 agencies believe their efforts need improvement and identify key areas
 in which strategies need to be established. Survey results also point
 out the needs of these agencies and specify programs and strategies
that might be effective in addressing the prevailing issues.
description: At the local level in each sampled county, survey
 questionnaires were distributed to police chiefs of the largest city,
 sheriffs, jail administrators, prosecutors, public defenders, chief
 trial court judges, trial court administrators (where applicable), and
 probation and parole agency heads. Data were collected at the state
 level through surveys sent to attorneys general, commissioners of
 corrections, prison wardens, state court administrators, and directors
 of probation and parole. For the 1992-1994 survey, 13 separate
 questionnaires were used. Police chiefs and sheriffs received the same
 survey instruments, with a screening procedure employed to identify
 sheriffs who handled law enforcement responsibilities. The 347
 sheriffs identified in this manner usually had law enforcement
 responsibilities in the unincorporated areas of the county. Of the 411
 counties selected, 264 counties also had trial court
 administrators. These administrators were typically responsible for
 the administration and management of the court, relieving judges of
 these activities and providing them with more time to concentrate on
 cases. Judges and trial court administrators received identical survey
 instruments. An accompanying letter asked both the judge and
 administrator to complete individual surveys because of the different
 perspectives of the two functions. A total of 546 surveys were mailed
 to probation and parole agencies, with the same questions asked of
 state and local officers. Counties that had separate agencies for
probation and parole were sent two surveys.
description: All survey instruments were divided into sections
 on workload (except that the wardens, jail administrators, and
 corrections commissioners were sent a section on jail use and crowding
 instead), staffing, operations and procedures, and background. The
 staffing section of each survey queried respondents on recruitment,
 retention, training, and number of staff. The other sections varied
 from instrument to instrument, with questions tailored to the
 responsibilities of the particular agency. Most of the questionnaires
 asked about use of automated information systems, programs, policies,
 or aspects of the facility or security needing improvement, agency
 responsibilities and jurisdictions, factors contributing to workload
 increases, budget, number of fulltime employees and other staff, and
 contracted services. Questions specific to police chiefs and sheriffs
 included activities aimed at drug problems and whether they
 anticipated increases in authorized strength in officers. Jail
 administrators, corrections commissioners, and wardens were asked
 about factors contributing to jail crowding, alternatives to jail,
 medical services offered, drug testing and drug-related admissions,
 and inmate classification. Topics covered by the surveys for
 prosecutors, public defenders, judges, and state and trial court
 administrators included types of cases handled, case timeliness,
 diversion and sentencing alternatives, and court and jury
 management. State and local probation and parole agency directors were
 asked about diagnostic tools, contracted services, and drug
 testing. Attorneys general were queried about operational issues,
 statutory authority, and legal services and support provided to state
and local criminal justice agencies.
description: Response Rates: Response rates for the local criminal justice
 agencies were as follows: police chiefs -- 82.2 percent, sheriffs --
 76.4 percent, jail administrators -- 77.0 percent, prosecutors -- 66.4
 percent, public defenders - 60.4 percent, trial court administrators
 -- 56.8 percent, judges -- 44.4 percent, and probation and parole
 agencies -- 67.2 percent. Response rates for the state criminal
 justice agencies were: state court administrators -- 68.6 percent,
 attorneys general -- 78.4 percent, state probation and parole agencies
 -- 87.1 percent, corrections commissioners -- 84.3 percent, and
 wardens -- 76.8 percent. The response rate for the total NAP survey
was 69.1 percent.
description: Presence of Common Scales: Several Likert-type scales were used.
description: Surveys were sent to criminal justice agencies in a sample
 of 411 counties. All 211 United States counties having populations
 greater than 250,000 residents were selected, along with a random
 sample of 200 counties having populations between 50,000 and 250,000
 residents. Police chiefs were selected by determining the city in each
 county with the highest population according to the 1990 Census. Over
 50 percent of the counties were represented by either a judge or trial
 court administrator. Prison facilities were selected for the NAP
 survey by reviewing the directory of correctional facilities, 1993
 AMERICAN CORRECTIONAL ASSOCIATION DIRECTORY: JUVENILE AND ADULT
 CORRECTIONAL DEPARTMENTS, INSTITUTIONS, AGENCIES AND PAROLING
 AUTHORITIES (American Correctional Association, Laurel, Maryland).
 Adult male and female prison facilities at all security levels were
included in the sample.
description: Datasets: 
DS0: Study-Level Files
DS1: Jail Administrators Data
DS2: Judges Data
DS3: Police Chiefs Data
DS4: Probation and Parole Agency Directors Data
DS5: Prosecutors Data
DS6: Public Defenders Data
DS7: Sheriffs Data
DS8: State Attorneys General Data
DS9: State Commissioners of Corrections Data
DS10: State Court Administrators Data
DS11: State Probation and Parole Agency Directors Data
DS12: Trial Court Administrators Data
DS13: Wardens Data
DS14: SAS Data Definition Statements for Jail Administrators Data
DS15: SAS Data Definition Statements for Judges Data
DS16: SAS Data Definition Statements for Police Chiefs Data
DS17: SAS Data Definition Statements for Probation and Parole Agency Directors Data
DS18: SAS Data Definition Statements for Prosecutors Data
DS19: SAS Data Definition Statements for Public Defenders Data
DS20: SAS Data Definition Statements for Sheriffs Data
DS21: SAS Data Definition Statements for State Attorneys General Data
DS22: SAS Data Definition Statements for State Commissioners of Corrections Data
DS23: SAS Data Definition Statements for State Court Administrators Data
DS24: SAS Data Definition Statements for State Probation and Parole Agency Directors Data
DS25: SAS Data Definition Statements for Trial Court Administrators Data
DS26: SAS Data Definition Statements for Wardens Data
DS27: User Guide
description: State and local criminal justice agencies in the United
States.