Source: http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/NACJD/studies/3865?keyword=drug+law+enforcement&dataFormat%5B0%5D=SAS&permit%5B0%5D=AVAILABLE&groupResults=false
Timestamp: 2017-01-22 08:39:28
Document Index: 306986759

Matched Legal Cases: ['arts 1', 'arts 3', 'arts 1', 'arts 3', 'arts 1', 'arts 3', 'arts 1', 'arts 3', 'art 1', 'art 2', 'arts 3', 'art 3', 'art 4', 'art 5', 'art 1', 'art 2', 'art 3', 'art 4', 'art 5', 'arts 1', 'art 1', 'art 3', 'art 1', 'art 2', 'art 4', 'art 3', 'art 5', 'art 3']

Evaluation of Multi-Jurisdictional Task Forces in the United States, 1999-2000
(6 datasets; 2533 KB)	Table of Contents
Evaluation of Multi-Jurisdictional Task Forces in the United States, 1999-2000 (ICPSR 3865) Principal Investigator(s):
Hayeslip, David W., Abt Associates; Dunworth, Terry, Abt Associates; Russell-Einhorn, Malcolm L., University of Maryland
Since the inception of the Edward Byrne Memorial State and
Local Law Enforcement Assistance Program in 1988, a large proportion of
formula grant program funds has been allocated by state administrative
agencies (SAA) to support multi-jurisdictional drug task forces (MJTFs).
MJTFs are a subset of law enforcement task forces that were created in
order to target the illegal distribution of drugs at the local and
regional levels. While many policymakers, researchers, and practitioners
express confidence in the task force approach generally, there r... (more info)
express confidence in the task force approach generally, there remains
insufficient understanding of the possible community and organizational
impact of individual MJTFs and the kinds of evaluation methodologies
that can elicit such information. The goal of this project was to
identify several methodologies that could be used by state planning
agencies, task forces, and others to assess the work of MJTFs. This
project consisted of two surveys that were designed to ascertain the
extent to which state administrative agencies (SAAs) and
multi-jurisdictional drug task forces (MJTFs) collected various kinds of
process and outcome information and conducted evaluations of task
DS1: State Administrative Agencies Reporting Data
(1.172 MB) Download:
DS2: State Administrative Agencies Evaluation Data
(1.068 MB) Download:
DS3: Multi-Jurisdictional Task Force Administrative Data
(1.304 MB) Download:
DS4: Multi-Jurisdictional Task Force Reporting Data
DS5: Multi-Jurisdictional Task Force Evaluation Data
Hayeslip, David W., Terry Dunworth, and Malcolm L. Russell-Einhorn. Evaluation of Multi-Jurisdictional Task Forces in the United States, 1999-2000. ICPSR03865-v1. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2004. http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR03865.v1
Persistent URL: http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR03865.v1
United States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. National Institute of Justice (99-DD-BX-0034)
Subject Terms: criminal justice programs, drug law enforcement, grants, law enforcement, program evaluation
Smallest Geographic Unit: states
Time Period: Date of Collection: 1999--2000 (Parts 1 and 2: September 9, 1999-December 1999. Parts 3-5: Winter 2000.)
Unit of Observation: Parts 1 and 2: agencies. Parts 3-5: task forces.
Universe: Parts 1 and 2: All State Administrative Agencies in the
United States. Parts 3-5: All multi-jurisdictional task forces in the
Study Purpose: Since the inception of the Edward Byrne Memorial
State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance Program in 1988, a large
proportion of formula grant program funds has been allocated by state
administrative agencies (SAA) to support multi-jurisdictional drug task
forces (MJTFs). MJTFs are a subset of law enforcement task forces that
were created in order to target the illegal distribution of drugs at the
local and regional levels. By sharing personnel, equipment,
intelligence, and legal/jurisdictional authorities, law enforcement
agencies in regions across the country have joined together to expand
their investigative and prosecutorial reach. Rigorous studies of task
force activities are scarce, and the diversity of task force
organization is underappreciated. While many policymakers, researchers,
and practitioners express confidence in the task force approach
generally, there remains insufficient understanding of the possible
community and organizational impact of individual MJTFs and the kinds of
evaluation methodologies that can elicit such information. To encourage
further development of such MJTF evaluation methodologies and a better
understanding of individual task force implementation and operations
across the United States, the National Institute of Justice funded the
evaluation of this project. This data collection reflects the first
phase of this evaluation. The goal was to identify several methodologies
that could be used by state planning agencies, task forces, and others
to assess the work of MJTFs. The principal goal of the project was not
to develop a universal means of comparing task force effectiveness
across MJTFs, but to bolster efforts to track changes in individual task
force effectiveness and accomplishments over time based on alterations
in policies, resources, tactics, and the external environment. At the
same time, the project sought to have SAAs and task forces develop a
broader set of objectives and measures and encourage a closer fit
between these objectives and actual achievements. To achieve these
goals, the researchers surveyed SAAs and MJTFs. The SAA survey (Parts 1
and 2) was designed to meet three objectives: (1) to identify active
Byrne-funded MJTFs, (2) to identify the kinds of information collected
by SAAs to monitor program implementation and impact, and (3) to
identify characteristics of current or past evaluations of MJTFs. The
MJTF survey (Parts 3-5) was also designed to meet three objectives: (1)
to identify the functions and organizational characteristics of
individual Byrne-funded task forces, (2) to identify what kinds of
operational and crime-related information are collected by such task
forces, and (3) to identify what kinds of task force evaluations have
been conducted, and how the findings were used.
Study Design: This
forces. The SAAs were surveyed first in order to define the universe of
existing task forces and to obtain information about broader evaluations
and studies of MJTFs. The survey was mailed to each of the directors of
56 SAAs on September 9, 1999. The recipients of the mailing included all
50 states, the District of Columbia, and five territories and
protectorates. The initial response rate was less than 30 percent. Staff
from the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) assisted in improving the
response rate by sending follow-up e-mails and making telephone calls to
non-responding SAAs to request that they respond to the survey. As of
December 1999, after three requests from BJA, the response rate was 73
percent. The SAA survey was divided into three parts. However, data from
the first part of this survey were not included in this data collection
because they consisted only of a list of MJTFs. Part 1 of this
collection contains data from the section of the survey regarding SAA
reporting requirements. BJA required the SAAs to conduct fiscal,
administrative, programmatic, and evaluative monitoring of their
subgrantees and to assess progress under statewide plans. The survey
asked SAAs about the types of information they regularly collected from
task forces as part of this monitoring. The four main areas of reporting
and monitoring examined were goals and objectives, implementation
activities, operational activities, and impacts. Part 2 contains data
from the section of the SAA survey that focused on evaluation
requirements and activities. The SAAs were asked to describe their
evaluation requirements and practices with respect to MJTFS. Each SAA
completed this section of the survey for every MJTF in its state. The
results of the SAA survey provided a framework for obtaining a kind of
census of existing task forces, as well as an understanding of the kinds
of information collected on task forces to monitor program
implementation and impact. The MJTF survey (Parts 3-5) provided an
opportunity to collect more detailed information about task force
organization and missions and about data collection and evaluation
activities. The researchers sent out surveys to individual task forces
in the winter of 2000. The MJTF survey had a three-part structure that
was functionally similar to the SAA survey. The survey was sent to 757
subgrantees. This survey was also divided into three sections. The first
part of the MJTF survey (Part 3) sought to collect basic background
information on the organization and management of each task force. In
addition to asking subgrantees to identify their task forces by their
official names, the survey asked respondents to state when the task
force was officially formed and when it began receiving Byrne funding.
It also asked the respondents to state how many years it had received
such funding. The second part of the MJTF survey (Part 4) asked
subgrantee task forces to summarize information about data collection
and reporting. The third part of the MJTF survey (Part 5) collected
detailed information about formal task force evaluations that had been
Description of Variables: Part 1 consists of several dummy variables indicating
the types of information SAAs collected about MJTFs, including task
force goals and objectives, implementation activities, operational
activities, and impact measurements. SAAs also reported how they used
the information from MJTFs, such as for programmatic oversight,
strategic planning, development of legislation, and dissemination to
task forces. Part 2 variables capture information about the evaluations
conducted by SAAs, including the start and end dates, the type of
evaluation, type of research designs employed, and how the evaluation
was funded. Part 3 contains administrative information about the MJTFs,
including when the task forces were formed, how long they had been
funded, the types of crimes on which they focused, their goals and
objectives, the number and types of agencies represented, the number of
full and part-time positions, how they were managed, their memorandum of
understanding, and reporting practices. Part 4 consists of dummy
variables designating the types of operational information collected by
MJTFs, whether the operational information was disseminated and to whom,
the types of general crime information collected by MJTFs, and types of
supporting information gathered by MJTFs. Part 5 variables collected
information about the types of evaluations the MJTFs had already
conducted including the type of evaluation, the type of research, how
the evaluation was funded, the starting and ending periods, to whom the
information was disseminated, and how the information was used.
Response Rates: The response rate for the SAA survey (Parts 1 and
2) was 73 percent. The MJTF survey was sent to 757 subgrantees. Of this
number 315 answered at least Part 1 of the survey, which addressed
administrative information (Part 3), for a response rate of 42 percent.
A slightly lower number, 307, completed Part 1 of the survey and at
least some of Part 2, which addressed information collection (Part 4).
Only 41 subgrantees completed Part 3 of the survey, the evaluation
detail sheet (Part 5), and an additional four subgrantees submitted
copies of evaluation reports but failed to complete Part 3 for any of
these reports. The principal investigators noted that caution should be
used in interpreting the results of the task force surveys due to the
very low response rate. The findings may not be representative of the
entire identified population of task forces to which surveys were
originally sent. In particular, there may be an inherent bias in the
results if the task forces most experienced and knowledgeable about the
benefits of evaluation were the ones more likely to take the time to
2006-03-30 File UG3865.ALL.PDF was removed from any previous datasets and flagged as a study-level file, so that it will accompany all downloads.
2006-03-30 File CQ3865.ALL.PDF was removed from any previous datasets and flagged as a study-level file, so that it will accompany all downloads.
Hayeslip, David W., Russell-Einhorn, Malcolm L.
Evaluation of Multi-Jurisdictional Task Forces Project: Phase I Final Report. NCJ 200904, Washington, DC: United States Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.