Drug Enforcement by Police, 1990

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.

.