User Guide, Codebook, and Data Collection Instrument

SURVEY OF PROSECUTORIAL RESPONSE TO BIAS-MOTIVATED CRIME IN THE UNITED STATES, 1994-1995 (ICPSR 3009) Principal Investigators Jane Nady Sigmon and Donald Rebovich American Prosecutors Research Institute First ICPSR Version September 2000 Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research P.O. Box 1248 Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106 BIBLIOGRAPHIC CITATION Publications based on ICPSR data collections should acknowledge those sources by means of bibliographic citations. To ensure that such source attributions are captured for social science bibliographic utilities, citations must appear in footnotes or in the reference section of publications. The bibliographic citation for this data collection is: Sigmon, Jane Nady, and Donald Rebovich. SURVEY OF PROSECUTORIAL RESPONSE TO BIAS-MOTIVATED CRIME IN THE UNITED STATES, 1994-1995 [Computer file]. ICPSR version. Alexandria, VA: American Prosecutors Research Institute [producer], 1999. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2000. REQUEST FOR INFORMATION ON USE OF ICPSR RESOURCES To provide funding agencies with essential information about use of archival resources and to facilitate the exchange of information about ICPSR participants' research activities, users of ICPSR data are requested to send to ICPSR bibliographic citations for each completed manuscript or thesis abstract. Please indicate in a cover letter which data were used. DATA DISCLAIMER The original collector of the data, ICPSR, and the relevant funding agency bear no responsibility for uses of this collection or for interpretations or inferences based upon such uses. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Summary ................................................ 1 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 7 9 General Study Overview ................................. Study Identification .............................. Key Words ......................................... Purpose of the Study .............................. Methods ................................................ Study Design ...................................... Sources of Information ............................ Sample ............................................ Response Rates .................................... Dates of Data Collection .......................... Summary of Contents .................................... Description of Variables .......................... Presence of Common Scales ......................... Unit of Observation ............................... Extent of Processing .............................. Extent of Collection .............................. Data Collection Notes ............................. File Specifications ............................... Related Publications .............................. Final Reports and Other Publications .............. Data Resources Program on the Internet ............ Data Completeness Report Codebook ............................... ............................................... 13 Data Collection Instrument Supplied by the Principal Investigators ............. 33 SUMMARY This national survey of prosecutors was undertaken to systematically gather information about the handling of bias or hate crime prosecutions in the United States. The goal was to use this information to identify needs and to enhance the ability of prosecutors to respond effectively to hate crimes by promoting effective practices. The survey aimed to address the following research questions: (1) What was the present level of bias crime prosecution in the United States? (2) What training had been provided to prosecutors to assist them in prosecuting hate- and bias-motivated crimes and what additional training would be beneficial? (3) What types of bias offenses were prosecuted in 1994-1995? (4) How were bias crime cases assigned and to what extent were bias crime cases given priority? and (5) What factors or issues inhibited a prosecutor's ability to prosecute bias crimes? In 1995, a national mail survey was sent to a stratified sample of prosecutor offices in three phases to solicit information about prosecutors' experiences with hate crimes. Questions were asked about size of jurisdiction, number of full-time staff, number of prosecutors and investigators assigned to bias crimes, and number of bias cases prosecuted. Additional questions measured training for bias-motivated crimes, such as whether staff received specialized training, whether there existed a written policy on bias crimes, how well prosecutors knew the bias statute, and whether there was a handbook on bias crime. Information elicited on case processing included the frequency with which certain criminal acts were charged and sentenced as bias crimes, the existence of a special bias unit, case tracking systems, preparation of witnesses, jury selection, and case disposition. Other topics specifically covered bias related to racial or ethnic differences, religious differences, sexual orientation, and violence against women. Page 2 ICPSR 3009 ICPSR 3009 Page 3 GENERAL STUDY OVERVIEW STUDY IDENTIFICATION SURVEY OF PROSECUTORIAL RESPONSE TO BIAS-MOTIVATED CRIME IN THE UNITED STATES, 1994-1995 Jane Nady Sigmon and Donald Rebovich American Prosecutors Research Institute Award No. 95-IJ-CX-0004 KEY WORDS case processing, disposition, hate crimes, prosecution, witnesses PURPOSE OF THE STUDY Throughout the 1990s, increased attention was focused on the enforcement of hate crime statutes. However, little research was done regarding the nature of the hate crimes that were referred for prosecution and the experience of the prosecutors with such cases. To fill this information gap, a national survey of prosecutors was conducted. The purpose of the study was to systematically gather information about the handling of bias crime prosecutions in the United States. The goal was to use this information to identify needs and to enhance the ability of prosecutors to respond effectively to hate crimes by promoting effective practices. The survey aimed to address the following research questions: (1) What was the present level of bias crime prosecution in the United States? (2) What training had been provided to prosecutors to assist them in prosecuting hate- and bias-motivated crimes and what additional training would be beneficial? (3) What types of bias offenses were prosecuted in 1994-1995? (4) How were bias crime cases assigned and to what extent were bias crime cases given priority? and (5) What factors or issues inhibited a prosecutor's ability to prosecute bias crimes? Page 4 ICPSR 3009 METHODS STUDY DESIGN In 1995, a national mail survey was sent to a stratified sample of prosecutor offices in three phases to solicit information about prosecutors' experiences with hate crimes. The survey was initially sent to all prosecutor offices in the sample. To increase the response rate, a follow-up mailing of the survey was sent to offices that did not respond. A third mailing was sent to nonresponding offices to obtain information about why they had not completed the survey. The prosecutor survey administered in the first and second mailings was arranged into the following seven sections: (1) background information, (2) case management, (3) case screening and charging, (4) trials, (5) sentencing, (6) victim support programs, and (7) recommendations for improving hate crime statute provisions and enforcement. SOURCES OF INFORMATION Data were collected with mailback questionnaires. SAMPLE The sampling frame for the survey included the total population of local prosecutor offices in the United States, a total of 2,828 offices nationwide. For the purposes of organization and comparison, prosecutor offices were divided into six strata, according to the population size of the jurisdiction. The number of offices in each strata ranged from a low of 88 jurisdictions with populations of more than 500,000 to 1,375 small jurisdictions (those with less than 20,000). Disproportionate stratified sampling was used to select prosecutor offices for this study. The sample consisted of 788 local prosecutor offices. To obtain a reliable sampling of prosecutor offices in small jurisdictions, 23 percent of prosecutors in these strata were randomly selected. To obtain reliable information about issues related to the handling of hate crime cases, all of the offices in the larger jurisdictions were included. RESPONSE RATES For the original survey, 187 prosecutor offices responded and 153 of these surveys contained information to be analyzed, for an initial response rate of 24 percent. However, an additional 155 prosecutor offices (20 percent of the sample offices) responded to the final ICPSR 3009 Page 5 mailing to determine why these offices did not respond to the initial survey. In sum, a total of 342 prosecutor offices responded, resulting in an overall response rate for all prosecutor offices selected for this study of 43 percent. DATE(S) OF DATA COLLECTION 1995 SUMMARY OF CONTENTS DESCRIPTION OF VARIABLES Background variables include size of jurisdiction, number of full-time staff, number of prosecutors and investigators assigned to bias crimes, and number of bias cases prosecuted. Additional variables measure training for bias-motivated crimes, such as whether staff received specialized training, whether there existed a written policy on bias crimes, how well prosecutors knew the bias statute, and whether there was a handbook on bias crime. Case management variables include the frequency with which certain criminal acts were charged and sentenced as bias crimes, the existence of a special bias unit, case tracking systems, witness preparation, jury selection, and case disposition. Other variables specifically cover bias related to racial or ethnic differences, religious differences, sexual orientation, and violence against women. PRESENCE OF COMMON SCALES Several Likert-type scales were used. UNIT OF OBSERVATION Individuals. EXTENT OF PROCESSING The hardcopy documentation was converted to a Portable Document Format (PDF) file by ICPSR. The principal investigator standardized missing data codes. ICPSR reformatted the data, checked for undocumented codes, produced a codebook and user guide, and generated SAS and SPSS data definition statements for this collection. Page 6 ICPSR 3009 EXTENT OF COLLECTION This data collection consists of one data file, plus a user guide, codebook, and data collection instrument in one PDF file, and SAS and SPSS data definition statements. DATA COLLECTION NOTES The user guide, codebook, and data collection instrument are provided by ICPSR as a Portable Document Format (PDF) file. 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 Website. FILE SPECIFICATIONS PART NUMBER: 1 FILE STRUCTURE: rectangular CASE COUNT: 153 VARIABLE COUNT: 100 RECORD LENGTH: 389 RECORDS PER CASE: 1 RELATED PUBLICATIONS American Prosecutors Research Institute. "Prosecutorial Response to Hate and Bias-Motivated Crime" (Final Report). Washington, DC: United States Department of Justice. National Institute of Justice, 1998. American Prosecutors Research Institute. "A Local Prosecutor's Guide for Responding to Hate Crimes." Alexandria, VA: American Prosecutors Research Institute, 2000. FINAL REPORTS AND OTHER PUBLICATIONS The National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS) was established in 1972 by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ), of the U.S. Department of Justice, to provide research findings to criminal justice professionals and researchers. NCJRS operates specialized ICPSR 3009 Page 7 clearinghouses that are staffed by information specialists who supply a range of reference, referral, and distribution services. Final reports and other publications describing research conducted on a variety of criminal justice topics are available. Publications can be obtained from NCJRS at NIJ/NCJRS, Box 6000, Rockville, MD, 20849-6000, 800-851-3420 or 301-519-5500. TTY Service for the Hearing Impaired is 877-712-9279 (toll-free) or 301-947-8374 (local). The URL for the NCJRS homepage is: http://www.ncjrs.org DATA RESOURCES PROGRAM ON THE INTERNET The National Institute of Justice Data Resources Program (DRP) makes datasets from NIJ-funded research and evaluation projects available to the research community and sponsors research and training activities devoted to secondary data analysis. Datasets are archived by the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data (NACJD) at the Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research (ICPSR) at the University of Michigan. The NACJD maintains a World Wide Web site with instructions for transferring files and sending messages. Criminal justice data funded by the Department of Justice are available via the Internet at this site at no charge to the user. NACJD may be contacted at NACJD/ICPSR, P.O. Box 1248, Ann Arbor, MI, 48106-1248, 800-999-0960 or 734-9989825. The URL for the NACJD homepage is: http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/NACJD Page 8 ICPSR 3009 ICPSR 3009 Page 9 DATA COMPLETENESS REPORT This report corresponds to the data file: DA3009.P1 Table 1: Distribution of Variables by Percentage of Missing Values* ======================================================================= Variable Name and Label Percent of Cases with (Total cases=153) Missing Values ----------------------------------------------------------------------6.0% 4.0% (6 of 100 variables) have 0% Missing Values (4 of 100 variables) have > 0% - 1% Missing Values 11.0% (11 of 100 variables) have > 1% - 3% Missing Values 5.0% (5 of 100 variables) have > 3% - 5% Missing Values 34.0% (34 of 100 variables) have > 5% - 10% Missing Values BIASTRAK ARE BIAS CASES INCLUD TRACK SYS 5.2% REPORT # OF BIAS CRIMES REPORTED BY L.E. 5.9% REPRE2 REPORT RECODED 2 5.9% REPRE1 REPORT RECODED 1 5.9% RETALIAT V'S FEAR OF RETALIATION FOR BRG CHGS 5.9% FILTER REPRE2 = 4 (FILTER) 5.9% POLICE # OF POLICE AGENCIES 6.5% BIASPROS # OF BIAS CASES PROSECUTED 94/95 6.5% BIPRRE BIAS CRIMES PROSECUTED-RECODED 6.5% BIPRE2 BIAS CRIME PROSECUTED-DICOT 6.5% PRIORITY ARE BIAS CASES PRIORITIZED FOR PROS 6.5% WORD OFFENDER'S USE OF WORDS/ACTS 6.5% CONV BIAS CRIMES ENDING IN CONVICTION 7.2% CONVRE BIAS CRIMES CONVICTED RECODED 7.2% STATEOFF POST-ARREST STATES BY OFFENDER 7.2% STATEWIT STATEMENT MADE BY WITNESSES 7.2% PUBLICIT V'S FEAR OF HUMILIATING PUBLICITY 7.2% COMMGRPS COOPERATE W/COMM GRPS TARGETED 7.2% EXPERTS EXPERT WITNESSES AS RESOURCES 7.2% VWGRPS V/W SUPPORT AGENCIES/GROUPS 7.2% WRELUCT WITNESS RELUCTANCE 7.2% WFEAR WITNESS FEAR 7.8% SPECSTPS SPEC STEPS TAKEN W/GROUPS 7.8% CHARGVAN FREQ VANDALISM CHRGED AS BIAS 8.5% ======================================================================= Page 10 ICPSR 3009 Table 1 (continued) ======================================================================= Percent of Cases with Variable Name and Label Missing Values ----------------------------------------------------------------------DIFFGRPS VIC/OFF REPRES DIFF RACIAL/ETHNIC GRP 8.5% LEAPATHY LE APATHY IN WITNESS PREPARATION 8.5% LANGBARR LANGUAGE BARRIERS RE: WITNESS PREP 8.5% ORGANIZE INVOLV OF ORGANIZED HATE GROUP 9.2% MEDIA EXTENT OF MEDIA COVERAGE ON BIAS 9.2% RELIGIOU INCIDENT W/RELIGIOUS HOL/ETH CELE 9.8% ACTIVITY INV OF V'S GRP IN PUBLIC/POL ACT 9.8% PROVING PROOF OFFENSE WAS MOTIVATED/BIAS 9.8% WHOSTILE WITNESS HOSTILITY TOWARD VICTIM 9.8% SENTPAT VIEW SENTENCING PATTERNS FOR BIAS 9.8% 40.0% (40 of 100 variables) have > 10% - 20% Missing Values MOTIVE ABSENCE OF OTHER APPARENT MOTIVE 10.5% NOTAWARE LACK OF AWARENESS RE: SELCT OF V 10.5% INSUFEVI INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE HINDERS 10.5% MIXED APPL OF MIXED MOTIVES 10.5% CHARGHAR FREQ HARASSMENT CHRGED AS BIAS 11.1% PRIORACT INTRO OF PRIOR ACT EVIDENCE 11.1% ALTSENT OFFERS ADEQUATE ALTER SENTENCING 11.1% REFERRAL REFERRAL OF V'S TO V/W ASSIST SPEC 11.1% PROTRETL PROCT OF V FROM RETALIATION 11.1% CHARGPHY FREQ PHYSICAL ASSAULT CHRGD AS BIAS 11.8% INCOMREP INCOMPLETE POLICE RPTS HINDER 11.8% CJMIST MISTRUST OF CJ SYSTEM BY AFR AMER 11.8% SENTVAN FREQ VANDALISM SENTENCED BIAS 12.4% VOIRDIRE LIMITATIONS ON VOIR DIRE 12.4% CJMISIMM MISTRUST OF CJSYS BY IMMIGRANT V'S 12.4% DIFFVIEW DIFFUSING STEREOTYPICAL VIEWS 12.4% HOMPANIC COUNTER HOMOSEX PANIC DEFENSES 12.4% NOTRAIN NO TRAINING HINDERS ABILITY TO PROS 13.1% CHARGE CHARGING DECISIONS HINDER PROS 13.1% SUPPRESS MOTIONS TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE 13.1% JURY JURY SELECTION HINDERS PROS 13.1% ACCOUNT THEORY OF ACCOUNTABILITY 13.1% CHARGHOM FREQ HOMICIDE CHARGED AS BIAS 13.7% SENTHAR FREQ HARASSMENT SENTENCED BIAS 13.7% PREPWIT PREPARATION OF WITNESS 13.7% APPRQUES APPROPRIATE QUES FOR POTEN JURORS 13.7% RELIGINV DAMAGE OF RELIGS SIG OBJECTS 13.7% VAWBIAS PROS OF VIO AGNST WOMEN AS BIAS 14.4% CHARGSEX FREQ SEX ASSAULT CHRGED AS BIAS 15.0% ======================================================================= ICPSR 3009 Page 11 Table 1 (continued) ======================================================================= Percent of Cases with Variable Name and Label Missing Values ----------------------------------------------------------------------SENTPHY FREQ PHYSICAL ASSAULT SENTENCED BIAS 15.0% LEINDIFF V'S ASSUMP L.E. INDIFF TO OFFENSE 15.0% DISPO CASE DISPOSITION 15.0% DVBIAS PROS D.V. AS BIAS-MOTIVATED CRIME 15.0% SENTHOM FREQ HOMICIDE SENTENCED BIAS 15.7% POISON AVOIDANCE OF POISONING OF VENIRE 15.7% SENTSEX FREQ SEX ASSAULT SENTENCED BIAS 16.3% FIRST MOTIONS TO SUPPRESS/FIRST AMEND 16.3% FOURTH FOURTH AMEND MOTIONS RE: WARRANT 16.3% SEARCH LACK OF SUFFICIENCY FOR SEARCHES 17.0% PROCTGRP DETECT PROTECTED GRP DISCRIM 17.0% ======================================================================= *Variables individually listed only if greater than 5% missing values. Data does not contain skip patterns or skip patterns are not reflected in the data as coded. Page 12 ICPSR 3009 Page 13 CODEBOOK FOR ICPSR 3009 SURVEY OF PROSECUTORIAL RESPONSE TO BIAS-MOTIVATED CRIME IN THE UNITED STATES, 1994-1995 PLEASE NOTE: The "M" between the code and the code label indicates the code has been designated as a missing value. ----------------------------------------------------------------------BEG END NAME VARIABLE LABEL COL COL FMT ----------------------------------------------------------------------SURVEY HATELAW SURVEY TRACKING NUMBER DOES JURIS HAVE HATE CRIME LAW 1 2 99 SIZE Yes No Don't know 6 9 F4 1 4 3 5 F3 F2 JURISDICTION POP SIZE 1 2 3 4 5 6 9999 M 0-20,000 20,001-50,000 50,001-100,000 100,001-250,000 250,001-500,000 Over 500,000 Missing SIZERE SIZE RECODED 1 2 3 4 0-50,000 50,001-250,000 250,001-500,0001 Over 500,001 10 10 F1 FTA # OF FULL TIME ATTORNEYS 9999 M Missing 11 14 F4 FTI # OF FULL TIME INVESTIGATORS 9999 M Missing 15 18 F4 PTA # OF PART-TIME ATTORNEYS 9999 M Missing 19 22 F4 PTI # OF PART-TIME INVESTIGATORS 9999 M Missing 23 26 F4 Page 14 ICPSR 3009 ----------------------------------------------------------------------BEG END NAME VARIABLE LABEL COL COL FMT ----------------------------------------------------------------------POLICE # OF POLICE AGENCIES 9999 M PRO Missing 31 34 F4 27 30 F4 # OF PROS ASSIGNED TO BIAS CASES 99 999 9999 M Don't know Varies Missing INV # OF INVESTIGATORS ASSIGNED TO BIAS 99 999 9999 M Don't know Varies Missing 35 38 F4 REPORT # OF BIAS CRIMES REPORTED BY L.E. 99 9999 M Don't know Missing 39 42 F4 REPRE2 REPORT RECODED 2 0 1 2 3 4 9999 M 0 1-5 6-16 17-60 Over 61 Missing 43 46 F4 REPRE1 REPORT RECODED 1 0 1 2 9999 M 0 1-5 6 and over Missing 47 50 F4 BIASPROS # OF BIAS CASES PROSECUTED 94/95 99 9999 M Don't know Missing 51 54 F4 ICPSR 3009 Page 15 ----------------------------------------------------------------------BEG END NAME VARIABLE LABEL COL COL FMT ----------------------------------------------------------------------BIPRRE BIAS CRIMES PROSECUTED-RECODED 0 1 2 3 9999 M BIPRE2 0 1-5 6-16 17 and over Missing 59 62 F4 55 58 F4 BIAS CRIME PROSECUTED-DICOT 0 1 9999 M No Yes Missing CONV BIAS CRIMES ENDING IN CONVICTION 99 9999 M Don't know Missing 63 66 F4 CONVRE BIAS CRIMES CONVICTED RECODED 0 1 2 3 9999 M 0 1-5 6-16 17 and over Missing 67 70 F4 TRAINING RECEIVED SPECIALIZED TRAINING 1 2 8 99 Yes No N/A Don't know 71 72 F2 POLICY IS THERE EXISTING WRITTEN POLICY 1 2 8 9999 M Yes No N/A Missing 73 76 F4 IDENTIFY L.E. EQUIPPED TO IDENTIFY BIAS 1 2 8 99 9999 M Yes No N/A Don't know Missing 77 80 F4 Page 16 ICPSR 3009 ----------------------------------------------------------------------BEG END NAME VARIABLE LABEL COL COL FMT ----------------------------------------------------------------------- OFFER DOES DA ASSOC OFFER BIAS TRAINING 1 2 8 99 9999 M Yes No N/A Don't know Missing 81 84 F4 PARTICI OFFICE'S LEVEL OF PARTICIPATION 1 2 3 4 5 8 9999 M Low Somewhat low Moderate Somewhat high High N/A Missing 85 88 F4 EFFECTIV HOW EFFECTIVE IS TRAINING 1 2 3 4 5 8 99 9999 M Low Somewhat low Moderate Somewhat high High N/A Don't know Missing 89 92 F4 KNOWLEDG PROSECUTOR'S KNOWLEDGE OF BIAS STATUTE 1 2 3 8 9999 M Poor Fair Good N/A Missing 93 96 F4 STATUTE HOW PREPARED TO PROSECUTE BIAS 1 2 3 Poorly prepared Fairly prepared Very prepared 97 100 F4 ICPSR 3009 Page 17 ----------------------------------------------------------------------BEG END NAME VARIABLE LABEL COL COL FMT ----------------------------------------------------------------------STATUTE (cont.) 8 9999 M CHALLENG N/A Missing 101 104 F4 CHALLENGED ON 1ST AMENDMENT 1 2 8 99 9999 M Yes No N/A Don't know Missing HANDBOOK HANDBOOK ON BIAS CRIME 1 2 8 99 9999 M Yes No N/A Don't know Missing 105 108 F4 NATIONAL OFFICE INTERACTED W/NAT AGENCY 1 2 8 99 9999 M Yes No N/A Don't know Missing 109 112 F4 CHARGSEX FREQ SEX ASSAULT CHRGED AS BIAS 1 2 3 4 5 8 99 9999 M Least frequent Least +1 Some Most -1 Most frequent N/A Don't know Missing 113 116 F4 CHARGPHY FREQ PHYSICAL ASSAULT CHRGD AS BIAS 1 2 3 4 Least frequent Least +1 Some Most -1 117 120 F4 Page 18 ICPSR 3009 ----------------------------------------------------------------------BEG END NAME VARIABLE LABEL COL COL FMT ----------------------------------------------------------------------CHARGPHY (cont.) 5 8 99 9999 M CHARGVAN Most frequent N/A Don't know Missing 121 124 F4 FREQ VANDALISM CHRGED AS BIAS 1 2 3 4 5 8 99 9999 M Least frequent Least +1 Some Most -1 Most frequent N/A Don't know Missing CHARGHOM FREQ HOMICIDE CHARGED AS BIAS 1 2 3 4 5 8 99 9999 M Least frequent Least +1 Some Most -1 Most frequent N/A Don't know Missing 125 128 F4 CHARGHAR FREQ HARASSMENT CHRGED AS BIAS 1 2 3 4 5 8 99 9999 M Least frequent Least +1 Some Most -1 Most frequent N/A Don't know Missing 129 132 F4 SENTSEX FREQ SEX ASSAULT SENTENCED BIAS 1 2 3 4 Least frequent Least +1 Some Most -1 133 136 F4 ICPSR 3009 Page 19 ----------------------------------------------------------------------BEG END NAME VARIABLE LABEL COL COL FMT ----------------------------------------------------------------------SENTSEX (cont.) 5 8 99 9999 M SENTPHY Most frequent N/A Don't know Missing 137 140 F4 FREQ PHYSICAL ASSAULT SENTENCED BIAS 1 2 3 4 5 8 99 9999 M Least frequent Least +1 Some Most -1 Most frequent N/A Don't know Missing SENTVAN FREQ VANDALISM SENTENCED BIAS 1 2 3 4 5 8 99 9999 M Least frequent Least +1 Some Most -1 Most frequent N/A Don't know Missing 141 144 F4 SENTHOM FREQ HOMICIDE SENTENCED BIAS 1 2 3 4 5 8 99 9999 M Least frequent Least +1 Some Most -1 Most frequent N/A Don't know Missing 145 148 F4 SENTHAR FREQ HARASSMENT SENTENCED BIAS 1 2 3 4 Least frequent Least +1 Some Most -1 149 152 F4 Page 20 ICPSR 3009 ----------------------------------------------------------------------BEG END NAME VARIABLE LABEL COL COL FMT ----------------------------------------------------------------------SENTHAR (cont.) 5 8 99 9999 M SPECUNIT Most frequent N/A Don't know Missing 153 156 F4 DOES SPEC BIAS UNIT EXIST IN OFFICE 1 2 8 9999 M Yes No N/A Missing HANDLE ARE CERTAIN ATTORNEYS DESIGNATED 1 2 8 9999 M Yes No N/A Missing 157 160 F4 PRIORITY ARE BIAS CASES PRIORITIZED FOR PROS 1 2 8 9999 M Yes No N/A Missing 161 164 F4 TRACKSYS DOES OFFICE OPERATE CASE TRACK SYS 1 2 8 99 9999 M Yes No N/A Don't know Missing 165 168 F4 BIASTRAK ARE BIAS CASES INCLUD TRACK SYS 1 2 8 9999 M Yes No N/A Missing 169 172 F4 ICPSR 3009 Page 21 ----------------------------------------------------------------------BEG END NAME VARIABLE LABEL COL COL FMT ----------------------------------------------------------------------WORD OFFENDER'S USE OF WORDS/ACTS 1 2 3 8 99 9999 M DIFFGRPS Not important factor Neutral factor Important factor N/A Don't know Missing 177 180 F4 173 176 F4 VIC/OFF REPRES DIFF RACIAL/ETHNIC GRP 1 2 3 8 99 9999 M Not important factor Neutral factor Important factor N/A Don't know Missing RELIGIOU INCIDENT W/RELIGIOUS HOL/ETH CELE 1 2 3 8 99 9999 M Not important factor Neutral factor Important factor N/A Don't know Missing 181 184 F4 ACTIVITY INV OF V'S GRP IN PUBLIC/POL ACT 1 2 3 8 99 9999 M Not important factor Neutral factor Important factor N/A Don't know Missing 185 188 F4 ORGANIZE INVOLV OF ORGANIZED HATE GROUP 1 2 3 8 99 9999 M Not important factor Neutral factor Important factor N/A Don't know Missing 189 192 F4 Page 22 ICPSR 3009 ----------------------------------------------------------------------BEG END NAME VARIABLE LABEL COL COL FMT ----------------------------------------------------------------------MOTIVE ABSENCE OF OTHER APPARENT MOTIVE 1 2 3 8 99 9999 M STATEOFF Not important factor Neutral factor Important factor N/A Don't know Missing 197 200 F4 193 196 F4 POST-ARREST STATES BY OFFENDER 1 2 3 8 99 9999 M Not important factor Neutral factor Important factor N/A Don't know Missing STATEWIT STATEMENT MADE BY WITNESSES 1 2 3 8 99 9999 M Not important factor Neutral factor Important factor N/A Don't know Missing 201 204 F4 NOTAWARE LACK OF AWARENESS RE: SELCT OF V 1 2 3 8 99 9999 M Not important factor Neutral factor Important factor N/A Don't know Missing 205 208 F4 RETALIAT V'S FEAR OF RETALIATION FOR BRG CHGS 1 2 3 8 99 9999 M Not important factor Neutral factor Important factor N/A Don't know Missing 209 212 F4 ICPSR 3009 Page 23 ----------------------------------------------------------------------BEG END NAME VARIABLE LABEL COL COL FMT ----------------------------------------------------------------------PUBLICIT V'S FEAR OF HUMILIATING PUBLICITY 1 2 3 8 99 9999 M LEINDIFF Not important factor Neutral factor Important factor N/A Don't know Missing 217 220 F4 213 216 F4 V'S ASSUMP L.E. INDIFF TO OFFENSE 1 2 3 8 99 9999 M Not important factor Neutral factor Important factor N/A Don't know Missing INCOMREP INCOMPLETE POLICE RPTS HINDER 1 2 3 8 9999 M Not important problem Neutral Important problem N/A Missing 221 224 F4 INSUFEVI INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE HINDERS 1 2 3 8 9999 M Not important problem Neutral Important problem N/A Missing 225 228 F4 NOTRAIN NO TRAINING HINDERS ABILITY TO PROS 1 2 3 8 9999 M Not important problem Neutral Important problem N/A Missing 229 232 F4 CHARGE CHARGING DECISIONS HINDER PROS 1 2 3 Not important problem Neutral Important problem 233 236 F4 Page 24 ICPSR 3009 ----------------------------------------------------------------------BEG END NAME VARIABLE LABEL COL COL FMT ----------------------------------------------------------------------CHARGE (cont.) 8 9999 M SUPPRESS N/A Missing 237 240 F4 MOTIONS TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE 1 2 3 8 99 9999 M Not important problem Neutral Important problem N/A Don't know Missing PREPWIT PREPARATION OF WITNESS 1 2 3 8 99 9999 M Not important problem Neutral Important problem N/A Don't know Missing 241 244 F4 JURY JURY SELECTION HINDERS PROS 1 2 3 8 99 9999 M Not important problem Neutral Important problem N/A Don't know Missing 245 248 F4 PROVING PROOF OFFENSE WAS MOTIVATED/BIAS 1 2 3 8 99 9999 M Not important problem Neutral Important problem N/A Don't know Missing 249 252 F4 DISPO CASE DISPOSITION 1 2 3 Not important problem Neutral Important problem 253 256 F4 ICPSR 3009 Page 25 ----------------------------------------------------------------------BEG END NAME VARIABLE LABEL COL COL FMT ----------------------------------------------------------------------DISPO (cont.) 8 99 9999 M SPECPROC N/A Don't know Missing 257 260 F4 SPECIAL PROTOCOL RE:PLEAS FOR BIAS 1 2 8 9999 M Yes No N/A Missing MEDIA EXTENT OF MEDIA COVERAGE ON BIAS 1 2 3 4 8 9999 M Never Occurs rarely Occurs occasionally Occurs often N/A Missing 261 264 F4 COMMGRPS COOPERATE W/COMM GRPS TARGETED 1 2 8 99 9999 M Yes No N/A Don't know Missing 265 268 F4 EXPERTS EXPERT WITNESSES AS RESOURCES 1 2 8 99 9999 M Yes No N/A Don't know Missing 269 272 F4 VWGRPS V/W SUPPORT AGENCIES/GROUPS 1 2 8 99 9999 M Yes No N/A Don't know Missing 273 276 F4 Page 26 ICPSR 3009 ----------------------------------------------------------------------BEG END NAME VARIABLE LABEL COL COL FMT ----------------------------------------------------------------------FIRST MOTIONS TO SUPPRESS/FIRST AMEND 1 2 8 99 9999 M SEARCH Yes No N/A Don't know Missing 281 284 F4 277 280 F4 LACK OF SUFFICIENCY FOR SEARCHES 1 2 8 99 9999 M Yes No N/A Don't know Missing FOURTH FOURTH AMEND MOTIONS RE: WARRANT 1 2 8 99 9999 M Yes No N/A Don't know Missing 285 288 F4 LEAPATHY LE APATHY IN WITNESS PREPARATION 1 2 3 8 99 9999 M Not important issue Neutral Important issue N/A Don't know Missing 289 292 F4 WHOSTILE WITNESS HOSTILITY TOWARD VICTIM 1 2 3 8 99 9999 M Not important issue Neutral Important issue N/A Don't know Missing 293 296 F4 WRELUCT WITNESS RELUCTANCE 1 2 3 Not important issue Neutral Important issue 297 300 F4 ICPSR 3009 Page 27 ----------------------------------------------------------------------BEG END NAME VARIABLE LABEL COL COL FMT ----------------------------------------------------------------------WRELUCT (cont.) 8 99 9999 M WFEAR N/A Don't know Missing 301 304 F4 WITNESS FEAR 1 2 3 8 99 9999 M Not important issue Neutral Important issue N/A Don't know Missing LANGBARR LANGUAGE BARRIERS RE: WITNESS PREP 1 2 3 8 99 9999 M Not important issue Neutral Important issue N/A Don't know Missing 305 308 F4 MIXED APPL OF MIXED MOTIVES 1 2 3 8 99 9999 M Not important issue Neutral Important issue N/A Don't know Missing 309 312 F4 PRIORACT INTRO OF PRIOR ACT EVIDENCE 1 2 3 8 99 9999 M Not important issue Neutral Important issue N/A Don't know Missing 313 316 F4 ACCOUNT THEORY OF ACCOUNTABILITY 1 2 Not important issue Neutral 317 320 F4 Page 28 ICPSR 3009 ----------------------------------------------------------------------BEG END NAME VARIABLE LABEL COL COL FMT ----------------------------------------------------------------------ACCOUNT (cont.) 3 8 99 9999 M APPRQUES Important issue N/A Don't know Missing 321 324 F4 APPROPRIATE QUES FOR POTEN JURORS 1 2 3 8 99 9999 M Not important issue Neutral Important issue N/A Don't know Missing POISON AVOIDANCE OF POISONING OF VENIRE 1 2 3 8 99 9999 M Not important issue Neutral Important issue N/A Don't know Missing 325 328 F4 PROCTGRP DETECT PROTECTED GRP DISCRIM 1 2 3 8 99 9999 M Not important issue Neutral Important issue N/A Don't know Missing 329 332 F4 VOIRDIRE LIMITATIONS ON VOIR DIRE 1 2 3 8 99 9999 M Not important issue Neutral Important issue N/A Don't know Missing 333 336 F4 ICPSR 3009 Page 29 ----------------------------------------------------------------------BEG END NAME VARIABLE LABEL COL COL FMT ----------------------------------------------------------------------CJMIST MISTRUST OF CJ SYSTEM BY AFR AMER 1 2 3 8 99 9999 M CJMISIMM Least problematic Neutral Most problematic N/A Don't know Missing 341 344 F4 337 340 F4 MISTRUST OF CJSYS BY IMMIGRANT V'S 1 2 3 8 99 9999 M Least problematic Neutral Most problematic N/A Don't know Missing DIFFVIEW DIFFUSING STEREOTYPICAL VIEWS 1 2 3 8 99 9999 M Least problematic Neutral Most problematic N/A Don't know Missing 345 348 F4 RELIGINV DAMAGE OF RELIGS SIG OBJECTS 1 2 3 8 99 9999 M Least problematic Neutral Most problematic N/A Don't know Missing 349 352 F4 HOMPANIC COUNTER HOMOSEX PANIC DEFENSES 1 2 3 8 99 9999 M Least problematic Neutral Most problematic N/A Don't know Missing 353 356 F4 Page 30 ICPSR 3009 ----------------------------------------------------------------------BEG END NAME VARIABLE LABEL COL COL FMT ----------------------------------------------------------------------DVBIAS PROS D.V. AS BIAS-MOTIVATED CRIME 1 2 3 8 99 9999 M VAWBIAS Least problematic Neutral Most problematic N/A Don't know Missing 361 364 F4 357 360 F4 PROS OF VIO AGNST WOMEN AS BIAS 1 2 3 8 99 9999 M Least problematic Neutral Most problematic N/A Don't know Missing SENTPAT VIEW SENTENCING PATTERNS FOR BIAS 1 2 3 4 5 8 99 9999 M Lenient Somewhat lenient Moderate Somewhat severe Severe N/A Don't know Missing 365 368 F4 ALTSENT OFFERS ADEQUATE ALTER SENTENCING 1 2 8 99 9999 M Yes No N/A Don't know Missing 369 372 F4 SPECSTPS SPEC STEPS TAKEN W/GROUPS 1 2 8 99 9999 M Yes No N/A Don't know Missing 373 376 F4 ICPSR 3009 Page 31 ----------------------------------------------------------------------BEG END NAME VARIABLE LABEL COL COL FMT ----------------------------------------------------------------------REFERRAL REFERRAL OF V'S TO V/W ASSIST SPEC 1 2 3 8 9999 M PROTRETL Not important Neutral Important N/A Missing 381 384 F4 377 380 F4 PROCT OF V FROM RETALIATION 1 2 3 8 9999 M Not important Neutral Important N/A Missing FILTER REPRE2 = 4 (FILTER) 0 1 9999 M Not selected Selected Missing 385 388 F4 SIZERE2 SIZE RECODED 1 2 Small Large 389 389 F1 Page 32 ICPSR 3009 ICPSR 3009 Page 33 Data Collection Instrument Supplied by Principal Investigator Any column locations indicated in the original documentation refer to the original data format. The data were restructured, and the new column locations are listed in the ICPSR codebook and data definition statements. APPENDIX A National Survey: Prosecution of Bias-Motivated Crime AMERICAN PROSECUTORS RESEARCH INSTITUTE National Survey: Prosecution of Bias-Motivated Crime This questionnaire has been designed and sent to you by the American Prosecutors Research Institute as part of a national research project, funded by the National Institute of Justice, entitled The Prosecution of BiasMotivated Crime. The primary objective of this survey is to assessthe present level of bias crime prosecution throughout the United States and to enhance these types of prosecutions by promoting effective prosecution practices. In general, the survey solicits information on how prosecutors are typically handling bias crime offenses and what the most urgent needs are in this area. Specifically, the survey will attempt to identify how local prosecutors perceive and address these cases in the context of all other crime-specific cases. Completed questionnaires will supply valuable information such as the extent to which these cases are prioritized, decision-making processes used to determine the level of seriousness prosecutors afford these cases, and the role of resources in effective prosecution. The questionnaire contains seven sections: 1) Background Information; 2) Case Management; 3) Case Screening/Charging; 4) Trials; 5) Sentencing; 6) Victim Support Programs; and 7) Recommendations. Each section is designed to gather comprehensive information on respective topic areas. Aggregate information extracted from completed questionnaires will be used to develop a final report on characteristics of biasmotivated criminal prosecutions throughout the U.S. NO results from this questionnaire will be attributed personally to you without your permission. Definition: For the purpose of this survey, bias-motivated crime is defined as follows: Bias-motivated crime: Crimes that manifest evidence of prejudice based on race, religion, sexual orientation, or ethnicity, including the crimes of murder, non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, aggravated assault, simple assault, intimidation, arson, and destruction, damage or vandalism of property. (101st Congress of the United States, 2nd Session, January 23, 1990). RESPONDENT Name: Title: Jurisdiction: Address: INFORMATION (Optional) Telephone: Section I. 1) Background Information 0-20,000 20,001-50,000 50,001-100,000 100,001-250,000 250,001-500,000 Over 500,000 What is the approximatepopulationof the jurisdiction your office serves? Office Size: __ Total numberof full-time attorneys Total numberof full-time investigators 2) Total numberof part-timeattorneys Total numberof part-timeinvestigators 3) 4) How many police agencies serveyour jurisdiction? Number of prosecutorsassigned bias crime cases to Number of investigators assigned bias crime cases to 5) How many bias crime cases were reportedby the police to the prosecutor’soffice between January1, 1994 and January1, 1995? How many bias crime cases were prosecuted betweenJanuary1, 1994and January1, 1995? How many bias crime cases endedin a conviction betweenJanuary1, 1994and January1, 1995? Have the prosecutors, investigators, law or enforcement officers in your jurisdiction received any specialized training regardingbias-motivated crimes? If yes, pleaseexplain: Yes (estimate) 6) 7) 8) No 9) Is there an existing written policy in your office regardingthe handling and dispositionof bias crime? If yes, pleaseexplain: Yes No 10) Do you feel that law enforcement officersin your jurisdiction are equippedto identify bias-motivated crimes? bias crimes? Yes No 11) What types of training do you feel would mostbenefitlaw enforcement, investigators, prosecutorswith regardto and 1 12) 12a) Does the local or stateDistrict Attorneys’ Association offer bias crime training? If yes, what is your office’s level of participation? Yes No 12b) If yes, how effectiveis the training? 14) 13) How would you characterize knowledge of your your state’s biascrime statute? Basedon your knowledgeof the statebias crime statute,how prepared you to prosecutebiasare motivated crimes? Has your jurisdiction’s bias-motivated crime statute been challengedon First Amendmentgrounds? If yes, with what result? Good Fair Very prepared Fairly prepared Poorly prepared Poor 14) Yes No 15) Briefly describeany well publicized bias-motivated crimecases from your jurisdiction? 16) Do you think a handbookon the specializedareaof the prosecutionof bias-motivated crimeswould be of value to your office? Has your office interacted with any national agency regarding the issues information associated and with bias crimes? Pleaserate the frequencyof criminal actscharged as Most Frequent bias-motivatedoffenses your jurisdiction: in Assault Sexual Physical Vandalism/property crimes Homicide Harassment 2 5 5 5 5 5 Yes No 17) Yes __ No Least Frequent 18) 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 19) Please the frequencyof criminal actssentenced rate as bias-motivated offenses your jurisdiction: in Assault Sexual Physical Vandalism/property crimes Homicide Harassment Most Frequent 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 Least Frequent 1 1 1 1 1 SectionII. 20) 21) 22) CaseManagement Yes Yes No No Does a specialized crimeprosecution exist bias unit in your office? If no, are certainattorneysdesignated handlesuch to cases? In your jurisdiction, what groupsor individualsare most frequentlythe targetof bias-motivated crime? 23) How are bias-motivated offenses defined/identified the police? by 24) 25) Are bias crime cases prioritized for prosecution? If yes,how arethe cases prioritized? Yes No 26) 27) 28) Doesyour office operated casetracking, a system? Are bias crime cases includedin the tracking system? Yes Yes No No If yes, are they groupedby type of offense,neighborhood,etc...Please explain. 3 Section III. Case Screening/Charging 29) Pleaseindicatewhich factorsare typically examinedin your office during your determination whethera given of criminal offenseis a bias-motivated crime: Important Factor The offender’suseof words, symbols or actsthat may be offensiveto an identifiable group Victim and offenderrepresentingdifferent racial or ethnic groups Incident coincidingwith a religious holiday/ethnic celebration Involvementof victim’s group in recentpublic or political activity Evidenceof possibleinvolvementof an organized hate group Absenceof otherapparentmotive for the offense Post-arrest statements madeby the offender Statements madeby witnesses Other 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Neutral Factor 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Not Important Factor 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 30) Basedon your experience, what are the most importantfactorsthat can inhibit victims from reportingbias-motivated crimes: Lack of awareness the selectionof a victim that basedon perceived membershipin a protected group is againstthe law Victim’s fear of retaliation for bringing charges Victim’s fear of humiliating publicity Victim’s assumption law enforcement that agencies would be indifferent to the offense Other 3 3 2 2 1 1 Important Factor 3 3 Neutral 2 2 Not Important Factor 1 1 4 31) What are the most important issues/problemsthat hinder your ability to prosecutecases bias-motivated crime: of Important Problem l Neutral 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Not Important Problem 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Incomplete police reports Insufficient evidence Lack of training on bias-motivated crime Charging decisions Motions to suppressevidence Preparation of witnesses Jury selection Proving the offense was motivated by biased thought Case disposition Other 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 l l l l l l l l l 32) 33) Does your office have a special protocol regarding plea bargaining of bias-motivatedcrimes? If yes, please explain: Yes No 34) How would you describethe extent of media coverage on bias-motivated crime activity in your jurisdiction? Occursoften Occursoccasionally Occursrarely Never 35) What has been the community’s responseto the prosecutionof bias-motivated crimes? , 5 Section IV. Trials 36) What external resourcesdo you use when developing and prosecuting bias crime cases: . cooperatewith various community groups targeted by bias crime offenders l Yes Yes Yes Yes (Pleasecheck all that apply) No No No No expert witnesses Victim/witness support agencies/groups Other l l 37) What pre-trial defensemotions should the prosecution be best preparedfor in cases biasof motivated crimes: Motions to suppresstestimony/evidence regarding motivation along First Amendment lines Motions to suppressevidence basedon a lack of sufficiency for searchesthat uncover the evidence Fourth Amendment motions relating to searches conducted pursuant to a not warrant Other 38) What are the most important witness preparation issuesthat prosecutorsare likely to addressin the prosecution of a bias-motivated crime: l Important Issue Neutral Not Important Issue Police apathy concerning the seriousness the of offense Witness hostility/disdain toward victim Witnessreluctance Witness fear Languagebarriers Other 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1’ 1 1 1 1 l l l l l 6 39) What standardsof proof issuesare most important in the prosecution of bias-motivated offenses: l Important Issue 3 3 3 3 Neutral Not Important Issue The application of a “mixed motives” contention that the offense resulted from a mixture of discriminating and non-discriminating motives The introduction of “prior act” evidenceto prove the defendant’s state of mind The theory of accountability as it applies to biasmotivated crimes 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 l l Other 40) What are the most important concernsof the prosecutor in the selection of jurors for a biasmotivated crime trial: . Use of appropriate questionsthat explore the potential juror’s work, education,and social background l Important Issue Neutral Not Important Issue 3 2 Avoidance of “poisoning" of the venire by inappropriate responsesof previously questioned jurors Detection of protected group discrimination by defenseattorneys 3 3 2 2 l Limitations on voir dire (i.e., judge doesnot want to offend prospectivejurors by probing biases they might have) Other 3 2 l 3 2 41) What defensemotions are most problematic to presentingan effective case? , 7 42) Which of the following do you consider particularly problematic in the prosecutionof bias-motivated crimes: l Most Problematic Neutral Least Problematic Addressing mistrust of criminal justice system by African-American victims of bias-motivated crimes Addressing mistrust of criminal justice system by immigrant victims of bias-motivated crimes Diffusing stereotypicalviews of victims held by important actors in the trial (e.g., judge, jurors) The investigation/handling of physical evidence when religiously significant objects/structuresare damaged Countering “homosexualpanic”’ defensesin cases involving homosexualsas victims Prosecuting domesticviolence as bias-motivated crimes (e.g., attacksby parents against children who are believed to be homosexual) Prosecution of violence against women as biasmotivated crimes Other l l l l l l l Section V. 43) Sentencing Severe 5 4 Moderate 3 2 Lenient 1 In general, how do you view sentencingpatterns for bias-motivated crime in your jurisdiction? What steps have beentaken by your office to recommendbias-motivatedcrime sentences are commensuratewith that the gravity of the crimes? 45) Do you believe that your jurisdiction offers adequate forms of alternative sentencingoptions (e.g., community service) for bias-motivated offenders? Yes No Pleaseexplain how suitable you believe these sentences for the offenses: are biases of judges andjurors, and rests 1 The homosexualpanic defense,generally, relies on the unconscious justification for an act of hate violence. Usually, in on their willingness to accept an ad hoc self-defense these defenses argumentwill be madethat the defendant respondingto a threateningsexual advance the was from the victim(s). In, Cook County State’s Attorney Office’s “A Prosecutor’s Guide to Hate Crime.” (1994) pg. VIII-9. 8 46) Has YOurjurisdiction taken any special stepstoward working with groups seenas potential victims of bias-motivated activity? If yes, please explain: Yes No 47) What types of support doesthe prosecutor’soffice consider most important for bias-motivatedcrime victims: l Important Neutral Not Important Referral of victim to victim-witness assistance specialists Protection of victim from retaliation by offender Other 3 3 3 2 2 2 . 1 1 1 l l 48) Does your office provide any specializedservices to the victims of bias-motivatedcrimes? SectionVII. 49 Recommendations What recommendationsdo you have to improve the bias-motivatedcrime statutesin your state? 50) What recommendationsdo you have to improve the effectivenessof the administration of these laws? Thank you for your time and cooperation in completing this questionnaire! 9 APPENDIX B Survey of Prosecutors to Determine Reasons for Non-responding to the National Survey AMERICAN PROSECUTORS RESEARCH INSTITUTE Prosecution of Bias-Motivated Crimes Respondent Information Name: Title: Jurisdiction: Address: Telephone: 1) Why were you unable to participate in APRI’s survey on bias-motivated crime? (Please check ail that apply). State does not have a bias-motivated crime statute. Bias-motivated crime statute exists, but is being challenged on First Amendment grounds. Personnel and time constraints do not allow for the completion of mail surveys. No bias-motivated crimes have been reported in the jurisdiction. Bias-motivated crimes were committed, but the,jurisdiction did not prosecute. Do not feel comfortable completing the survey because of limited experience in prosecuting bias motivated crimes. Other (please specify) 2) If you would like to complete the original, detailed survey on bias-motivated crime prosecution, please check yes below, and return this form in the enclosed stamped, addressedenvelope. Yes No