Metadata record for Changing Patterns of Homicide and Social Policy in Philadelphia, Phoenix, and St. Louis, 1980-1994 Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research ICPSR metadata records are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 United States License . 2013-05-26 Changing Patterns of Homicide and Social Policy in Philadelphia, Phoenix, and St. Louis, 1980-1994 2729 10.3886/ICPSR02729.v1 Zahn, Margaret A. United States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. National Institute of Justice 95-IJ-CX-0115 Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research 1999-12-29 2006-03-30 2006-03-30 File CB2729.ALL.PDF was removed from any previous datasets and flagged as a study-level file, so that it will accompany all downloads. 2005-11-04 2005-11-04 On 2005-03-14 new files were added to one or more datasets. These files included additional setup files as well as one or more of the following: SAS program, SAS transport, SPSS portable, and Stata system files. The metadata record was revised 2005-11-04 to reflect these additions. Zahn, Margaret A. Changing Patterns of Homicide and Social Policy in Philadelphia, Phoenix, and St. Louis, 1980-1994. ICPSR02729-v1. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 1999. doi:10.3886/ICPSR02729.v1 crime patterns homicide offenders police records victims NACJD.XIV ICPSR.XVII.E NACJD.VII This study sought to assess changes in the volume and types of homicide committed in Philadelphia, Phoenix, and St. Louis from 1980 to 1994 and to document the nature of those changes. Three of the eight cities originally studied by Margaret Zahn and Marc Riedel (NATURE AND PATTERNS OF HOMICIDE IN EIGHT AMERICAN CITIES, 1978 [ICPSR 8936]) were revisited for this data collection. In each city, police records were coded for each case of homicide occurring in the city each year from 1980 to 1994. Homicide data for St. Louis were provided by the St. Louis Homicide Project with Scott Decker and Richard Rosenfeld as the principal investigators. Variables describing the event cover study site, year of the case, date and time of assault, location of fatal injury, method used to kill the victim, and circumstances surrounding the death. Variables pertaining to offenders include total number of homicide and assault victims, number of offenders arrested, number of offenders identified, and disposition of event for offenders. Variables on victims focus on whether the victim was killed at work, if the victim was using drugs or alcohol, the victim's blood alcohol level, and the relationship of the victim to the offender. Demographic variables include age, sex, race, and marital status of victims and offenders. Although homicide rates declined in many cities in the late 1990s, the rate of homicide in cities with populations over 250,000 increased significantly during the 1980s. In addition, there were major changes in the characteristics of homicide. The most striking changes involved the increase in homicide victimization and offending among young males, especially those 18 and under. At the same time, research on homicide has pointed to, but not fully documented, the importance of community characteristics in relation to changing levels of violence. Theoretical advances have suggested that it is important to locate events in their cultural context and to examine changes in context and the resulting patterns of violence. The researchers undertook a multiple-city study of homicide rather than a single-city study to allow for better generalizability regarding patterns of homicide and circumstances that trigger changes in patterns. Further, by examining the problem from an individual, case-level perspective, the study sought to assess changes in volume and types of homicide over time and to document the nature of those changes. In an earlier study by Margaret Zahn and Marc Riedel (NATURE AND PATTERNS OF HOMICIDE IN EIGHT AMERICAN CITIES, 1978 [ICPSR 8936]), data were collected on homicide in eight cities representing the four regions of the United States. These sites had representative overall patterns of homicide for large cities in their regions. Initially, this study was to return to four of the eight cities, with one city again representing each region: Philadelphia in the Northeast, St.Louis in the Midwest, Dallas in the South, and Phoenix in the West. However, Dallas was dropped and only three of the original eight cities were retained because (1) the researchers had maintained contact with personnel in Philadelphia, Phoenix, and St. Louis, which facilitated securing the data from those sources, (2) these cities had witnessed substantial increases in the homicide rate, and each had demonstrated changes in patterns of the victim-offender relationship, as measured by the limited Uniform Crime Report data, and (3) cost prohibited research in more sites. In each city, police records were coded for each case of homicide occurring in the city each year from 1980 to 1994. Collecting information on all homicide events rather than sampling cases had two major advantages. First, sampling could produce inadvertent biases in types of cases and/or too few cases of a particular type for analysis purposes. Second, analysis of the universe of cases in each site enabled direct comparability with databases that were collected under other auspices and included all cases over multiple years. Selected variables salient to understanding homicide were measured in order to examine changes in the nature of homicide in urban areas. Variables describing the event cover study site, year of the case, date and time of assault, location of fatal injury, method used to kill the victim, and circumstances surrounding the death. Variables pertaining to offenders include total number of homicide and assault victims, number of offenders arrested, number of offenders identified, and disposition of event for offenders. Variables on victims focus on whether the victim was killed at work, if the victim was using drugs or alcohol, the victim's blood alcohol level, and the relationship of the victim to the offender. Demographic variables include age, sex, race, and marital status of victims and offenders. 1980 1994 1995 1998 Arizona Missouri Pennsylvania Philadelphia Phoenix St. Louis United States Individuals. Homicide cases in Philadelphia, Phoenix, and St. Louis during 1980-1994. administrative records data homicide records from Philadelphia, Phoenix, and St. Louis police departments

ICPSR data undergo a confidentiality review and are altered when necessary to limit the risk of disclosure. ICPSR also routinely creates ready-to-go data files along with setups in the major statistical software formats as well as standard codebooks to accompany the data. In addition to these procedures, ICPSR performed the following processing steps for this data collection:

Standardized missing values.Checked for undocumented or out-of-range codes. For Part 1, Philadelphia Data, face sheets were used in 1981, 1982, 1984, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1991, and 1993 as opposed to full case files. For these years, some variables have an excessive amount of missing data. Users should exercise caution when analyzing the data for those years, specifically with respect to victim-offender relationship, circumstance, and drug or alcohol use by the victim. Data on alcohol and drug use by victims are not available for St. Louis. Users of Part 2, St. Louis Data, must acknowledge that the data were supplied to this project by the St. Louis Homicide Project. Not applicable. None. Ann Arbor, Mi.: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research Additional special permissions, where applicable, are described in the restrictions field.

Please read the terms of use below. If you agree to them, click on the "I Agree" button to proceed. If you do not agree, you can click on the "I Do Not Agree" button to return to the home page.

ICPSR adheres to the principles of the Data Seal of Approval , which, in part, require the data consumer to comply with access regulations imposed both by law and by the data repository, and to conform to codes of conduct that are generally accepted in higher education and scientific research for the exchange of knowledge and information.

These data are distributed under the following terms of use, which are governed by ICPSR. By continuing past this point to the data retrieval process, you signify your agreement to comply with the requirements stated below:

Privacy of RESEARCH SUBJECTS

Any intentional identification of a RESEARCH SUBJECT (whether an individual or an organization) or unauthorized disclosure of his or her confidential information violates the PROMISE OF CONFIDENTIALITY given to the providers of the information. Therefore, users of data agree:

To use these datasets solely for research or statistical purposes and not for investigation of specific RESEARCH SUBJECTS, except when identification is authorized in writing by ICPSR (netmail@icpsr.umich.edu )

To make no use of the identity of any RESEARCH SUBJECT discovered inadvertently, and to advise ICPSR of any such discovery (netmail@icpsr.umich.edu )

 Redistribution of Data

You agree not to redistribute data or other materials without the written agreement of ICPSR, unless:

You serve as the OFFICIAL or DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE at an ICPSR MEMBER INSTITUTION and are assisting AUTHORIZED USERS with obtaining data, or

You are collaborating with other AUTHORIZED USERS to analyze the data for research or instructional purposes.

When sharing data or other materials in these approved ways, you must include all accompanying files with the data, including terms of use. More information on permission to redistribute data can be found on the ICPSR Web site.

Citing Data

You agree to reference the recommended bibliographic citation in any publication that employs resources provided by ICPSR. Authors of publications based on ICPSR data are required to send citations of their published works to ICPSR for inclusion in a database of related publications (bibliography@icpsr.umich.edu ) .

Disclaimer

You acknowledge that the original collector of the data, ICPSR, and the relevant funding agency bear no responsibility for use of the data or for interpretations or inferences based upon such uses.

Violations

If ICPSR determines that the terms of this agreement have been violated, ICPSR will act according to our policy on terms of use violations . Sanctions can include:

ICPSR may revoke the existing agreement, demand the return of the data in question, and deny all future access to ICPSR data.

The violation may be reported to the Research Integrity Officer, Institutional Review Board, or Human Subjects Review Committee of the user's institution. A range of sanctions are available to institutions including revocation of tenure and termination.

If the confidentiality of human subjects has been violated, the case may be reported to the Federal Office for Human Research Protections. This may result in an investigation of the user's institution, which can result in institution-wide sanctions including the suspension of all research grants.

A court may award the payment of damages to any individual(s)/organization(s) harmed by the breach of the agreement.

 Definitions authorized user - A faculty member, staff member, or student at a member institutionICPSR - Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Researchmember institution - An institutional member of ICPSROfficial/Designated Representative - An individual appointed to represent a university's interests in ICPSR. This individual is also charged with providing user support to campus users. promise of confidentiality - A promise to a respondent or research participant that the information the respondent provides will not be disseminated without the permission of the respondent; that the fact that the respondent participated in the study will not be disclosed; and that disseminated information will include no linkages to the identity of the respondent. Such a promise encompasses traditional notions of both confidentiality and anonymity. Names and other identifying information regarding respondents, proxies, or other persons on whom the respondent or proxy provides information, are presumed to be confidential.research subject - A person or organization observed for purposes of research. Also called a respondent. A respondent is generally a survey respondent or informant, experimental or observational subject, focus group participant, or any other person providing information to a study or on whose behalf a proxy provides information.

In addition, the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data stipulates the following conditions:

Federal law and regulations require that research data collected by the U.S. Department of Justice or by its grantees and contractors may only be used for research or statistical purposes. The applicable laws and regulations may be found in the United States Code, 42 USC Section 3789g(a), the Code of Federal Regulations, 28 CFR 22, and 62 F.R. 35044 (June 27, 1997) (The Federal Confidentiality Order). Accordingly, any intentional identification or disclosure of a person or establishment may violate federal law as well as the assurances of confidentiality given to the providers of the information. Therefore, users of data collected by or with the support from the U.S. Department of Justice and distributed by NACJD or other ICPSR archives must agree to abide by these regulations and understand that ICPSR may report any potential violation to the U.S. Department of Justice.

AVAILABLE. This study is freely available to the general public.

 The original collector of the data, ICPSR, and the relevant funding agency bear no responsibility for use of the data or for interpretations or inferences based upon such uses. Philadelphia Data Phoenix Data St. Louis Data