Mulvey, Edward P. Research on Pathways to Desistance [Maricopa County, AZ and Philadelphia County, PA]: Calendar Data, 2000-2010 [Restricted]. ICPSR32282-v3. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2017-03-27. https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR32282.v3
Persistent URL: https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR32282.v3
- RIS (generic format for RefWorks, EndNote, etc.)
- EndNote XML (EndNote X4.0.1 or higher)
Smallest Geographic Unit:
Date of Collection:
- 2000-11--2003-01 (Baseline)
- 2001-05--2003-08 (6-month Follow-up)
- 2001-08--2004-03 (12-month Follow-up)
- 2002-05--2004-09 (18-month Follow-up)
- 2002-11--2005-02 (24-month Follow-up)
- 2003-05--2005-09 (30--month Follow-up)
- 2003-11--2006-04 (36-month Follow-up)
- 2004-12--2007-04 (48-month Follow-up)
- 2005-11--2008-03 (60-month Follow-up)
- 2006-11--2009-02 (72-month Follow-up)
- 2007-11--2010-03 (84-month Follow-up)
Unit of Observation:
Youths 14-19 years of age from the juvenile and adult court systems in Maricopa County (Phoenix), Arizona, and Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania from November 2000 to April 2003.
Data Collection Notes:
More information about this study is available on the Pathways to Desistance Web site.
Other contributors to the Pathways to Desistance study:
- Carol A. Schubert, University of Pittsburgh (Study Director)
- Laurie Chassin, Ph.D., Arizona State University (Co-Investigator)
- George P. Knight, Ph.D., Arizona State University (Co-Investigator)
- Sandra Losoya, Ph.D., Arizona State University (Site Coordinator)
- Laurence Steinberg, Ph.D., Temple University (Co-Investigator)
- Robert Brame, Ph.D., University of North Carolina-Charlotte
- Elizabeth Cauffman, Ph.D., University of California-Irvine (Co-Investigator)
- Jeffrey Fagan, Ph.D., Columbia University
- Alex Piquero, Ph.D., Florida State University
A user guide is available that provides a general synopsis of how the individual files are organized and related, and also what is contained within each study part.
On the Pathways to Desistance Web site there is a section that goes into further detail about what is contained in the 13 domain content codebooks. Within the link for each domain there is a PDF document that provides further explanation of the variables for that specific calendar and the decision making process the Principal Investigators made.
Part #21, Living Calendar by Linear Month, and Part #23, Living Calendar by Recall Period, contain additional repeating variables that provide detailed geography information. Details of these five repeating variables are explained in the User Guide.
All variables with a date format were changed to be string variables. The two sets of variables S#QSTADAT (Start date of interview) for all files, and L#REALDATE (Calendar date mapped to linear month) or S#REALDATE## (Calendar date mapped to recall period month) for the By Linear Month and By Month files respectively also had the value labels and missing values designation removed. The formats of these variables should be changed back to a date format prior to use. Please consult the User Guide for additional information about the value labels for missing values.
The PDF codebooks for each data part follow the information contained in the User Guide. Bookmarks reflect major and sub-headings. For each section of the codebook decisions were made intentionally as to how the variables would be displayed. String, date, ID, and common repeating variables have their frequency tables suppressed. Categorical variables show the frequency table but do not contain summary statistics. Numerical variables will display summary statistics but have had the frequency table suppressed.
Six juvenile justice systems were examined for potential inclusion in the study. Philadelphia County and Maricopa County (Phoenix) were selected as data collection sites for the following reasons:(a) high enough rates of serious crime committed by juveniles; (b) a diverse racial/ethnic mix of potential participants; (c) a sizable enough number of female offenders; (d) a contrast in the way the systems operate; (e) political support for the study and cooperation from the practitioners in the juvenile and criminal justice systems; and (f) the presence of experienced research collaborators to oversee the data collection.
Youth were selected for potential enrollment after a review of court files in each locale revealed that they had been adjudicated (found guilty) of a serious offense. Eligible crimes included all felony offenses with the exception of less serious property crimes, as well as misdemeanor weapons offenses and misdemeanor sexual assault.
Drug offenses constitute a large proportion of all offenses committed by youth. And males comprise the vast majority of youth who are charged with drug offenses. Therefore the study instituted a capped proportion of males with drug offenses to 15 percent of the sample at each site.
All females who met the age and adjudicated crime requirements, or any youth whose case was being considered for trial in the adult court system, were eligible for enrollment regardless if the charged crime was a drug offense.
Mode of Data Collection:
During the enrollment period (November 2000 to January 2003) 10,461 individuals who met the age and petitioned charge criteria were processed in the court systems in Philadelphia and Phoenix. In 5,382 of these cases (51 percent) the youth was found not guilty or had the charges reduced below a felony-level offense at adjudication. Another 1,272 cases were dropped (12 percent) from consideration because the court data were insufficient to determine the person's eligibility status at adjudication.
Of the remaining 3,807 eligible cases 1,799 (47 percent) were excluded from consideration due to potential case overload of the local interviewer or the 15 percent threshold of drug offenders was close to being breached.
This resulted in 2,008 youths who were approached for inclusion into the study. Of those youths who were approached 1,354 consented and participated (67 percent).
Over the course of the 7-year follow-up period, there were 864 respondents (63.8 percent) were located and interviewed for 10 of 10 possible interviews. An additional 309 youths (22.8 percent) were located and interviewed for 8 or 9 out of 10 possible interviews. Conversely, there were 17 (1.3 percent) respondents who didn't participate in any additional surveys and another 22 (1.6 percent) who only were located and interviewed for just 1 or 2 follow-up of the 10 possible follow-up interviews. These numbers do not adjust for 91 participants who either died (n=48) or refused continued participation (n=43) of the study over the course of the 7-year follow-up period.
Overall the study was able to achieve an average of 89.5 percent for each follow-up interview.
Extent of Processing: 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.