Search results

Showing 1 – 50 of 158 results.

Curated

Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring II in the United States, 2011 (ICPSR 34362)

Released/updated on: 2013-06-13

Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Oregon, District of Columbia, Charlotte, Sacramento, Indiana, United States, Chicago, Minnesota, California, New York (state), New York City, Minneapolis, Atlanta, Illinois, Colorado, Portland (Oregon), Denver, Georgia, Indianapolis

Time period: 2011-04-01--2011-09-01

The Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring II, 2011, is a collection of interview and bioassay data on over 5000 arrestees in 10 United States counties within 48 hours of their arrest. The collection took place between April 1 and September 30, 2011 and represents the fifth year of ADAM II data collection under the sponsorship of the Office of National Drug Control Policy. The 10 current ADAM II sites are: Atlanta, GA (Fulton County); Charlotte, NC (Mecklenburg County); Chicago, IL (Cook County); Denver, CO (Denver County); Indianapolis, IN (Marion County); Minneapolis, MN (Hennepin County); New York, NY (Borough of Manhattan); Portland, OR (Multnomah County); Sacramento, CA (Sacramento County); and Washington, DC (District of Columbia). In 2011, 5,051 interviews and 4,412 urine tests were conducted in the 10 ADAM II sites over 14 consecutive days in each of two calendar quarters between April 1 and September 30. The samples across these sites represent 35,459 adult males arrested in the 10 sites during the data collection period. Demographic variables include arrest date and time, gender, date of birth, number and types of offenses, county of arrest, race, education, work status, and language of interview.

Curated

Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring II in the United States, 2012 (Restricted Use) (ICPSR 34821)

Released/updated on: 2013-08-29

Geographic coverage: New York City, Sacramento, United States, Chicago, Atlanta, Illinois, Colorado, Denver, California, Georgia, New York (state)

Time period: 2012-04-30--2012-07-29

The Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring II, 2012 is a collection of interview and bioassay data provided by over 3000 arrestees from five county sites within the United States. Under the sponsorship of the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), the ADAM II program monitors drug use and related behaviors (treatment experiences, housing stability, drug market activity, age at first use, employment, etc.) in a probability based sample of male adult arrestees within 48 hours of their arrest. The five ADAM II sites for 2012 were: Atlanta, GA (Fulton County and the City of Atlanta); Chicago, IL (Cook County); Denver, CO (Denver County); New York, NY (Borough of Manhattan); and Sacramento, CA (Sacramento County). The 2012 survey represents the sixth year of ADAM II and includes data from 1,938 interviews and 1,736 urine tests that were conducted at the five ADAM II sites over a 21-day period, between April 30 and July 29, 2012. The samples from these sites were weighted to represent over 14,000 arrests of adult males in the five counties. ADAM II data include official records, arrestee responses from a 20-minute face-to-face interview, and results from voluntary urine samples which tested for the presence of nine different drugs. Identifying information on the arrestees was not retained or shared with law enforcement. Demographic variables include age, gender, race, arrest date and time, county of arrest, number and type(s) of offense(s), education, work status, and language of interview.

Curated

Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring II in the United States, 2013 (Restricted Use) (ICPSR 35169)

Released/updated on: 2014-08-01

Geographic coverage: New York City, Sacramento, United States, Chicago, Atlanta, Illinois, Colorado, Denver, California, Georgia, New York (state)

Time period: 2013-05-05--2013-07-28

The Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring II, 2013 is a collection of interview and bioassay data provided by over 3000 arrestees from five county sites within the United States. Under the sponsorship of the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), the ADAM II program monitors drug use and related behaviors (treatment experiences, housing stability, drug market activity, age at first use, employment, etc.) in a probability based sample of male adult arrestees within 48 hours of their arrest. The five ADAM II sites for 2013 were: Atlanta, GA (Fulton County and the City of Atlanta); Chicago, IL (Cook County); Denver, CO (Denver County); New York, NY (Borough of Manhattan); and Sacramento, CA (Sacramento County). The 2013 survey represents the seventh year of ADAM II and includes data from 1,900 interviews and 1,681 urine tests that were conducted at the five ADAM II sites over a 21-day period, between May 5, 2013 and July 28, 2013. ADAM II data include official records, arrestee responses from a 20-minute face-to-face interview, and results from voluntary urine samples which tested for the presence of nine different drugs. Identifying information on the arrestees was not retained or shared with law enforcement. Demographic variables include age, gender, race, citizenship, marital status, arrest date and time, county of arrest, number and type(s) of offense(s), education, work status, and language of interview.

Curated

Boston Police Department Domestic Violence Research Project, 1993-1994 (ICPSR 6483)

Released/updated on: 2006-01-12

Geographic coverage: United States, Massachusetts, Boston

The Domestic Violence Research Project was a pilot study designed to examine the dynamics of domestic violence within two of the ten police districts that comprise the city of Boston. The objectives were to collect data on domestic violence in greater detail than previously possible, conduct various analyses on this information, and determine how the findings could best be used to improve the police, prosecutorial, and social service responses to domestic violence. Data for 1993 are a stratified random sample of reported domestic violence incidents occurring throughout the year. The sample represents approximately 27 percent of the domestic violence incidents reported in 1993 for the two districts studied, B3 and D4. The 1994 data include all reported incidents occurring in the two districts during the period May to July. After the incident selection process was completed, data were collected from police incident reports, follow-up investigation reports, criminal history reports, and court dockets. Variables include arrest offenses, time of incident, location of incident, witnesses (including children), nature and extent of injuries, drug and alcohol use, history of similar incidents, whether there were restraining orders in effect, and basic demographic information on victims and offenders. Criminal history information was coded into five distinct categories: (1) violent offenses, (2) nonviolent offenses, (3) domestic violence offenses, (4) drug/alcohol offenses, and (5) firearms offenses.

Curated

Changing Patterns of Drug Abuse and Criminality Among Crack Cocaine Users in New York City: Criminal Histories and Criminal Justice System Processing, 1983-1984, 1986 (ICPSR 9790)

Released/updated on: 2005-11-04

Geographic coverage: New York City, United States, New York (state)

Time period: 1983-01-01--1984-01-01

This data collection compares a sample of persons arrested for offenses related to crack cocaine with a sample arrested for offenses related to powdered cocaine. The collection is one of two parts of a study designed to examine the characteristics of crack users and sellers, the impact of large numbers of crack-related offenders on the criminal justice system, and their effects on drug treatment and community programs. Official arrest records and supplementary data bases are used to analyze the official arrest, conviction, and incarceration histories of powdered cocaine and crack defendants. Questions addressed by the collection include: (1) How are defendants charged with crack-related offenses different from defendants charged with offenses related to powdered cocaine? (2) Is there a difference between the ways the criminal justice system handles crack offenders and powdered cocaine offenders in pretrial detention, charges filed, case dispositions, and sentencing? (3) How do the criminal careers of crack offenders compare with the criminal careers of powdered cocaine offenders, especially in terms of total arrest rates, frequencies of nondrug crimes, and frequencies of violent crimes? (4) Is violence more strongly associated with crack dealing than with powdered cocaine dealing? and (5) How does the developmental history of powdered cocaine sales and possession compare with the history of crack sales and possession? Variables include demographic information such as gender, residence, and race, arrest, conviction, and incarceration histories, prior criminal record, community ties, and court outcomes of the arrests.

Curated

Continuity and Change in Criminal Offending by California Youth Authority Parolees Released 1965-1984 (ICPSR 3136)

Released/updated on: 2005-11-04

Geographic coverage: United States, California

Time period: 1965-01-01--1991-01-01

This research project used longitudinal data on 524 serious male juvenile offenders released from California Youth Authority (CYA) institutions from 1965-1984 to examine the relationship between changes in local life circumstances (marriage, employment, drug use, alcohol use, street time) and criminal offending. In particular, the project extended previous research on criminal careers by developing and applying an empirical model that accounted for the joint distribution of violent and nonviolent criminal offending by parolees in their late teens to mid-20s, during a newly recognized developmental period of the life course termed "emerging adulthood." The individuals were released from the CYA at various ages from the late teens to early 20s, but were all followed for a seven-year post-parole period. For each individual, the researchers obtained information on counts of criminal arrests as well as information on exposure time. Violent arrests included murder, rape, aggravated assault, robbery, and other person offenses such as extortion and kidnapping. Nonviolent arrests included burglary, receiving stolen property, grand theft, forgery, and grand theft auto. Within each year, individuals were coded as "free" for the number of months that they were not serving time in jail, prison, or CYA detention. Involvement of the following life circumstances was recorded: (1) alcohol use, (2) heroin use, (3) full-time employment, and (4) marriage. A "month-score" indicating how many months the parolee was employed full-time during the course of each of the seven years of observation was also recorded. Offenders were assumed to have maintained the same status unless a change was noted in the California Department of Corrections files. In addition, the researchers developed an index to gauge an offender's stake in conformity by combining the life circumstances of marriage and full-time employment. Variables in the data include year of follow-up, race, age during that year of follow-up, number of months not serving time, stake in conformity index score, and number of arrests for violent offenses, nonviolent offenses, and total offenses. Dummy variables are provided on alcohol use, heroin use, use of mind-altering drugs, use of uppers/downers, dependence on alcohol or heroin, marital status, common-law marriage, and employment.

Curated

Crime Control Effects of Prosecuting Intimate Partner Violence in Hamilton County, Ohio, 1993-1998 (ICPSR 25929)

Released/updated on: 2011-06-27

Geographic coverage: United States, Ohio

Time period: 1993-01-01--1998-01-01

The purpose of this research was to improve understanding of the conditions under which criminal sanctions do and do not reduce repeat violence between intimate partners. This study involved repeated reading and close inspection of four documents in order to compare and contrast the multivariate analyses reported by John Wooldredge and Amy Thistlethwaite (RECONSIDERING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE RECIDIVISM: INDIVIDUAL AND CONTEXTUAL EFFECTS OF COURT DISPOSITIONS AND STAKE IN CONFORMITY IN HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO, 1993-1998 [ICPSR 3013]). The first part of this study's design involved the detailed literature review of four Wooldredge and Thistlethwaite publications between the years 1999 and 2005. The second element of the study's design required researchers to gain a detailed understanding of the archived data using the documentation provided by Wooldredge. The third element of the study's secondary analysis research design involved using the identified variables to reproduce the multivariate empirical findings about the effects of sanctions, stakes, and social context on repeat offending. These findings were presented in a series of tables in the four Wooldredge and Thistlethwaite publications. After numerous iterations of reading reports and documentation and exploring alternative measures and methods, researchers produced a report detailing their ability to reproduce Wooldredge and Thistlethwaite's descriptive measures. This study's design called for using explicit criteria for determining the extent to which Wooldredge and Thistlethwaite's findings could be reproduced. Researchers developed and applied three criteria for making that determination. The first was a simple comparison of the regression coefficients and standard errors. The second criterion was a determination of whether the reproduced results conformed to the direction and statistical significance levels of the original analyses. The third criterion was to apply a statistical test to assess the significance of any differences in the sizes of the original and the reproduced coefficients. The data archived by Wooldredge provided seven dichotomous measures of criminal sanctions (no charges filed, dismissed, acquitted, a treatment program, probation only, jail only, and a combination of probation and jail). Part of the design of this study was to go beyond reproducing Wooldredge and Thistlethwaite's approaches and to reformulate the available measures of criminal sanctions to more directly test the prosecution, conviction, and sentence severity hypotheses. The researchers produced these tests by constructing three new measures of criminal sanctions (prosecution, conviction, and sanction severity) and testing each of them in separate multivariate models. The Part 1 (Hamilton County, Ohio, Census Tract Data) data file contains 206 cases and 35 variables. The Part 2 (Neighborhood Data) data file contains 47 cases and 12 variables. The variables in Part 1 (Hamilton County, Ohio, Census Tract Data) include a census tract indicator, median household income of tract, several proportions such as number of college graduates in the tract and corresponding Z-scores, a regression factor score for analysis 1, a socio-economic factor, a census tract number for the city of Cincinnati, Ohio, and a Cincinnati neighborhoods indicator. Variables in Part 2 (Neighborhood Data) include a neighborhood indicator, average age in the neighborhood, demographic proportions such as proportion male in the neighborhood and proportion of college graduates in the neighborhood, and a social class factor.

Curated

Crime Control Effects of Sentencing in Essex County, New Jersey, 1976-1997 (ICPSR 2857)

Released/updated on: 2005-11-04

Geographic coverage: United States, New Jersey

Time period: 1976-01-01--1997-01-01

This study was undertaken to examine the ways in which different felony sanctions impact the future behavior of felony offenders. The study sought to determine whether the following made a difference in subsequent criminal behavior: (1) sentences of confinement, (2) the length of sentence (both the sentence imposed and that which was actually served), and (3) sentences of probation combined with jail ("split" sentences), or combined with fines, restitution, or other alternative sanctions. Data were collected from questionnaires completed by 18 judges of the Essex County, New Jersey, courts and by probation staff. Follow-up data were collected from official records provided by probation, jail, prison, and parole case files. Follow-up data were also collected from the following official records: (1) the New Jersey Offender-Based Transaction System Computerized Criminal History, (2) the New Jersey Department of Corrections Offender-Based Correctional Information System, (3) the United States Department of Justice Interstate Identification Index, (4) the National Crime Information Center Wanted Persons File, (5) the New Jersey PROMIS/GAVEL Prosecutors Case Tracking System, and (6) administrative record files of the New Jersey Department of Corrections. Variables in the data file include the most serious offense charge, most serious offense of conviction, dimension of conviction, offense type (person, property, social order, fraud, or drug offense), number of prior probations, number of probation revocations, number of prior jail and prison terms, mitigating and aggravating factors affecting the sentence, type of sentence, special conditions of probation, fines and restitutions imposed, minimum and maximum incarceration terms (in months), history of drug offenses, type of drugs used, probation and parole violations, total number of prior arrests and prior convictions, and longest arrest-free period after first arrest. The type of post-sentence offense, dimension, disposition charge, sentence, and date of arrest are provided for arresting events and charge episodes 1 through 108 for any offender. For up to 43 arrest events (for any offender), the date of lockup and date of exit from confinement are provided. The file also includes recommendations made by prosecutors and probation officers, and judges' ratings (on a scale of one to nine) with respect to the likelihood of an offender committing future property crimes, crimes against persons, or any crime. Judges also rated the arrest record length, conviction record length, and social stability of each offender. Retribution points, incapacitation points, and specific deterrence points assigned by the judges complete the file. Demographic variables include the race and sex of each convicted offender, and the age of the offender at first conviction.

Curated

Partially restricted

Crime During the Transition to Adulthood: How Youth Fare As They Leave Out-of-Home Care in Illinois, Iowa, and Wisconsin, 2002-2007 (ICPSR 27062)

Released/updated on: 2010-12-14

Geographic coverage: Iowa, United States, Illinois, Wisconsin

Time period: 2002-05-01--2007-08-01

The purpose of the study was to examine criminal behavior and criminal justice system involvement among youth making the transition from out-of-home care to independent adulthood. The study collected data from two sources: (1) survey data from the Midwest Study of the Adult Functioning of Former Foster Youth (Midwest Study), and (2) official arrest data. The Midwest Study was a longitudinal panel study that was part of a collaborative effort of the state public child welfare agencies in Illinois, Iowa, and Wisconsin, Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago, and the University of Washington. The participating states funded and/or operated the full range of services supported by the Chafee Foster Care Independence Program. The Midwest Study survey data were collected directly from the youth in the sample every two years over three waves, between May 2002 and January 2007. A total of 732 respondents participated in at least one of the in-person interviews over the three waves. This data collection includes some variables that were directly measured from the original Midwest Study survey instrument and other variables that were computed or derived from variables in the original data for purposes of the current study. To supplement the survey data, the research team accessed official arrest data from each state for this study. Researchers obtained data on all criminal arrests that occurred between the respondents' Wave 1 interview and August 31, 2007, a date by which all of the study participants were at least 21 years old. The study contains a total of 85 variables including indicator variables, demographic and background variables, delinquency and crime variables, out-of-home care experiences variables, and social bonds variables.

Curated

Criminal Careers, Criminal Violence, and Substance Abuse in California, 1963-1983 (ICPSR 9964)

Released/updated on: 2006-03-30

Geographic coverage: United States, California

Time period: 1963-01-01--1983-01-01

The purpose of the study was to investigate the criminal career patterns of violent offenders. These data are intended to facilitate the development of models to predict recidivism and violence, and to construct parole supervision programs. Original data were collected on young male offenders in 1964 and 1965 as they entered the California Youth Authority (CYA). At this time, data were collected on criminal history, including current offenses, drug and alcohol use, psychological and personality variables, and sentencing, and demographics such as age, education, work experience, and family structure. The data collection also contains results from a number of standardized psychological instruments: California Psychological Inventory, Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory, California Achievement Test Battery, General Aptitude Test Battery, Army General Classification Test, and the Revised Beta Test. After release from the CYA and over the following 20 years, subsequent arrest information was collected on the offenders, including the nature of the offense, disposition, and arrest and parole dates.

Curated

Delinquency in a Birth Cohort in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 1945-1963 (ICPSR 7729)

Released/updated on: 2006-01-12

Geographic coverage: United States, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Time period: 1945-01-01--1963-01-01

The purpose of this study was to investigate the history of delinquency in a birth cohort--in particular, the age of onset of delinquent behavior and the progression or cessation of delinquency. Data were collected on a cohort of males born in 1945 and residing in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Information provided in the study includes demographic characteristics of the individuals studied, academic performance, offense information, demographic characteristics of victims of offenses, and criminal incident information.

Curated

Detection of Crime, Resource Deployment, and Predictors of Success: A Multi-Level Analysis of CCTV in Newark, New Jersey, 2007-2011 (ICPSR 34619)

Released/updated on: 2019-09-24

Geographic coverage: United States, Newark, New Jersey

Time period: 2007-11-01--2011-04-01

The Detection of Crime, Resource Deployment, and Predictors of Success: A Multi-Level Analysis of Closed-Circuit Television (CCTV) in Newark, NJ collection represents the findings of a multi-level analysis of the Newark, New Jersey Police Department's video surveillance system. This collection contains multiple quantitative data files (Datasets 1-14) as well as spatial data files (Dataset 15 and Dataset 16). The overall project was separated into three components:

Component 1 (Dataset 1, Individual CCTV Detections and Calls-For-Service Data and Dataset 2, Weekly CCTV Detections in Newark Data) evaluates CCTV's ability to increase the "certainty of punishment" in target areas;
Component 2 (Dataset 3, Overall Crime Incidents Data; Dataset 4, Auto Theft Incidents Data; Dataset 5, Property Crime Incidents Data; Dataset 6, Robbery Incidents Data; Dataset 7, Theft From Auto Incidents Data; Dataset 8, Violent Crime Incidents Data; Dataset 9, Attributes of CCTV Catchment Zones Data; Dataset 10, Attributes of CCTV Camera Viewsheds Data; and Dataset 15, Impact of Micro-Level Features Spatial Data) analyzes the context under which CCTV cameras best deter crime. Micro-level factors were grouped into five categories: environmental features, line-of-sight, camera design and enforcement activity (including both crime and arrests); and
Component 3 (Dataset 11, Calls-for-service Occurring Within CCTV Scheme Catchment Zones During the Experimental Period Data; Dataset 12, Calls-for-service Occurring Within CCTV Schemes During the Experimental Period Data; Dataset 13, Targeted Surveillances Conducted by the Experimental Operators Data; Dataset 14, Weekly Surveillance Activity Data; and Dataset 16, Randomized Controlled Trial Spatial Data) was a randomized, controlled trial measuring the effects of coupling proactive CCTV monitoring with directed patrol units.

Over 40 separate four-hour tours of duty, an additional camera operator was funded to monitor specific CCTV cameras in Newark. Two patrol units were dedicated solely to the operators and were tasked with exclusively responding to incidents of concern detected on the experimental cameras. Variables included throughout the datasets include police report and incident dates, crime type, disposition code, number of each type of incident that occurred in a viewshed precinct, number of CCTV detections that resulted in any police enforcement, and number of schools, retail stores, bars and public transit within the catchment zone.

Curated

Drug Abuse as a Predictor of Rearrest or Failure to Appear in Court in New York City, 1984 (ICPSR 9979)

Released/updated on: 2000-04-18

Geographic coverage: New York City, United States, New York (state)

Time period: 1984-04-01--1984-10-01

This data collection was undertaken to estimate the prevalence of drug use/drug use trends among booked arrestees in New York City and to analyze the relationship between drug use and crime. The data, which were collected over a six-month period, were generated from volunteer interviews with male arrestees, the analyses of their urine specimens, police and court records of prior criminal behavior and experience with the criminal justice system, and records of each arrestee's current case, including court warrants, rearrests, failures to appear, and court dispositions. Demographic variables include age, education, vocational training, marital status, residence, and employment. Items relating to prior and current drug use and drug dependency are provided, along with results from urinalysis tests for opiates, cocaine, PCP, and methadone. The collection also contains arrest data for index crimes and subsequent court records pertaining to those arrests (number of court warrants issued, number of pretrial rearrests, types of rearrests, failure to appear in court, and court dispositions), and prior criminal records (number of times arrested and convicted for certain offenses).

Curated

Drug Offending in Cleveland, Ohio Neighborhoods, 1990-1997 and 1999-2001 (ICPSR 3929)

Released/updated on: 2004-06-17

Geographic coverage: United States, Ohio, Cleveland

This study investigated changes in the geographic concentration of drug crimes in Cleveland from 1990 to 2001. The study looked at both the locations of drug incidents and where drug offenders lived in order to explore factors that bring residents from one neighborhood into other neighborhoods to engage in drug-related activities. This study was based on data collected for the 224 census tracts in Cleveland, Ohio, in the 1990 decennial Census for the years 1990 to 1997 and 1999 to 2001. Data on drug crimes for 1990 to 1997 and 1999 to 2001 were obtained from Cleveland Police Department (CPD) arrest records and used to produce counts of the number of drug offenses that occurred in each tract in each year and the number of arrestees for drug offenses who lived in each tract. Other variables include counts and rates of other crimes committed in each census tract in each year, the social characteristics and housing conditions of each census tract, and net migration for each census tract.

Curated

Early Identification of the Serious Habitual Juvenile Offender Using a Birth Cohort in Philadelphia, 1958-1984 (ICPSR 2312)

Released/updated on: 2008-04-04

Geographic coverage: United States, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Time period: 1958-01-01--1984-01-01

Beginning in the mid-1980s, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) funded the creation of Habitual Offender Units (HOUs) in 13 cities. HOUs were created to prosecute habitual juvenile offenders by deploying the most experienced attorneys to handle these cases from start to finish. By targeting the earliest points in the career sequence of the juvenile offenders, the greatest number of serious offenses can potentially be averted. Selection criteria to qualify for priority prosecution by an HOU usually encompassed one or more generic components relating to aspects of a juvenile's present and prior offense record. In Philadelphia, to be designated a serious habitual offender and to qualify for priority prosecution by the HOU, a youth had to have two or more prior adjudications or open cases for specific felonies, as well as a current arrest for a specified felony. The first three police contacts in a Philadelphia juvenile offender's record were of special interest because they included the earliest point (i.e., the third contact) at which a youth could be prosecuted in the Philadelphia HOU, under their selection criteria. The main objectives of this study were to determine how well the selection criteria identified serious habitual offenders and which variables, reflecting HOU selection criteria, criminal histories, and personal characteristics, were most strongly and consistently related to the frequency and seriousness of future juvenile and young adult offending. To accomplish this, an assessment was conducted using a group of juveniles born in 1958 whose criminal career outcomes were already known. Applying the HOU selection criteria to this group made it possible to determine the extent to which the criteria identified future habitual offending. Data for the analyses were obtained from a birth cohort of Black and white males born in 1958 who resided in Philadelphia from their 10th through their 18th birthdays. Criminal careers represent police contacts for the juvenile years and arrests for the young adult years, for which police contacts and arrests are synonymous. The 40 dependent variables were computed using 5 different criminal career aspects for 4 crime type groups for 2 age intervals. The data also contain various dummy variables related to prior offenses, including type of offense, number of prior offenses, disposition of the offenses, age at first prior offense, seriousness of first prior offense, weapon used, and whether it was a gang-related offense. Dummy variables pertaining to the current offenses include type of offense, number of crime categories, number of charges, number of offenders, gender, race, and age of offenders, type of intimidation used, weapons used, number of crime victims, gender, race, and age of victims, type of injury to victim, type of victimization, characteristics of offense site, type of complainant, and police response. Percentile of the offender's socioeconomic status is also provided. Continuous variables include age at first prior offense, age at most recent prior offense, age at current offense, and average age of victims.

Curated

Effectiveness of Alternative Victim Assistance Service Delivery Models in the San Diego Region, 1993-1994 (ICPSR 2789)

Released/updated on: 2006-03-30

Geographic coverage: San Diego, United States, California

Time period: 1993-01-01--1994-01-01

This study had a variety of aims: (1) to assess the needs of violent crime victims, (2) to document the services that were available to violent crime victims in the San Diego region, (3) to assess the level of service utilization by different segments of the population, (4) to determine how individuals cope with victimization and how coping ability varies as a function of victim and crime characteristics, (5) to document the set of factors related to satisfaction with the criminal justice system, (6) to recommend improvements in the delivery of services to victims, and (7) to identify issues for future research. Data were collected using five different survey instruments. The first survey was sent to over 3,000 violent crime victims over the age of 16 and to approximately 60 homicide witnesses and survivors in the San Diego region (Part 1, Initial Victims' Survey Data). Of the 718 victims who returned the initial survey, 330 victims were recontacted six months later (Part 2, Follow-Up Victims' Survey Data). Respondents in Part 1 were asked what type of violent crime occurred, whether they sustained injury, whether they received medical treatment, what the nature of their relationship to the suspect was, and if the suspect had been arrested. Respondents for both Parts 1 and 2 were asked which service providers, if any, contacted them at the time of the incident or afterwards. Respondents were also asked what type of services they needed and received at the time of the incident or afterwards. Respondents in Part 2 rated the overall service and helpfulness of the information received at the time of the incident and after, and their level of satisfaction regarding contact with the police, prosecutor, and judge handling their case. Respondents in Part 2 were also asked what sort of financial loss resulted from the incident, and whether federal, state, local, or private agencies provided financial assistance to them. Finally, respondents in Part 1 and Part 2 were asked about the physical and psychological effects of their victimization. Demographic variables for Part 1 and Part 2 include the marital status, employment status, and type of job of each violent crime victim/witness/survivor. Part 1 also includes the race, sex, and highest level of education of each respondent. Police and court case files were reviewed six months after the incident occurred for each initial sample case. Data regarding victim and incident characteristics were collected from original arrest reports, jail booking screens, and court dockets (Part 3, Tracking Data). The variables for Part 3 include the total number of victims, survivors, and witnesses of violent crimes, place of attack, evidence collected, and which service providers were at the scene of the crime. Part 3 also includes a detailed list of the services provided to the victim/witness/survivor at the scene of the crime and after. These services included counseling, explanation of medical and police procedures, self-defense and crime prevention classes, food, clothing, psychological/psychiatric services, and help with court processes. Additional Part 3 variables cover circumstances of the incident, initial custody status of suspects, involvement of victims and witnesses at hearings, and case outcome, including disposition and sentencing. The race, sex, and age of each victim/witness/survivor are also recorded in Part 3 along with the same demographics for each suspect. Data for Part 4, Intervention Programs Survey Data, were gathered using a third survey, which was distributed to members of the three following intervention programs: (1) the San Diego Crisis Intervention Team, (2) the EYE Counseling and Crisis Services, Crisis and Advocacy Team, and (3) the District Attorney's Victim-Witness Assistance Program. A modified version of the survey with a subset of the original questions was administered one year later to members of the San Diego Crisis Intervention Team (Part 5, Crisis Intervention Team Survey Data) and to the EYE Counseling and Crisis Services, Crisis and Advocacy Team (Part 6, EYE Crisis and Advocacy Team Survey Data). The survey questions for Parts 4-6 asked each respondent to provide their reasons for becoming involved with the program, the goals of the program, responsibilities of the staff or volunteers, the types of referral services their agency provided, the number of hours of training required, and the topics covered in the training. Respondents for Parts 4-6 were further asked about the specific types of services they provided to victims/witnesses/survivors. Part 4 also contains a series of variables regarding coordination efforts, problems, and resolutions encountered when dealing with other intervention agencies and law enforcement agencies. Demographic variables for Parts 4-6 include the ethnicity, age, gender, and highest level of education of each respondent, and whether the respondent was a staff member of the agency or volunteer. The fourth survey was mailed to 53 referral agencies used by police and crisis interventionists (Part 7, Service Provider Survey Data). Part 7 contains the same series of variables as Part 4 on dealing with other intervention and law enforcement agencies. Respondents in Part 7 were further asked to describe the type of victims/witnesses/survivors to whom they provided service (e.g., domestic violence victims, homicide witnesses, or suicide survivors) and to rate their level of satisfaction with referral procedures provided by law enforcement officers, hospitals, paramedics, religious groups, the San Diego Crisis Intervention Team, the EYE Crisis Team, and the District Attorney's Victim/Witness Program. Part 7 also includes the hours of operation for each service provider organization, as well as which California counties they serviced. Finally, respondents in Part 7 were given a list of services and asked if they provided any of those services to victims/witnesses/survivors. Services unique to this list included job placement assistance, public awareness campaigns, accompaniment to court, support groups, and advocacy with outside agencies (e.g., employers or creditors). Demographic variables for Part 7 include the ethnicity, age, and gender of each respondent. The last survey was distributed to over 1,000 law enforcement officers from the Escondido, San Diego, and Vista sheriff's agencies (Part 8, Law Enforcement Survey Data). Respondents in Part 8 were surveyed to determine their familiarity with intervention programs, how they learned about the program, the extent to which they used or referred others to intervention services, appropriate circumstances for calling or not calling in interventionists, their opinions regarding various intervention programs, their interactions with interventionists at crime scenes, and suggestions for improving delivery of services to victims. Demographic variables for Part 8 include the rank and agency of each law enforcement respondent.

Curated

Effect of Procedural Justice in Spouse Assault in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, 1987-1989 (ICPSR 20343)

Released/updated on: 2008-04-17

Geographic coverage: Milwaukee, United States, Wisconsin

Time period: 1987-01-01--1989-01-01

The purpose of the research project was to examine the extent to which the perception of procedural fairness by suspects arrested for spouse assault effectively inhibited their subsequent violence. The data for this study were collected for the MILWAUKEE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE EXPERIMENT, 1987-1989 (ICPSR 9966), which was conducted from April 1987 to August 1988. In this experiment, all cases of misdemeanor domestic battery where probable cause to arrest existed were randomly assigned to one of three conditions: (1) warning with no arrest, (2) arrest with a brief detention period (average of 3 hours), and (3) arrest with a longer detention period (average of 11 hours). Variables include demographic and background information, as well as descriptive variables pertaining to the domestic violence incident.

Curated

Effects of Incarceration on Criminal Trajectories in the United States, 1994 (ICPSR 4578)

Released/updated on: 2007-02-05

Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Oregon, United States, Minnesota, California, Florida, Delaware, New York (state), New Jersey, Michigan, Illinois, Texas, Ohio, Virginia, Maryland, Arizona

Using data from RECIDIVISM OF PRISONERS RELEASED IN 1994: [UNITED STATES] (ICPSR 3355), this study developed an analytical approach to utilize detailed dated criminal arrest history information in order to investigate whether, and to what extent, incarceration is able to deter offenders from future offending. This data collection consists of the syntax for a SAS macro used to estimate individual specific offending micro-trajectories, project counterfactual trajectories, and to assess the actual post-release offending patterns against the backdrop of these counterfactuals. The arrest records of individuals were clustered in chronological order and were truncated after the first post-release re-arrest event. The key independent variables used in estimating the pre-release criminal history accumulation process included the arrest number, the age at first arrest, whether or not the individual was confined as a result of the previous arrest event, and a measure of the number of years taken to reach each arrest event cumulated through the last arrest event. The same set of basic variables were used to model first re-arrest after release (recidivism).

Curated

Efficacy of Court-Mandated Counseling for Domestic Violence Offenders in Broward County, Florida, 1997-1998 (ICPSR 21901)

Released/updated on: 2011-03-31

Geographic coverage: United States, Florida

Time period: 1997-05-01--1998-09-30

The ultimate purpose of the study was to test whether court-mandated counseling reduced the likelihood of repeat violence by men convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence. Researchers also tested the underlying theory arising from the reanalyses of the Minneapolis experiment (MINNEAPOLIS INTERVENTION PROJECT, 1986-1987 [ICPSR 9808]) and Spouse Assault Replication Programs (SARPs). This theory proposes that having a stake in conformity predicts when an intervention (whether an arrest or court-mandated treatment) will be effective in reducing the likelihood of subsequent violence. The study used a classical experimental design to test whether courts can effect change in men convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence by mandating them to participate in a spouse abuse abatement program (SAAP). All men convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence in Broward County, Florida, between May 1 and September 30, 1997, were randomly assigned to either an experimental or control group. The only exceptions were for those couples in which either defendant or victim did not speak English or Spanish; either defendant or victim was under 18 years of age; the defendant was severely mentally ill; or the judge, at the time of sentencing, allowed the defendant to move to another jurisdiction and serve his probation through mail contact. Of the remaining 404 defendants, men in the control group were sentenced to 1 year's probation and men in the experimental group were sentenced to 1 year's probation and mandated into one of the five local SAAPs. In an effort to determine the true amount of change in individuals undergoing court-mandated counseling, the researchers included various measures from several sources. Each batterer was interviewed at time of adjudication and again six months after adjudication. The victim was also interviewed at adjudication and 6 and 12 months after adjudication. Standardized measures with known reliability were used when possible. Probation records and computer checks with the local police for all new arrests were used to track the defendants for one year after adjudication. The defendant interviews asked questions to assess the defendant's stake in conformity including those dealing with his relationship to the victim, his employment, his residential stability and his relationship to others. Included in these interviews were questions from an abbreviated version of the Crowne-Marlowe Social Desirability Scale, the Shortened Attitudes Towards Women Scale, the Inventory of Beliefs About Wife Beating (IBWB), and the Revised Conflict Tactics Scale. The data file also includes questions dealing with offenders' perceptions of the fairness of the criminal justice process they had just been through, who they believed was responsible for the instant offense that brought them to court, and whether they felt coerced into the batterer's program. The victim interviews were similar to the defendants though most of the questions asked the victim to provide information about the offender and his relationship with her. The woman was also asked to provide information on her work history, who she regularly spent time with, whether she had spoken with family, friends, and neighbors about her relationship with the offender and, if she had, if they were critical of her or her partner's actions in the particular incident leading to this court case. Similar to the offender's interviews, victims were asked about the history of violence in their home of origin and the particular incident bringing the offender to court. The probation reports provided information on the offender's criminal history, behavior in the community for the year while under supervision, and compliance with the batterer program.

Curated

Simple Crosstabs

Electoral Performance and Criminal Status of Candidates Contesting the 2004 and 2009 Parliamentary Elections to the Lok Sabha (India) (ICPSR 35512)

Released/updated on: 2015-02-06

Geographic coverage: Global, India

This dataset contains information on the election results for and criminal charges against all candidates contesting elections to the lower house of the Parliament of India, the Lok Sabha, in the 2004 and 2009 elections. These were the first national elections conducted after the 2002 Supreme Court ruling mandating that all candidates running for public office file affidavits with the Election Commission of India prior to the election. In these affidavits, candidates report their criminal histories or pending criminal charges. Only charges for offenses punishable by two or more years of imprisonment, which were lodged more than six months before the candidate filed for candidacy, must be reported. Affidavits were compiled and digitized by the Liberty Institute of India, a New Delhi-based non-government organization, and posted on its website. The investigators compiled election results from the Election Commission of India and criminal status data from the affidavits. The unit of analysis is the individual candidate, and the dataset includes each candidate's name, party affiliation, election year, geographic area (state and parliamentary constituency), election results (votes received, win/loss, and rank among candidates), and whether or not charges were filed against the candidate.

Curated

Evaluating a Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) Night Drug Court in Las Cruces, New Mexico, 1997-1998 (ICPSR 3186)

Released/updated on: 2006-01-18

Geographic coverage: Las Cruces, United States, New Mexico

The purpose of this study was twofold. First, researchers wanted to assess the benefits of the driving while intoxicated (DWI) drug court established in the Las Cruces, New Mexico, Municipal Court in an effort to determine its future viability. This was accomplished by examining the behaviors and attitudes of three groups of convicted drunk-drivers and determining the extent to which these groups were different or similar. The three groups included: (1) non-alcoholic first- and second-time offenders (non-alcoholic offenders), (2) alcoholic first- and second-time DWI offenders (alcoholic offenders), and (3) chronic three-time (or more) DWI offenders (chronic offenders). The second purpose of this study was to explore police officers' attitudes toward court-based treatment programs for DWI offenders, while examining the distinguishing characteristics between police officers who support court-based programs for drunk drivers and those who are less likely to support such sanctions. Data for Part 1, Drug Court Survey Data, were collected using a survey questionnaire distributed to non-alcoholic, alcoholic, and chronic offenders. Part 1 variables include blood alcohol level, jail time, total number of prior arrests and convictions, the level of support from the respondents' family and friends, and whether the respondent thought DWI was wrong, could cause injury, or could ruin lives. Respondents were also asked whether they acted spontaneously in general, took risks, found trouble exciting, ever assaulted anyone, ever destroyed property, ever extorted money, ever sold or used drugs, thought lying or stealing was OK, ever stole a car, attempted breaking and entering, or had been a victim of extortion. Demographic variables for Part 1 include the age, gender, race, and marital status of each respondent. Data for Part 2, Police Officer Survey Data, were collected using a survey questionnaire designed to capture what police officers knew about the DWI Drug Court, where they learned about it, and what factors accounted for their attitudes toward the program. Variables for Part 2 include police officers' responses to whether DWI court was effective, whether DWI laws were successful, the perceived effect of mandatory jail time versus treatment alone, major problems seen with DWI policies, if DWI was considered dangerous, and how the officer had learned or been briefed about the drug court. Other variables include the number of DWI arrests, and whether respondents believed that reforms weaken police power, that DWI caused more work for them, that citizens have bad attitudes, that the public has too many rights, and that stiffer penalties for DWI offenders were more successful.

Curated

Evaluating a Multi-Disciplinary Response to Domestic Violence in Colorado Springs, 1996-1999 (ICPSR 3282)

Released/updated on: 2006-03-30

Geographic coverage: United States, Colorado, Colorado Springs

The Colorado Springs Police Department formed a nontraditional domestic violence unit in 1996 called the Domestic Violence Enhanced Response Team (DVERT). This unit involved a partnership and collaboration with the Center for the Prevention of Domestic Violence, a private, nonprofit victim advocacy organization, and 25 other city and county agencies. DVERT was unique in its focus on the safety of the victim over the arrest and prosecution of the batterer. It was also different from the traditional police model for a special unit because it was a systemic response to domestic violence situations that involved the coordination of criminal justice, social service, and community-based agencies. This study is an 18-month evaluation of the DVERT unit. It was designed to answer the following research and evaluation questions: (1) What were the activities of DVERT staff? (2) Who were the victims and perpetrators of domestic violence? (3) What were the characteristics of domestic violence-related incidents in Colorado Springs and surrounding jurisdictions? (4) What was the nature of the intervention and prevention activities of DVERT? (5) What were the effects of the intervention? (6) What was the nature and extent of the collaboration among criminal justice agencies, victim advocates, and city and county human services agencies? (7) What were the dynamics of the collaboration? and (8) How successful was the collaboration? At the time of this evaluation, the DVERT program focused on three levels of domestic violence situations: Level I included the most lethal situations in which a victim might be in serious danger, Level II included moderately lethal situations in which the victim was not in immediate danger, and Level III included lower lethality situations in which patrol officers engaged in problem-solving. Domestic violence situations came to the attention of DVERT through a variety of mechanisms. Most of the referrals came from the Center for the Prevention of Domestic Violence. Other referrals came from the Department of Human Services, the Humane Society, other law enforcement agencies, or city service agencies. Once a case was referred to DVERT, all relevant information concerning criminal and prosecution histories, advocacy, restraining orders, and human services documentation was researched by appropriate DVERT member agencies. Referral decisions were made on a weekly basis by a group of six to eight representatives from the partner agencies. From its inception in May 1996 to December 31, 1999, DVERT accepted 421 Level I cases and 541 Level II cases. Cases were closed or deactivated when DVERT staff believed that the client was safe from harm. Parts 1-4 contain data from 285 Level I DVERT cases that were closed between July 1, 1996, and December 31, 1999. Parts 5-8 contain data from 515 Level II cases from 1998 and 1999 only, because data were more complete in those two years. Data were collected from (1) police records of the perpetrator and victim, including calls for service, arrest reports, and criminal histories, (2) DVERT case files, and (3) Center for the Prevention of Domestic Violence files on victims. Coding sheets were developed to capture the information within these administrative documents. Part 1 includes data on whether the incident produced injuries or a risk to children, whether the victim, children, or animals were threatened, whether weapons were used, if there was stalking or sexual abuse, prior criminal history, and whether there was a violation of a restraining order. For Part 2 data were gathered on the date of case acceptance to the DVERT program and deactivation, if the offender was incarcerated, if the victim was in a new relationship or had moved out of the area, if the offender had moved or was in treatment, if the offender had completed a domestic violence class, and if the offender had served a sentence. Parts 3 and 4 contain information on the race, date of birth, gender, employment, and relationship to the victim or offender for the offenders and victims, respectively. Part 5 includes data on the history of emotional, physical, sexual, and child abuse, prior arrests, whether the victim took some type of action against the offender, whether substance abuse was involved, types of injuries that the victim sustained, whether medical care was necessary, whether a weapon was used, restraining order violations, and incidents of harassment, criminal trespassing, telephone threats, or kidnapping. Part 6 variables include whether the case was referred to and accepted in Level I and whether a DVERT advocate made contact on the case. Part 7 contains information on the offenders' race and gender. Part 8 includes data on the victims' date of birth, race, and gender.

Curated

Evaluation of Day Fines in Maricopa County, Arizona, 1991-1993 (ICPSR 2024)

Released/updated on: 2006-03-30

Geographic coverage: United States, Arizona

Time period: 1991-01-01--1993-01-01

This study sought to evaluate how well day fines work as an intermediate sanction. Day fines are a structured approach to imposing fines that considers both the offender's ability to pay and the severity of the offense. The program involves two steps: (1) a determination of the number of fine units for an offense, based on the severity of the offense, and (2) a valuation of fine units, based on the offender's net daily income, hence the name "day fines". While four jurisdictions participated in the day fines evaluation, only the site in Maricopa County, Arizona, was structured in such a way to allow for a quasi-experimental research design. Therefore, this collection only contains data from the Financial Assessment Related to Employability (FARE) day fines program in Maricopa County. The FARE program was started in 1991 and targeted felony offenders with little need for supervision or treatment -- in other words, the low risk-low need defendant. The intent of the program was to draw clients from the population of offenders who would traditionally receive routine probation, thus serving as an intermediate sanction between routine and summary probation. The major research strategy was to consider the FARE-sentenced offenders as the experimental group and to construct a similar comparison group out of the offenders sentenced by non-day fines judges. The design involved three major steps: (1) identification of 1991 and 1992 defendants who received a FARE sentence, (2) screening of sentenced defendants in non-FARE courts using FARE eligibility criteria to match the FARE participants, and (3) coding background and 12-month follow-up information for both FARE and comparison group offenders from probation and clerk files to record background information, monetary payments, and any technical violations and arrests occurring during the 12-month follow-up period. Variables in Part 1, Fines Paid Data, include the total amount of the fine and how much of the fine was applied to probation fees, reimbursement, restitution, and victim compensation. Part 2, Official Records Data, contains background information such as arrest history, marital status, education, drug use, and drug treatment. Additional information includes current arrest, recommended sentence, disposition, sentence imposed, employment and income, and risk/needs assessment. Six- and 12-month reviews collected data on supervisory status, technical violations, new arrests, payment enforcement, and payment term revisions.

Curated

Evaluation of the Implementation and Impact of the Massachusetts Intensive Probation Supervision Project, 1984-1985 (ICPSR 9970)

Released/updated on: 2006-01-18

Geographic coverage: United States, Massachusetts

Time period: 1984-01-01--1985-01-01

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of an Intensive Probation Supervision (IPS) program on high-risk offenders. The IPS program was characterized by four changes in usual procedures: (1) increased supervision, (2) risk/needs assessment for substance abuse, employment, and marital/family relationships, (3) stricter enforcement of probation, and (4) a four-stage revocation procedure for technical violations. The investigators also studied whether the additional caseload of the probation officers who implemented the IPS program reduced the number of supervision contacts with non-IPS probationers under normal minimum, moderate, and maximum supervision regimens. Offenders put on IPS probation in 1985 from 13 experimental courts were compared to high-risk offenders put on regular probation in the experimental courts in 1984, and to high-risk offenders on regular probation from 13 control courts for both 1984 and 1985. Data were derived from risk assessment forms, needs/strengths assessment forms, probation supervision records, and criminal history data obtained from the state's probation central field. For each offender, a full range of data were collected on (1) offender risk characteristics at initial, four-month, ten-month, and termination assessments, (2) offender needs characteristics at the same intervals, (3) probation officer/offender contact chronologies for the entire one-year follow-up period, and (4) offender prior criminal history and recidivism during a one-year follow-up period.

Curated

Examination of Homicides in Houston, Texas, 1985-1994 (ICPSR 3399)

Released/updated on: 2005-11-04

Geographic coverage: United States, Texas, Houston

Time period: 1985-01-01--1994-01-01

As a contribution to nationwide efforts to more thoroughly understand urban violence, this study was conducted to assess the impact of cultural dynamics on homicide rates in Houston, Texas, and to profile homicides in the city from 1985 to 1994. This data collection provides the results of quantitative analysis of data collected from all Houston homicide cases recorded in the police murder logs for 1985-1994. Variables describe the homicide circumstances, the victim-offender relationship, the type of weapon used, and any drug- or gang-related activity involved. Other variables include the year and month in which the homicide occurred, whether the homicide occurred on a weekday or over the weekend, the motive of the homicide, whether the homicide was drug-related, whether the case was cleared by police at time of data entry, weapon type and means of killing, the relationship between the victim and the offender, whether a firearm was the homicide method, whether it was a multiple victim incident or multiple offender incident, whether the victim or the offender was younger than age 15, and the inter-racial relationship between the victim and the offender. Demographic variables include age, sex, and race of the victim as well as the offender.

Curated

Examining Prosecutorial Decision-Making Across Federal District Courts, 2000-2009 [UNITED STATES] (ICPSR 34513)

Released/updated on: 2016-09-22

Geographic coverage: United States

Time period: 2000-01-01--2009-01-01

These data are part of NACJD's Fast Track Release and are distributed as they were received from the data depositor. The files have been zipped by NACJD for release, but not checked or processed except for the removal of direct identifiers. Users should refer to the accompanying readme file for a brief description of the files available with this collection and consult the investigator(s) if further information is needed.

This study utilized data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics on federal criminal case processing to study jurisdictional variations in prosecutorial decision-making outcomes. It linked information across multiple federal agencies in order to track individual offenders across the various stages of the federal justice system. Specifically, it combined arrest information from the United States Marshall's Service with charging information from the Executive and Administrative Offices of the United States Attorney and with sentencing information from the United States Sentencing Commission. These individual data were subsequently augmented with additional information on federal courts to examine contextual variations in charging decisions across federal jurisdictions.

There are three data files. Dataset 1 (Executive Office for United States Attorneys (EOUSA) and United States Marshals Service (USMS) Data) contains 88 variables and 284,869 cases. Dataset 2 (Administrative Office of the United States Courts (AOUSC) and United States Sentencing Commission (USSC) Data) contains 717 variables and 256,598 cases. Dataset 3 (United States District Court Characteristics Data) contains 6 variables and 89 cases.

Only Dataset 3 is being released as part of the available study materials. Datasets 1 and 2 can be re-created using the syntax files which are included in the study materials.

Curated

Partially restricted

Simple Crosstabs

Exploring Alternative Data Sources for the Study of Assault in Miami, Florida, St. Louis, Missouri, and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 1994 -1997 (ICPSR 4358)

Released/updated on: 2013-06-10

Geographic coverage: United States, Missouri, Florida, St. Louis, Pennsylvania, Miami, Pittsburgh

Time period: 1994-01-01--1997-01-01

The study involved the collection of data on serious assaults that occured in three cities: Miami, Florida (1996-1997), Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (1994-1996), and St. Louis, Missouri (1995-1996). The data were extracted from police offense reports, and included detailed information about the incidents (Part 1) as well as information about the victims, suspects, and witnesses for each incident (Parts 2-9).

Curated

Federal Justice Statistics Program: Arrests and Bookings for Federal Offenses, 1994 [United States] (ICPSR 23720)

Released/updated on: 2015-06-16

Geographic coverage: United States

Time period: 1993-10-01--1994-09-30

The data contain records of arrests and bookings for federal offenses in the United States during fiscal year 1994. The data were constructed from the United States Marshals Service (USMS) Prisoner Tracking System database. Records include arrests made by federal law enforcement agencies (including the USMS), state and local agencies, and self-surrenders. Offenders arrested for federal offenses are transferred to the custody of the USMS for processing, transportation, and detention. The Prisoner Tracking System contains data on all offenders within the custody of the USMS. The data file contains variables from the original USMS files as well as additional analysis variables, or "SAF" variables, that denote subsets of the data. These SAF variables are related to statistics reported in the Compendium of Federal Justice Statistics, Tables 1.1-1.3. Variables containing identifying information (e.g., name, Social Security Number) were replaced with blanks, and the day portions of date fields were also sanitized in order to protect the identities of individuals. These data are part of a series designed by the Urban Institute (Washington, DC) and the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Data and documentation were prepared by the Urban Institute.

Curated

Federal Justice Statistics Program: Arrests and Bookings for Federal Offenses, 1995 [United States] (ICPSR 24012)

Released/updated on: 2015-06-16

Geographic coverage: United States

Time period: 1994-10-01--1995-09-30

The data contain records of arrests and bookings for federal offenses in the United States during fiscal year 1995. The data were constructed from the United States Marshals Service (USMS) Prisoner Tracking System database. Records include arrests made by federal law enforcement agencies (including the USMS), state and local agencies, and self-surrenders. Offenders arrested for federal offenses are transferred to the custody of the USMS for processing, transportation, and detention. The Prisoner Tracking System contains data on all offenders within the custody of the USMS. The data file contains variables from the original USMS files as well as additional analysis variables, or "SAF" variables, that denote subsets of the data. These SAF variables are related to statistics reported in the Compendium of Federal Justice Statistics, Tables 1.1-1.3. Variables containing identifying information (e.g., name, Social Security Number) were replaced with blanks, and the day portions of date fields were also sanitized in order to protect the identities of individuals. These data are part of a series designed by the Urban Institute (Washington, DC) and the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Data and documentation were prepared by the Urban Institute.

Curated

Federal Justice Statistics Program: Arrests and Bookings for Federal Offenses, 1996 [United States] (ICPSR 24031)

Released/updated on: 2015-06-16

Geographic coverage: United States

Time period: 1995-10-01--1996-09-30

The data contain records of arrests and bookings for federal offenses in the United States during fiscal year 1996. The data were constructed from the United States Marshals Service (USMS) Prisoner Tracking System database. Records include arrests made by federal law enforcement agencies (including the USMS), state and local agencies, and self-surrenders. Offenders arrested for federal offenses are transferred to the custody of the USMS for processing, transportation, and detention. The Prisoner Tracking System contains data on all offenders within the custody of the USMS. The data file contains variables from the original USMS files as well as additional analysis variables, or "SAF" variables, that denote subsets of the data. These SAF variables are related to statistics reported in the Compendium of Federal Justice Statistics, Tables 1.1-1.3. Variables containing identifying information (e.g., name, Social Security Number) were replaced with blanks, and the day portions of date fields were also sanitized in order to protect the identities of individuals. These data are part of a series designed by the Urban Institute (Washington, DC) and the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Data and documentation were prepared by the Urban Institute.

Curated

Federal Justice Statistics Program: Arrests and Bookings for Federal Offenses, 1997 [United States] (ICPSR 24050)

Released/updated on: 2015-06-15

Geographic coverage: United States

Time period: 1996-10-01--1997-09-30

The data contain records of arrests and bookings for federal offenses in the United States during fiscal year 1997. The data were constructed from the United States Marshals Service (USMS) Prisoner Tracking System database. Records include arrests made by federal law enforcement agencies (including the USMS), state and local agencies, and self-surrenders. Offenders arrested for federal offenses are transferred to the custody of the USMS for processing, transportation, and detention. The Prisoner Tracking System contains data on all offenders within the custody of the USMS. The data file contains variables from the original USMS files as well as additional analysis variables, or "SAF" variables, that denote subsets of the data. These SAF variables are related to statistics reported in the Compendium of Federal Justice Statistics, Tables 1.1-1.3. Variables containing identifying information (e.g., name, Social Security Number) were replaced with blanks, and the day portions of date fields were also sanitized in order to protect the identities of individuals. These data are part of a series designed by the Urban Institute (Washington, DC) and the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Data and documentation were prepared by the Urban Institute.

Curated

Federal Justice Statistics Program: Arrests and Bookings for Federal Offenses, 1998 [United States] (ICPSR 24069)

Released/updated on: 2015-06-15

Geographic coverage: United States

Time period: 1997-10-01--1998-09-30

The data contain records of arrests and bookings for federal offenses in the United States during fiscal year 1998. The data were constructed from the United States Marshals Service (USMS) Prisoner Tracking System database. Records include arrests made by federal law enforcement agencies (including the USMS), state and local agencies, and self-surrenders. Offenders arrested for federal offenses are transferred to the custody of the USMS for processing, transportation, and detention. The Prisoner Tracking System contains data on all offenders within the custody of the USMS. The data file contains variables from the original USMS files as well as additional analysis variables, or "SAF" variables, that denote subsets of the data. These SAF variables are related to statistics reported in the Compendium of Federal Justice Statistics, Tables 1.1-1.3. Variables containing identifying information (e.g., name, Social Security Number) were replaced with blanks, and the day portions of date fields were also sanitized in order to protect the identities of individuals. These data are part of a series designed by the Urban Institute (Washington, DC) and the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Data and documentation were prepared by the Urban Institute.

Curated

Federal Justice Statistics Program: Arrests and Bookings for Federal Offenses, 1999 [United States] (ICPSR 24088)

Released/updated on: 2015-06-15

Geographic coverage: United States

Time period: 1998-10-01--1999-09-30

The data contain records of arrests and bookings for federal offenses in the United States during fiscal year 1999. The data were constructed from the United States Marshals Service (USMS) Prisoner Tracking System database. Records include arrests made by federal law enforcement agencies (including the USMS), state and local agencies, and self-surrenders. Offenders arrested for federal offenses are transferred to the custody of the USMS for processing, transportation, and detention. The Prisoner Tracking System contains data on all offenders within the custody of the USMS. The data file contains variables from the original USMS files as well as additional analysis variables, or "SAF" variables, that denote subsets of the data. These SAF variables are related to statistics reported in the Compendium of Federal Justice Statistics, Tables 1.1-1.3. Variables containing identifying information (e.g., name, Social Security Number) were replaced with blanks, and the day portions of date fields were also sanitized in order to protect the identities of individuals. These data are part of a series designed by the Urban Institute (Washington, DC) and the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Data and documentation were prepared by the Urban Institute.

Curated

Federal Justice Statistics Program: Arrests and Bookings for Federal Offenses, 2000 [United States] (ICPSR 24107)

Released/updated on: 2015-06-15

Geographic coverage: United States

Time period: 1999-10-01--2000-09-30

The data contain records of arrests and bookings for federal offenses in the United States during fiscal year 2000. The data were constructed from the United States Marshals Service (USMS) Prisoner Tracking System database. Records include arrests made by federal law enforcement agencies (including the USMS), state and local agencies, and self-surrenders. Offenders arrested for federal offenses are transferred to the custody of the USMS for processing, transportation, and detention. The Prisoner Tracking System contains data on all offenders within the custody of the USMS. The data file contains variables from the original USMS files as well as additional analysis variables, or "SAF" variables, that denote subsets of the data. These SAF variables are related to statistics reported in the Compendium of Federal Justice Statistics, Tables 1.1-1.3. Variables containing identifying information (e.g., name, Social Security Number) were replaced with blanks, and the day portions of date fields were also sanitized in order to protect the identities of individuals. These data are part of a series designed by the Urban Institute (Washington, DC) and the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Data and documentation were prepared by the Urban Institute.

Curated

Federal Justice Statistics Program: Arrests and Bookings for Federal Offenses, 2001 [United States] (ICPSR 24126)

Released/updated on: 2015-06-15

Geographic coverage: United States

Time period: 2000-10-01--2001-09-30

The data contain records of arrests and bookings for federal offenses in the United States during fiscal year 2001. The data were constructed from the United States Marshals Service (USMS) Prisoner Tracking System database. Records include arrests made by federal law enforcement agencies (including the USMS), state and local agencies, and self-surrenders. Offenders arrested for federal offenses are transferred to the custody of the USMS for processing, transportation, and detention. The Prisoner Tracking System contains data on all offenders within the custody of the USMS. The data file contains variables from the original USMS files as well as additional analysis variables, or "SAF" variables, that denote subsets of the data. These SAF variables are related to statistics reported in the Compendium of Federal Justice Statistics, Tables 1.1-1.3. Variables containing identifying information (e.g., name, Social Security Number) were replaced with blanks, and the day portions of date fields were also sanitized in order to protect the identities of individuals. These data are part of a series designed by the Urban Institute (Washington, DC) and the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Data and documentation were prepared by the Urban Institute.

Curated

Federal Justice Statistics Program: Arrests and Bookings for Federal Offenses, 2002 [United States] (ICPSR 24145)

Released/updated on: 2013-10-01

Geographic coverage: United States

Time period: 2001-10-01--2002-09-30

The data contain records of arrests and bookings for federal offenses in the United States during fiscal year 2002. The data were constructed from the United States Marshals Service (USMS) Prisoner Tracking System database. Records include arrests made by federal law enforcement agencies (including the USMS), state and local agencies, and self-surrenders. Offenders arrested for federal offenses are transferred to the custody of the USMS for processing, transportation, and detention. The Prisoner Tracking System contains data on all offenders within the custody of the USMS. The data file contains variables from the original USMS files as well as additional analysis variables, or "SAF" variables, that denote subsets of the data. These SAF variables are related to statistics reported in the Compendium of Federal Justice Statistics, Tables 1.1-1.3. Variables containing identifying information (e.g., name, Social Security Number) were replaced with blanks, and the day portions of date fields were also sanitized in order to protect the identities of individuals. These data are part of a series designed by the Urban Institute (Washington, DC) and the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Data and documentation were prepared by the Urban Institute.

Curated

Federal Justice Statistics Program: Arrests and Bookings for Federal Offenses, 2003 [United States] (ICPSR 24164)

Released/updated on: 2013-09-24

Geographic coverage: United States

Time period: 2002-10-01--2003-09-30

The data contain records of arrests and bookings for federal offenses in the United States during fiscal year 2003. The data were constructed from the United States Marshals Service (USMS) Prisoner Tracking System database. Records include arrests made by federal law enforcement agencies (including the USMS), state and local agencies, and self-surrenders. Offenders arrested for federal offenses are transferred to the custody of the USMS for processing, transportation, and detention. The Prisoner Tracking System contains data on all offenders within the custody of the USMS. The data file contains variables from the original USMS files as well as additional analysis variables, or "SAF" variables, that denote subsets of the data. These SAF variables are related to statistics reported in the Compendium of Federal Justice Statistics, Tables 1.1-1.3. Variables containing identifying information (e.g., name, Social Security Number) were replaced with blanks, and the day portions of date fields were also sanitized in order to protect the identities of individuals. These data are part of a series designed by the Urban Institute (Washington, DC) and the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Data and documentation were prepared by the Urban Institute.

Curated

Federal Justice Statistics Program: Arrests and Bookings for Federal Offenses, 2004 [United States] (ICPSR 24181)

Released/updated on: 2013-09-19

Geographic coverage: United States

Time period: 2003-10-01--2004-09-30

The data contain records of arrests and bookings for federal offenses in the United States during fiscal year 2004. The data were constructed from the United States Marshals Service (USMS) Prisoner Tracking System database. Records include arrests made by federal law enforcement agencies (including the USMS), state and local agencies, and self-surrenders. Offenders arrested for federal offenses are transferred to the custody of the USMS for processing, transportation, and detention. The Prisoner Tracking System contains data on all offenders within the custody of the USMS. The data file contains variables from the original USMS files as well as additional analysis variables, or "SAF" variables, that denote subsets of the data. These SAF variables are related to statistics reported in the Compendium of Federal Justice Statistics, Tables 1.1-1.3. Variables containing identifying information (e.g., name, Social Security Number) were replaced with blanks, and the day portions of date fields were also sanitized in order to protect the identities of individuals. These data are part of a series designed by the Urban Institute (Washington, DC) and the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Data and documentation were prepared by the Urban Institute.

Curated

Federal Justice Statistics Program: Arrests and Bookings for Federal Offenses, 2005 [United States] (ICPSR 24199)

Released/updated on: 2013-09-16

Geographic coverage: United States

Time period: 2004-10-01--2005-09-30

The data contain records of arrests and bookings for federal offenses in the United States during fiscal year 2005. The data were constructed from the United States Marshals Service (USMS) Prisoner Tracking System database. Records include arrests made by federal law enforcement agencies (including the USMS), state and local agencies, and self-surrenders. Offenders arrested for federal offenses are transferred to the custody of the USMS for processing, transportation, and detention. The Prisoner Tracking System contains data on all offenders within the custody of the USMS. The data file contains variables from the original USMS files as well as additional analysis variables, or "SAF" variables, that denote subsets of the data. These SAF variables are related to statistics reported in the Compendium of Federal Justice Statistics, Tables 1.1-1.3. Variables containing identifying information (e.g., name, Social Security Number) were replaced with blanks, and the day portions of date fields were also sanitized in order to protect the identities of individuals. These data are part of a series designed by the Urban Institute (Washington, DC) and the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Data and documentation were prepared by the Urban Institute.

Curated

Federal Justice Statistics Program: Arrests and Bookings for Federal Offenses, 2006 [United States] (ICPSR 24216)

Released/updated on: 2013-09-13

Geographic coverage: United States

Time period: 2005-10-01--2006-09-30

The data contain records of arrests and bookings for federal offenses in the United States during fiscal year 2006. The data were constructed from the United States Marshals Service (USMS) Prisoner Tracking System database. Records include arrests made by federal law enforcement agencies (including the USMS), state and local agencies, and self-surrenders. Offenders arrested for federal offenses are transferred to the custody of the USMS for processing, transportation, and detention. The Prisoner Tracking System contains data on all offenders within the custody of the USMS. The data file contains variables from the original USMS files as well as additional analysis variables, or "SAF" variables, that denote subsets of the data. These SAF variables are related to statistics reported in the Compendium of Federal Justice Statistics, Tables 1.1-1.3. Variables containing identifying information (e.g., name, Social Security Number) were replaced with blanks, and the day portions of date fields were also sanitized in order to protect the identities of individuals. These data are part of a series designed by the Urban Institute (Washington, DC) and the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Data and documentation were prepared by the Urban Institute.

Curated

Federal Justice Statistics Program: Arrests and Bookings for Federal Offenses, 2007 [United States] (ICPSR 24231)

Released/updated on: 2013-09-13

Geographic coverage: United States

Time period: 2006-10-01--2007-09-30

The data contain records of arrests and bookings for federal offenses in the United States during fiscal year 2007. The data were constructed from the United States Marshals Service (USMS) Prisoner Tracking System database. Records include arrests made by federal law enforcement agencies (including the USMS), state and local agencies, and self-surrenders. Offenders arrested for federal offenses are transferred to the custody of the USMS for processing, transportation, and detention. The Prisoner Tracking System contains data on all offenders within the custody of the USMS. The data file contains variables from the original USMS files as well as additional analysis variables, or "SAF" variables, that denote subsets of the data. These SAF variables are related to statistics reported in the Compendium of Federal Justice Statistics, Tables 1.1-1.3. Variables containing identifying information (e.g., name, Social Security Number) were replaced with blanks, and the day portions of date fields were also sanitized in order to protect the identities of individuals. These data are part of a series designed by the Urban Institute (Washington, DC) and the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Data and documentation were prepared by the Urban Institute.

Curated

Federal Justice Statistics Program: Arrests and Bookings for Federal Offenses, 2008 [United States] (ICPSR 29428)

Released/updated on: 2011-03-08

Geographic coverage: United States

Time period: 2007-10-01--2008-09-30

The data contain records of arrests and bookings for federal offenses in the United States during fiscal year 2008. The data were constructed from the United States Marshals Service (USMS) Prisoner Tracking System database. Records include arrests made by federal law enforcement agencies (including the USMS), state and local agencies, and self-surrenders. Offenders arrested for federal offenses are transferred to the custody of the USMS for processing, transportation, and detention. The Prisoner Tracking System contains data on all offenders within the custody of the USMS. The data file contains variables from the original USMS files as well as additional analysis variables, or "SAF" variables, that denote subsets of the data. These SAF variables are related to statistics reported in the Compendium of Federal Justice Statistics, Tables 1.1-1.3. Variables containing identifying information (e.g., name, Social Security Number) were replaced with blanks, and the day portions of date fields were also sanitized in order to protect the identities of individuals. These data are part of a series designed by the Urban Institute (Washington, DC) and the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Data and documentation were prepared by the Urban Institute.

Curated

Federal Justice Statistics Program: Arrests and Bookings for Federal Offenses, 2009 (ICPSR 30794)

Released/updated on: 2011-07-22

Geographic coverage: United States

Time period: 2008-10-01--2009-09-30

The data contain records of arrests and bookings for federal offenses in the United States during fiscal year 2009. The data were constructed from the United States Marshals Service (USMS) Prisoner Tracking System database. Records include arrests made by federal law enforcement agencies (including the USMS), state and local agencies, and self-surrenders. Offenders arrested for federal offenses are transferred to the custody of the USMS for processing, transportation, and detention. The Prisoner Tracking System contains data on all offenders within the custody of the USMS. The data file contains variables from the original USMS files as well as additional analysis variables, or "SAF" variables, that denote subsets of the data. These SAF variables are related to statistics reported in the Compendium of Federal Justice Statistics, Tables 1.1-1.3. Variables containing identifying information (e.g., name, Social Security Number) were replaced with blanks, and the day portions of date fields were also sanitized in order to protect the identities of individuals. These data are part of a series designed by the Urban Institute (Washington, DC) and the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Data and documentation were prepared by the Urban Institute.

Curated

Federal Justice Statistics Program: Arrests and Bookings for Federal Offenses, 2010 (ICPSR 34336)

Released/updated on: 2013-01-08

Geographic coverage: United States

Time period: 2009-10-01--2010-09-30

The data contain records of arrests and bookings for federal offenses in the United States during fiscal year 2010. The data were constructed from the United States Marshals Service (USMS) Prisoner Tracking System database. Records include arrests made by federal law enforcement agencies (including the USMS), state and local agencies, and self-surrenders. Offenders arrested for federal offenses are transferred to the custody of the USMS for processing, transportation, and detention. The Prisoner Tracking System contains data on all offenders within the custody of the USMS. The data file contains variables from the original USMS files as well as additional analysis variables, or "SAF" variables, that denote subsets of the data. These SAF variables are related to statistics reported in the Compendium of Federal Justice Statistics, Tables 1.1-1.3. Variables containing identifying information (e.g., name, Social Security Number) were replaced with blanks, and the day portions of date fields were also sanitized in order to protect the identities of individuals. These data are part of a series designed by the Urban Institute (Washington, DC) and the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Data and documentation were prepared by the Urban Institute.

Curated

Federal Justice Statistics Program: Arrests and Bookings for Federal Offenses, 2011 (ICPSR 35050)

Released/updated on: 2014-06-16

Geographic coverage: United States

Time period: 2010-10-01--2011-09-30

The data contain records of arrests and bookings for federal offenses in the United States during fiscal year 2011. The data were constructed from the United States Marshals Service (USMS) Prisoner Tracking System database. Records include arrests made by federal law enforcement agencies (including the USMS), state and local agencies, and self-surrenders. Offenders arrested for federal offenses are transferred to the custody of the USMS for processing, transportation, and detention. The Prisoner Tracking System contains data on all offenders within the custody of the USMS. The data file contains variables from the original USMS files as well as additional analysis variables, or "SAF" variables, that denote subsets of the data. These SAF variables are related to statistics reported in the Compendium of Federal Justice Statistics, Tables 1.1-1.3. Variables containing identifying information (e.g., name, Social Security Number) were replaced with blanks, and the day portions of date fields were also sanitized in order to protect the identities of individuals. These data are part of a series designed by the Urban Institute (Washington, DC) and the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Data and documentation were prepared by the Urban Institute.

Curated

Federal Justice Statistics Program: Arrests and Bookings for Federal Offenses, 2012 (ICPSR 35501)

Released/updated on: 2015-02-04

Geographic coverage: United States

Time period: 2011-10-01--2012-09-30

The data contain records of arrests and bookings for federal offenses in the United States during fiscal year 2012. The data were constructed from the United States Marshals Service (USMS) Prisoner Tracking System database. Records include arrests made by federal law enforcement agencies (including the USMS), state and local agencies, and self-surrenders. Offenders arrested for federal offenses are transferred to the custody of the USMS for processing, transportation, and detention. The Prisoner Tracking System contains data on all offenders within the custody of the USMS. The data file contains variables from the original USMS files as well as additional analysis variables, or "SAF" variables, that denote subsets of the data. These SAF variables are related to statistics reported in the Compendium of Federal Justice Statistics, Tables 1.1-1.3. Variables containing identifying information (e.g., name, Social Security Number) were replaced with blanks, and the day portions of date fields were also sanitized in order to protect the identities of individuals. These data are part of a series designed by the Urban Institute (Washington, DC) and the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Data and documentation were prepared by the Urban Institute.

Curated

Federal Justice Statistics Program: Arrests and Bookings for Federal Offenses, 2013 (ICPSR 36337)

Released/updated on: 2016-02-19

Geographic coverage: United States

Time period: 2012-10-01--2013-09-30

The data contain records of arrests and bookings for federal offenses in the United States during fiscal year 2013. The data were constructed from the United States Marshals Service (USMS) Prisoner Tracking System database. Records include arrests made by federal law enforcement agencies (including the USMS), state and local agencies, and self-surrenders. Offenders arrested for federal offenses are transferred to the custody of the USMS for processing, transportation, and detention. The Prisoner Tracking System contains data on all offenders within the custody of the USMS. The data file contains variables from the original USMS files as well as additional analysis variables, or "SAF" variables, that denote subsets of the data. These SAF variables are related to statistics reported in the Compendium of Federal Justice Statistics, Tables 1.1-1.3. Variables containing identifying information (e.g., name, Social Security Number) were replaced with blanks, and the day portions of date fields were also sanitized in order to protect the identities of individuals. These data are part of a series designed by Abt and the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Data and documentation were prepared by Abt.

Curated

Federal Justice Statistics Program: Arrests and Bookings for Federal Offenses, 2014 (ICPSR 36701)

Released/updated on: 2017-03-22

Geographic coverage: United States

Time period: 2013-10-01--2014-09-30

The data contain records of arrests and bookings for federal offenses in the United States during fiscal year 2014. The data were constructed from the United States Marshals Service (USMS) Prisoner Tracking System database. Records include arrests made by federal law enforcement agencies (including the USMS), state and local agencies, and self-surrenders. Offenders arrested for federal offenses are transferred to the custody of the USMS for processing, transportation, and detention. The Prisoner Tracking System contains data on all offenders within the custody of the USMS. The data file contains variables from the original USMS files as well as additional analysis variables, or "SAF" variables, that denote subsets of the data. These SAF variables are related to statistics reported in the Compendium of Federal Justice Statistics, Tables 1.1-1.3. Variables containing identifying information (e.g., name, Social Security Number) were replaced with blanks, and the day portions of date fields were also sanitized in order to protect the identities of individuals. These data are part of a series designed by Abt and the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Data and documentation were prepared by Abt.

Curated

Federal Justice Statistics Program: Arrests and Bookings for Federal Offenses, 2015 (ICPSR 37342)

Released/updated on: 2019-09-24

Geographic coverage: United States

Time period: 2014-10-01--2015-09-30

The data contain records of arrests and bookings for federal offenses in the United States during fiscal year 2015. The data were constructed from the United States Marshals Service (USMS) Prisoner Tracking System database. Records include arrests made by federal law enforcement agencies (including the USMS), state and local agencies, and self-surrenders. Offenders arrested for federal offenses are transferred to the custody of the USMS for processing, transportation, and detention. The Prisoner Tracking System contains data on all offenders within the custody of the USMS. The data file contains variables from the original USMS files as well as additional analysis variables. Variables containing identifying information (e.g., name, Social Security number) were either removed, coarsened, or blanked in order to protect the identities of individuals. These data are part of a series designed by Abt and the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Data and documentation were prepared by Abt.

Curated

Federal Justice Statistics Program: Arrests and Bookings for Federal Offenses, 2016 (ICPSR 37409)

Released/updated on: 2019-12-17

Geographic coverage: United States

Time period: 2015-10-01--2016-09-30

The data contain records of arrests and bookings for federal offenses in the United States during fiscal year 2016. The data were constructed from the United States Marshals Service (USMS) Prisoner Tracking System database. Records include arrests made by federal law enforcement agencies (including the USMS), state and local agencies, and self-surrenders. Offenders arrested for federal offenses are transferred to the custody of the USMS for processing, transportation, and detention. The Prisoner Tracking System contains data on all offenders within the custody of the USMS. The data file contains variables from the original USMS files as well as additional analysis variables. Variables containing identifying information (e.g., name, Social Security number) were either removed, coarsened, or blanked in order to protect the identities of individuals. These data are part of a series designed by Abt and the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Data and documentation were prepared by Abt.