Showing 1 – 50 of 549 results.
Curated
Adult Criminal Careers, Michigan: 1974-1977 (ICPSR 8279)
Released/updated on: 1995-03-31
Geographic coverage: United States, Michigan
Time period: 1974-01-01--1977-01-01
These data, taken from the computerized criminal history files of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, were collected to develop estimates of the extent and variation of individual offending. Included are the adult criminal records of individuals 17 years of age and older arrested in Michigan from 1974 to 1977. The primary criterion for inclusion in the sample was at least one arrest in Michigan for murder, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, or auto theft. Once sampled, the arrest history includes data on all recorded arrests through 1977, regardless of offense type. The full dataset includes records for 41,191 individuals for a total of 200,007 arrests. The dataset is organized by individual and includes demographic characteristics of the individual (birth date, state of birth, sex, and race) followed by information from the individual's arrest record in chronological order. The arrest records include the date of arrest, the offenses charged, the disposition (convicted, dismissed, or acquitted), and the sentence. Because the data are organized by individual, they are suitable for longitudinal analyses of individual offending patterns over time.
Curated
Age-by-Race Specific Crime Rates, 1965-1985: [United States] (ICPSR 9589)
Released/updated on: 2005-11-04
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1965-01-01--1985-01-01
These data examine the effects on total crime rates of changes in the demographic composition of the population and changes in criminality of specific age and race groups. The collection contains estimates from national data of annual age-by-race specific arrest rates and crime rates for murder, robbery, and burglary over the 21-year period 1965-1985. The data address the following questions: (1) Are the crime rates reported by the Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) data series valid indicators of national crime trends? (2) How much of the change between 1965 and 1985 in total crime rates for murder, robbery, and burglary is attributable to changes in the age and race composition of the population, and how much is accounted for by changes in crime rates within age-by-race specific subgroups? (3) What are the effects of age and race on subgroup crime rates for murder, robbery, and burglary? (4) What is the effect of time period on subgroup crime rates for murder, robbery, and burglary? (5) What is the effect of birth cohort, particularly the effect of the very large (baby-boom) cohorts following World War II, on subgroup crime rates for murder, robbery, and burglary? (6) What is the effect of interactions among age, race, time period, and cohort on subgroup crime rates for murder, robbery, and burglary? (7) How do patterns of age-by-race specific crime rates for murder, robbery, and burglary compare for different demographic subgroups? The variables in this study fall into four categories. The first category includes variables that define the race-age cohort of the unit of observation. The values of these variables are directly available from UCR and include year of observation (from 1965-1985), age group, and race. The second category of variables were computed using UCR data pertaining to the first category of variables. These are period, birth cohort of age group in each year, and average cohort size for each single age within each single group. The third category includes variables that describe the annual age-by-race specific arrest rates for the different crime types. These variables were estimated for race, age, group, crime type, and year using data directly available from UCR and population estimates from Census publications. The fourth category includes variables similar to the third group. Data for estimating these variables were derived from available UCR data on the total number of offenses known to the police and total arrests in combination with the age-by-race specific arrest rates for the different crime types.
Curated
Age Cohort Arrest Rates, 1970-1980 (ICPSR 8261)
Released/updated on: 2006-01-12
Geographic coverage: United States, Chicago, Tennessee, Tucson, California, Spokane, Washington, San Jose, Knoxville, Atlanta, Illinois, Colorado, Denver, Georgia, Arizona
Time period: 1970-01-01--1980-01-01
The data for this collection were gathered from the 1970 and 1980 Censuses and the Uniform Crime Reports for 1970 through 1980. The unit of analysis in this data collection is cities. Included are population totals by age group and arrest data for selected crimes by age group for Atlanta, Georgia, Chicago, Illinois, Denver, Colorado, Knoxville, Tennessee, San Jose, California, Spokane, Washington, and Tucson, Arizona. Population data by sex and age for all cities are contained in Part 4. The 123 variables provide data by age categories ranging from age 5 to age 69. Part 1, the arrest file for Atlanta and Chicago, provides arrest data for 1970 to 1980 by sex and age, ranging from age 10 and under to age 65 and over. The arrest data for other cities span two data files. Part 2 includes arrest data by sex for ages 15 to 24 for the years 1970 to 1980. Part 3 provides arrest data for ages 25 to 65 and over for the years 1970, 1975, and 1980. Arrest data are collected for the following crimes: murder, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny, motor vehicle theft, other assaults, arson, forgery, fraud, embezzlement, stolen property, vandalism, weapons, prostitution, other sex offenses, opium abuse, marijuana abuse, gambling, family offenses, drunk driving, liquor law violations, drunkenness, disorderly conduct, vagrancy, and all other offenses combined.
Curated
American Bar Foundation: State Criminal Court Cases, 1962 (ICPSR 7272)
Released/updated on: 1992-02-16
This study presents data about criminal court cases in the 50 states and District of Columbia in 1962. Variables include state and county of trial, case processing, offense charged, sentence, type of counsel, amount of bail, length of time in jail, and other aspects related to the disposition of the cases. Demographic information on the defendant is provided, such as age group, sex, race, and years of school completed.
Curated
Analysis of Arrests in Paris, June 1848 (ICPSR 49)
Released/updated on: 2006-01-12
Geographic coverage: France, Global, Paris
This data collection contains three files pertaining to the June 1848 insurrection in Paris and to people charged with or arrested for participation in the insurrection. The data files contain social, economic, and demographic information. Information is provided on the results of the judicial proceedings against the individual after arrest, as well as demographic characteristics of the individual, such as occupation, place of birth, sex, age, marital status, number of children, and place of residence (Part 1), the number of inhabitants arrested in connection with the rebellion, the labor force, and social characteristics of the 12 zones (arrondisements) (Part 2), and demographic and arrest information with a focus on the furnished apartments, clubs, and popular societies within the 48 quartiers (districts) existing in Paris in 1848 (Part 3).
Curated
Anticipating Community Drug Problems in Washington, DC, and Portland, Oregon, 1984-1990 (ICPSR 9924)
Released/updated on: 1994-02-17
Geographic coverage: Oregon, District of Columbia, United States, Portland (Oregon)
Time period: 1984-01-01--1990-01-01
This study examined the use of arrestee urinalysis results as a predictor of other community drug problems. A three-stage public health model was developed using drug diffusion and community drug indicators as aggregate measures of individual drug use careers. Monthly data on drug indicators for Washington, DC, and Portland, Oregon, were used to: (1) estimate the correlations of drug problem indicators over time, (2) examine the correlations among indicators at different stages in the spread of new forms of drug abuse, and (3) estimate lagged models in which arrestee urinalysis results were used to predict subsequent community drug problems. Variables included arrestee drug test results, drug-overdose deaths, crimes reported to the local police department, and child maltreatment incidents. Washington variables also included drug-related emergency room episodes. The unit of analysis was months covered by the study. The Washington, DC, data consist of 78 records, one for each month from April 1984 through September 1990. The Portland, Oregon, data contain 33 records, one for each month from January 1988 through September 1990.
Curated
Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Program in the United States, 1998 (ICPSR 2826)
Released/updated on: 1999-11-10
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1998-01-01--1998-12-31
The Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Program measures levels of and trends in drug use among persons arrested and booked in the United States. The ADAM Program is a redesigned version of the Drug Use Forecasting (DUF) Program (DRUG USE FORECASTING IN 24 CITIES IN THE UNITED STATES, 1987-1997 [ICPSR 9477]), upgraded methodologically and expanded to include 35 cities. The data address the following topics: (1) types of drugs used by arrestees (based on self-reports and urinalysis), (2) self-reported dependency on drugs, (3) self-reported need for alcohol/drug treatment, (4) the relationship between drug use and certain types of offenses, and (5) the relationship between self-reported indicators of drug use and indicators of drug use based on urinalysis. Participation in the project is voluntary, and all information collected from the arrestees is anonymous and confidential. The data include the arrestee's age, race, gender, educational attainment, marital status, and the charge at the time of booking. The recently modified ADAM/DUF interview instrument (used for part of the 1995 DUF data and all of the DUF 1996, DUF 1997, and ADAM 1998 data) also collected information about the arrestee's self-reported use of 15 drugs. For each drug type, arrestees were asked whether they had ever used the drug, the age at which they first used the drug, whether they had used the drug within the past three days, how many days they had used the drug within the past month, whether they had ever needed or felt dependent on the drug, and whether they were dependent on the drug at the time of the interview. Data from the new interview instrument also included information about whether arrestees had ever injected drugs and whether they were influenced by drugs when they allegedly committed the crimes for which they were arrested. The data also include information about whether the arrestee had been to an emergency room for drug-related incidents and whether he or she had prior arrests in the last 12 months. Data that continue to be collected with the new version of the ADAM/DUF interview provide information about arrestees' histories of drug/alcohol treatment, including whether they ever received drug/alcohol treatment and whether they needed drug/alcohol treatment. As part of the ADAM program, arrestees were asked to provide a urine specimen, which was screened for the presence of the following ten drug types: marijuana, opiates, cocaine, PCP, methadone, benzodiazepines (Valium), methaqualone, propoxyphene (Darvon), barbiturates, and amphetamines (positive test results for amphetamines were confirmed by gas chromatography).
Curated
Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Program in the United States, 1999 (ICPSR 2994)
Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1999-01-01--1999-12-31
The Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Program, the successor to the Drug Use Forecasting (DUF) Program (DRUG USE FORECASTING IN 24 CITIES IN THE UNITED STATES, 1987-1997 [ICPSR 9477]), measures levels of and trends in drug use among persons arrested and booked in 35 sites across the United States. The data address the following topics: (1) types of drugs used by arrestees (based on self-reports and urinalysis), (2) self-reported dependency on drugs, (3) self-reported need for alcohol/drug treatment, (4) the relationship between drug use and certain types of offenses, and (5) the relationship between self-reported indicators of drug use and indicators of drug use based on urinalysis. Participation in the project is voluntary, and all information collected from the arrestees is anonymous and confidential. The data include the arrestee's age, race, gender, educational attainment, marital status, and the charge at the time of booking. The modified ADAM/DUF interview instrument (used for part of the 1995 data and all of the 1996, 1997, 1998, and 1999 data) also collected information about the arrestee's use of 15 drugs, including recent and past use (e.g., 3-day and 30-day drug use), age at first use, and whether the arrestee had ever been dependent on drugs. As part of the ADAM program, arrestees were asked to provide a urine specimen, which was screened for the presence of ten drugs, including marijuana, opiates, cocaine, PCP, methadone, benzodiazepines (Valium), methaqualone, propoxyphene (Darvon), barbiturates, and amphetamines (positive test results for amphetamines were confirmed by gas chromatography).
Curated
Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Program in the United States, 2000 (ICPSR 3270)
Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 2000-01-01--2000-12-31
Beginning in 1996, the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) initiated a major redesign of its multisite drug-monitoring program, the Drug Use Forecasting (DUF) system (DRUG USE FORECASTING IN 24 CITIES IN THE UNITED STATES, 1987-1997 [ICPSR 9477]). The program was retitled Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) (see ARRESTEE DRUG ABUSE MONITORING (ADAM) PROGRAM IN THE UNITED STATES, 1998 [ICPSR 2628] and 1999 [ICPSR 2994]). ADAM extended DUF in the number of sites and improved the quality and generalizability of the data. The redesign was fully implemented in all sites beginning in the first quarter of 2000. The ADAM program implemented a new and expanded adult instrument in the first quarter of 2000, which was used for both the male (Part 1) and female (Part 2) data. The juvenile data for 2000 (Part 3) used the juvenile instrument from previous years. The ADAM program also moved to probability-based sampling for the adult male population during 2000. Therefore, the 2000 adult male sample includes weights, generated through post-sampling stratification of the data. The shift to sampling of the adult male population in 2000 required that all 35 sites move to a common catchment area, the county. The core instrument for the adult cases was supplemented by a facesheet, which was used to collect demographic and charge information from official records. Core instruments were used to collect self-report information from the respondent. Both the adult and juvenile instruments were administered to persons arrested and booked on local or state charges relevant to the jurisdiction (i.e., not federal or out-of-county charges) within the past 48 hours. At the completion of the interview the arrestee was asked to voluntarily provide a urine specimen. An external lab used the Enzyme Multiplied Immunoassay Testing (EMIT) protocols to test for the presence of ten drugs or metabolites of the drug in the urine sample. All amphetamine positives were confirmed by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS) to determine whether methamphetamine was used. For the adult data, variables from the facesheet include arrest precinct, ZIP code of arrest location, ZIP code of respondent's address, respondent's gender and race, three most serious arrest charges, sample source (stock, flow, other), interview status (including reason the individual selected in the sample was not interviewed), language of instrument used, and the number of hours since arrest. Demographic information from the core instrument includes respondent's age, ethnicity, residency, education, employment, health insurance coverage, marital status, housing, and telephone access. Variables from the calendar provide information on inpatient and outpatient substance abuse treatment, inpatient mental health treatment, arrests and incarcerations, heavy alcohol use, use of marijuana, crack/rock cocaine, powder cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, and other drug (ever and previous 12 months), age of first use of the above six drugs and heavy alcohol use, drug dependency in the previous 12 months, characteristics of drug transactions in past 30 days, use of marijuana, crack/rock cocaine, powder cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamine in past 30 days, 7 days, and 48 hours, heavy alcohol use in past 30 days, and secondary drug use of 15 other drugs in the past 48 hours. Urine test results are provided for 11 drugs -- marijuana, cocaine, opiates, phencyclidine (PCP), benzodiazepines (Valium), propoxyphene (Darvon), methadone, methaqualone, barbiturates, amphetamines, and methamphetamine. The adult data files include several derived variables. The male data also include four sampling weights, and stratum identifications and percents. For the juvenile data, demographic variables include age, race, sex, educational attainment, employment status, and living circumstances. Data also include each juvenile arrestee's self-reported use of 15 drugs (alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, powder cocaine, crack, heroin, PCP, amphetamines, barbiturates, quaaludes, methadone, crystal methamphetamine, Valium, LSD, and inhalants). For each drug type, arrestees reported whether they had ever used the drug, age of first use, whether they had used the drug in the past 30 days and past 72 hours, number of days they used the drug in past month, whether they tried to cut down or quit using the drug, if they were successful, whether they felt dependent on the drug, whether they were receiving treatment for the drug, whether they had received treatment for the drug in the past, and whether they thought they could use treatment for that drug. Additional variables include whether juvenile respondents had ever injected drugs, whether they were influenced by drugs when they allegedly committed the crime for which they were arrested, whether they had been to an emergency room for drug-related incidents, and if so, whether in the past 12 months, and information on arrests and charges in the past 12 months. As with the adult data, urine test results are also provided. Finally, variables covering precinct (precinct of arrest) and law (penal law code associated with the crime for which the juvenile was arrested) are also provided for use by local law enforcement officials at each site.
Curated
Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Program in the United States, 2001 (ICPSR 3688)
Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Oklahoma City, Detroit, Charlotte, Indiana, Tucson, Albuquerque, Spokane, Utah, San Jose, New York City, San Diego, Arizona, Las Vegas, Sacramento, Seattle, California, Pennsylvania, Tulsa, Laredo, Iowa, Illinois, Texas, Portland (Oregon), Indianapolis, Oregon, United States, Oklahoma, Alabama, Cleveland, Washington, Nebraska, Albany (New York), Omaha, Minneapolis, Colorado, Honolulu, Missouri, New Orleans, Alaska, Phoenix, Denver, Salt Lake City, Dallas, Nevada, Des Moines, San Antonio, Chicago, Hawaii, Minnesota, Kansas City (Missouri), New York (state), Birmingham, Michigan, New Mexico, Louisiana, Anchorage, Ohio, Philadelphia
Time period: 2001-01-01--2001-12-31
The goal of the Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Program is to determine the extent and correlates of illicit drug use in the population of booked arrestees in local areas. Data were collected in 2001 at four separate times (quarterly) during the year in 33 metropolitan areas in the United States. The ADAM program adopted a new instrument in 2000 in adult booking facilities for male (Part 1) and female (Part 2) arrestees. Data from arrestees in juvenile detention facilities (Part 3) continued to use the juvenile instrument from previous years, extending back through the DRUG USE FORECASTING series (ICPSR 9477). The ADAM program in 2001 also continued the use of probability-based sampling for male arrestees in adult facilities, which was initiated in 2000. Therefore, the male adult sample includes weights, generated through post-sampling stratification of the data. For the adult files, variables fell into one of eight categories: (1) demographic data on each arrestee, (2) ADAM facesheet (records-based) data, (3) data on disposition of the case, including accession to a verbal consent script, (4) calendar of admissions to substance abuse and mental health treatment programs, (5) data on alcohol and drug use, abuse, and dependence (6) drug acquisition data covering the five most commonly used illicit drugs, (7) urine test results, and (8) weights. The juvenile file contains demographic variables and arrestee's self-reported past and continued use of 15 drugs, as well as other drug-related behaviors.
Curated
Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Program in the United States, 2002 (ICPSR 3815)
Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Oklahoma City, Charlotte, Indiana, Tucson, Albuquerque, Spokane, Utah, San Jose, New York City, San Diego, Arizona, Las Vegas, Sacramento, Seattle, California, Washington, District of Columbia, Pennsylvania, Tulsa, Laredo, Iowa, Illinois, Texas, Portland (Oregon), Georgia, Indianapolis, Oregon, United States, Oklahoma, Rio Arriba, Alabama, Cleveland, Washington, Nebraska, Albany (New York), Omaha, Minneapolis, Woodbury, Atlanta, Colorado, Honolulu, New Orleans, Alaska, Phoenix, Denver, Salt Lake City, Dallas, Nevada, Des Moines, San Antonio, Chicago, Hawaii, Minnesota, New York (state), Birmingham, New Mexico, Louisiana, Anchorage, Ohio, Los Angeles, Philadelphia
Time period: 2002-01-01--2002-12-31
The goal of the Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Program is to determine the extent and correlates of illicit drug use in the population of booked arrestees in local areas. Data were collected in 2002 at four separate times (quarterly) during the year in 36 metropolitan areas in the United States. The ADAM program adopted a new instrument in 2000 in adult booking facilities for male (Part 1) and female (Part 2) arrestees. Data from arrestees in juvenile detention facilities (Part 3) continued to use the juvenile instrument from previous years, extending back through the DRUG USE FORECASTING series (ICPSR 9477). The ADAM program in 2002 also continued the use of probability-based sampling for male arrestees in adult facilities, which was initiated in 2000. Therefore, the male adult sample includes weights, generated through post-sampling stratification of the data. For the adult files, variables fell into one of eight categories: (1) demographic data on each arrestee, (2) ADAM facesheet (records-based) data, (3) data on disposition of the case, including accession to a verbal consent script, (4) calendar of admissions to substance abuse and mental health treatment programs, (5) data on alcohol and drug use, abuse, and dependence, (6) drug acquisition data covering the five most commonly used illicit drugs, (7) urine test results, and (8) weights. The juvenile file contains demographic variables and arrestee's self-reported past and continued use of 15 drugs, as well as other drug-related behaviors.
Curated
Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Program in the United States, 2003 (ICPSR 4020)
Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Oklahoma City, Charlotte, Indiana, Tucson, Albuquerque, Spokane, Utah, San Jose, New York City, San Diego, Arizona, Las Vegas, Boston, Sacramento, Seattle, California, Florida, Pennsylvania, Tulsa, Iowa, Illinois, Texas, Portland (Oregon), Georgia, Tampa, Indianapolis, Oregon, United States, Oklahoma, Rio Arriba, Alabama, Cleveland, Washington, Nebraska, Albany (New York), Omaha, Minneapolis, Woodbury, Atlanta, Massachusetts, Colorado, Honolulu, New Orleans, Alaska, Phoenix, Denver, Salt Lake City, Dallas, Nevada, Des Moines, District of Columbia, San Antonio, Chicago, Hawaii, Minnesota, New York (state), Birmingham, Miami, New Mexico, Louisiana, Anchorage, Ohio, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Houston
Time period: 2003-01-01--2003-12-31
The goal of the Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Program is to determine the extent and correlates of illicit drug use in the population of booked arrestees in local areas. Data were collected in 2003 up to four separate times (quarterly) during the year in 39 metropolitan areas in the United States. The ADAM program adopted a new instrument in 2000 in adult booking facilities for male (Part 1) and female (Part 2) arrestees. The ADAM program in 2003 also continued the use of probability-based sampling for male arrestees in adult facilities, which was initiated in 2000. Therefore, the male adult sample includes weights, generated through post-sampling stratification of the data. For the adult male and female files, variables fell into one of eight categories: (1) demographic data on each arrestee, (2) ADAM facesheet (records-based) data, (3) data on disposition of the case, including accession to a verbal consent script, (4) calendar of admissions to substance abuse and mental health treatment programs, (5) data on alcohol and drug use, abuse, and dependence, (6) drug acquisition data covering the five most commonly used illicit drugs, (7) urine test results, and (8) for males, weights.
Curated
Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Project in Rural Nebraska, 1998 (ICPSR 28141)
Released/updated on: 2011-01-28
Geographic coverage: Omaha, United States, Nebraska
Time period: 1998-10-01--1998-11-01
A pilot outreach project of the National Intstitute of Justice's Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) program, the rural Nebraska ADAM program examined the prevalence and type of arrestee drug use in four rural Nebraska counties and compared the results to those found in Omaha, Nebraska, an established ADAM site. The data were collected in Madison (n=78), Dawson (n=50), Hall (n=53), and Scotts Bluff (n=149) counties, and Omaha, Nebraska, (n=202) in October and November of 1998. The catchment area for Omaha was the central city. The ADAM interview provided demographic and descriptive data, including race, age, marital status, source of income, screens of substance abuse and dependency, treatment history, arrest and incarceration experiences, and participation in local drug markets. At the conclusion of the interview, respondents were asked to provide a urine specimen. The current study included a supplemental questionnaire about methamphetamine use. The methamphetamine addendum included variables on why the respondent began and continued the use of methamphetamines, how often and how much methamphetamine was used, if and why the respondent had ever sought and completed treatment, source of the methamphetamine, and if the respondent had ever made or sold methamphetamine.
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
Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring Program II in the United States, 2009 (ICPSR 30061)
Released/updated on: 2011-02-24
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
The Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM II) program was designed to monitor trends in drug use among arrested populations in key urban areas across the United States. The first ADAM data collection was instituted in 2000 as a replacement for the Drug Use Forecasting program (DUF), which employed a non-scientific sampling procedure to select primarily felony arrestees in 23 urban areas throughout the country. The year 2000 revision of ADAM instituted a representative sampling strategy among booked male arrestees in an expanded network of 35 sites. The program was suspended by the National Institute of Justice in 2003 and restarted in 2007 with funding from the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP). With ADAM II, ONDCP and its contractor, Abt Associates Inc., initiated a new data collection that replicated the ADAM methodology in order to obtain data comparable to previously established trends. ADAM II implemented two quarters of data collection in ten sentinel ADAM sites to revive monitoring drug trends, with a particular focus on obtaining valid and reliable information on methamphetamine use. Representing minimal adjustments to the previously employed ADAM survey, the ADAM II survey collected data about drug use, drug and alcohol dependency and treatment, and drug market participation among booked male arrestees within 48 hours of arrest. A total of 7,794 arrestees were interviewed during the second and third quarters of 2009. Collection occurred in two cycles in booking facilities at each site to provide estimates for two calendar quarters each year. Data in this file were collected beginning April 1, 2009, and ending September 30, 2009. Participation was voluntary and confidential, and the procedures included a personal interview (lasting approximately 20 minutes) and collection of a urine specimen. Demographic variables include age, race, most serious charge, date of arrest, time of arrest, and education level. The data also include whether the provided urine specimen was positive for several drugs including marijuana, cocaine, PCP, methamphetamines, and barbiturates.
Curated
Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring Program II in the United States, 2010 (ICPSR 32321)
Released/updated on: 2011-11-04
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
The Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM II) program was designed to monitor trends in drug use among arrested populations in key urban areas across the United States. The first ADAM data collection was instituted in 2000 as a replacement for the Drug Use Forecasting program (DUF), which employed a non-scientific sampling procedure to select primarily felony arrestees in 23 urban areas throughout the country. The year 2000 revision of ADAM instituted a representative sampling strategy among booked male arrestees in an expanded network of 35 sites. The program was suspended by the National Institute of Justice in 2003 and restarted in 2007 with funding from the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP). With ADAM II, ONDCP and its contractor, Abt Associates Inc., initiated a new data collection that replicated the ADAM methodology in order to obtain data comparable to previously established trends. ADAM II implemented two quarters of data collection in ten sentinel ADAM sites to revive monitoring drug trends, with a particular focus on obtaining valid and reliable information on methamphetamine use. Representing minimal adjustments to the previously employed ADAM survey, the ADAM II survey collected data about drug use, drug and alcohol dependency and treatment, and drug market participation among booked male arrestees within 48 hours of arrest. A total of 8,332 arrestees were interviewed during the second and third quarters of 2010. Collection occurred in two cycles in booking facilities at each site to provide estimates for two calendar quarters each year. Data in this file were collected beginning April 1, 2010, and ending September 30, 2010. Participation was voluntary and confidential, and the procedures included a personal interview (lasting approximately 20 minutes) and collection of a urine specimen. Demographic variables include age, race, most serious charge, date of arrest, time of arrest, and education level. The data also include whether the provided urine specimen was positive for several drugs including marijuana, cocaine, PCP, methamphetamines, and barbiturates.
Curated
Arrests As Communications to Criminals in St. Louis, 1970, 1972-1982 (ICPSR 9998)
Released/updated on: 2006-01-12
Geographic coverage: United States, Missouri, St. Louis
Time period: 1972-01-01--1982-01-01
This data collection was designed to assess the deterrent effects over time of police sanctioning activity, specifically that of arrests. Arrest and crime report data were collected from the St. Louis Police Department and divided into two categories: all Uniform Crime Reporting Program Part I crime reports, including arrests, and Part I felony arrests. The police department also generated geographical "x" and "y" coordinates corresponding to the longitude and latitude where each crime and arrest took place. Part 1 of this collection contains data on all reports made to police regarding Part I felony crimes from 1970 to 1982 (excluding 1971). Parts 2-13 contain the yearly data that were concatenated into one file for Part 1. Variables in Parts 2-13 include offense code, census tract, police district, police area, city block, date of crime, time crime occurred, value of property taken, and "x" and "y" coordinates of crime and arrest locations. Part 14 contains data on all Part I felony arrests. Included is information on offense charged, the marital status, sex, and race of the person arrested, census tract of arrest, and "x" and "y" coordinates.
Curated
Arrests Without Conviction, 1979-1980: Jacksonville and San Diego (ICPSR 8180)
Released/updated on: 2006-01-12
Geographic coverage: San Diego, United States, California, Florida, Jacksonville
This data collection includes information on robberies and burglaries in two cities, Jacksonville, Florida, and San Diego, California. The unit of analysis is defendants in felony cases. Information on each defendant includes socioeconomic status, criminal history, weapon usage, relationship to victim, trial procedures, and disposition. Demographic information for each defendant includes sex, race, age, and employment status. There are five files in the dataset. Parts 4 and 5 must be merged to form the complete Jacksonville burglaries dataset.
Curated
Breaking the School-to-Prison Pipeline: Implications of Removing Police from Schools for Racial and Ethnic Disparities in the Justice System, United States, 2003-2018 (ICPSR 39189)
Released/updated on: 2024-11-20
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 2003-01-01--2018-12-31
Momentum toward removing school-based law enforcement (SBLE) has increased since the summer of 2020. This change has occurred due to issues of equity with the hope that removing SBLE will reduce existing racial and ethnic disparities in the criminal justice system. SBLE refers to sworn law enforcement stationed in schools on either a part- or full-time basis. Some SBLE are known as school resource officers, who often receive special training in juvenile law and interacting with students in schools, although this varies from state to state. Other SBLE do not receive any special training in working with young people.
Although the move toward removing SBLE may have intuitive appeal to some school districts, no empirical evidence exists regarding what happens to students' frequency of contact with the criminal justice system after schools remove SBLE. Similarly, current research has not examined the impacts on the attendant racial and ethnic disparities.
All the data used in this study are secondary data from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), including both the publicly available Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC) and the restricted-use School Survey on Crime and Safety (SSOCS). All data cleaning, manipulation, and analysis will be done using syntax files in Stata. This study is a collection of these three Stata .do syntax files.
This study compared changes in three measures of criminal justice contact (i.e., arrests, referrals to law enforcement, and crimes reported to police) in schools that removed SBLE relative to the changes in schools that did not remove SBLE. The study examined within-school racial and ethnic differences in rates of arrest and referrals to law enforcement, and between-school differences in all three measures of criminal justice system contact by school racial composition.
Curated
Calls for Service to Police as a Means of Evaluating Crime Trends in Oklahoma City, 1986-1988 (ICPSR 9669)
Released/updated on: 2006-01-12
Geographic coverage: Oklahoma City, United States, Oklahoma
Time period: 1986-06-01--1988-06-01
In an effort to measure the effectiveness of crime deterrents and to estimate crime rates, calls for assistance placed to police in Oklahoma City over a two-year period were enumerated. This type of call was studied in order to circumvent problems such as "interviewer's effect" and sampling errors that occur with other methods. The telephone calls were stratified by police district, allowing for analysis on the neighborhood level to determine whether deterrence operates ecologically--that is, by neighbors informing one another about arrests which took place as a result of their calls to the police. In measuring deterrence, only the calls that concerned robbery were used. To estimate crime rates, calls were tallied on a monthly basis for 18 types of offenses: aggravated assault, robbery, rape, burglary, grand larceny, motor vehicle theft, simple assault, fraud, child molestation, other sex offenses, domestic disturbance, disorderly conduct, public drunkenness, vice and drugs, petty larceny, shoplifting, kidnapping/hostage taking, and suspicious activity.
Curated
Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development [Great Britain], 1961-1981 (ICPSR 8488)
Released/updated on: 2005-11-04
Geographic coverage: Great Britain, Global
Time period: 1961-01-01--1981-01-01
This data collection effort, initiated by Dr. Donald J. West and continued by Dr. David Farrington, was undertaken to test several hypotheses about delinquency. The investigators examined socioeconomic conditions, schooling, friendship, parent-child relationships, extracurricular activities, school records, and criminal records. They also performed psychological tests to determine the causes of crime and delinquency. Information in the survey includes reports from peers, family size, child-rearing behavior, job histories, leisure habits, truancy, popularity, physical attributes, tendencies toward violence, sexual activity, and self-reported delinquency.
Curated
Case Outcomes Following Investigative Interviews of Suspected Victims of Child Sexual Abuse in Salt Lake City and County, Utah, 1994-2000 (ICPSR 27721)
Released/updated on: 2010-08-10
Geographic coverage: United States, Salt Lake City, Utah
Time period: 1994-01-01--2000-01-01
The purpose of this study was to examine whether the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) Investigative Interview Protocol impacted child sexual abuse case outcomes within the justice system. The researchers coded information from child protection and police reports, Children's Justice Center (CJC) intake forms, and the CJC electronic database to create a dataset on 1,280 alleged child sexual abuse cases involving children interviewed in Salt Lake County, Utah, between 1994 and 2000. Specifically, the research team gathered case characteristics and case outcomes data on 551 alleged child sexual abuse cases in which investigative interviews were conducted from 1994 to mid-September 1997 before the NICHD protocol was implemented, and 729 alleged child sexual abuse cases in which investigative interviews were conducted from mid-September 1997 to 2000 after the implementation of the NICHD protocol, so that pre-NICHD protocol and NICHD protocol interview case outcomes could be compared. The same police detectives conducted both the pre-NICHD protocol interviews and the NICHD protocol interviews. The dataset contains a total of 116 variables pertaining to cases of suspected child abuse. The major categories of variables include demographic data on the suspected child victim and on the suspected perpetrator, on case characteristics, on case outcomes, and on time delays.
Curated
Simple Crosstabs
Census of Federal Law Enforcement Officers (CFLEO), [United States], Fiscal Year 2016 (ICPSR 37607)
Released/updated on: 2020-03-24
Geographic coverage: Puerto Rico, United States, Guam, Virgin Islands of the United States, American Samoa, Northern Mariana Islands
In 2016, there were approximately 132,000 full-time federal law enforcement officers who were authorized to make arrests and carry firearms in the United States and its territories. This data collection comes from the Census of Federal Law Enforcement Officers (CFLEO) and describes the agencies, functions, sex, and race of these officers. The data cover federal officers with arrest and firearm authority in both supervisory and non-supervisory roles employed as of September 30, 2016. The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) administered the CFLEO to 86 federal agencies employing officers with arrest and firearm authority. The data do not include officers stationed in foreign countries and also exclude officers in the U.S. Armed Forces.
Curated
Simple Crosstabs
Census of Federal Law Enforcement Officers (CFLEO), [United States], Fiscal Year 2020 (ICPSR 38667)
Released/updated on: 2023-05-10
Geographic coverage: Puerto Rico, United States, Guam, Virgin Islands of the United States, American Samoa, Northern Mariana Islands
The 2020 Census of Federal Law Enforcement Officers (CFLEO) collects information from federal law enforcement agencies that are authorized to make arrests and/or carry firearms. Data describe the number of officers employed by the agencies, the demographic characteristics of the officers, the functions of the officers, as well as hiring policies, screening techniques, equipment, and use of force techniques employed by these agencies.
Curated
Characteristics and Movement of Felons in California Prisons, 1851-1964 (ICPSR 7971)
Released/updated on: 1992-02-16
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1851-01-01--1964-01-01
Felons in the California prison system are documented in this data collection. The data are arranged by year and type of movement within the prison system, and include admissions, paroles, parole violations, suspensions or reinstatements of parole, discharges, deaths, and executions. Each record contains information on certain characteristics of the person involved, such as age at admission, race, marital status, education, military history, occupation, number of prior arrests, escape record, date and type of releases, and parole violations.
Curated
Charlotte [North Carolina] Spouse Assault Replication Project, 1987-1989 (ICPSR 6114)
Released/updated on: 2006-07-13
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Charlotte, United States
Time period: 1987-08-01--1989-06-01
This study is a replication and extension of an experiment conducted in Minneapolis (MINNEAPOLIS INTERVENTION PROJECT, 1986-1987 [ICPSR 9808]) to test the efficacy of three types of police response to spouse abuse. Three experimental treatments were employed: (1) advising and possibly separating the couple, (2) issuing a citation (an order to appear in court to answer specific charges) to the offender, and (3) arresting the offender. The main focus of the project concerned whether arrest is the most effective law enforcement response for deterring recidivism of spouse abusers. Cases were randomly assigned to one of the three treatments and were followed for at least six months to determine whether recidivism occurred. Measures of recidivism were obtained through official police records and victim interviews. Cases that met the following eligibility guidelines were included in the project: (1) a call involving a misdemeanor offense committed by a male offender aged 18 or over against a female victim aged 18 or over who were spouses, (2) ex-spouses, (3) cohabitants, or (4) ex-cohabitants. Also, both suspect and victim had to be present when officers arrived at the scene. Victims were interviewed twice. The first interview occurred shortly after the "presenting incident," the incident that initiated a call for police assistance. This initial interview focused on episodes of abuse that occurred between the time of the presenting incident and the day of the initial interview. In particular, detailed data were gathered on the nature of physical violence directed against the victim, the history of the victim's marital and cohabitating relationships, the nature of the presenting incident prior to the arrival of the police, the actual actions taken by the police at the scene, post-incident separations and reunions of the victim and the offender, recidivism since the presenting incident, the victim's previous abuse history, alcohol and drug use of both the victim and the offender, and the victim's help-seeking actions. Questions were asked regarding whether the offender had threatened to hurt the victim, actually hurt or tried to hurt the victim, threatened to hurt any member of the family, actually hurt or tried to hurt any member of the family, threatened to damage property, or actually damaged any property. In addition, criminal histories and arrest data for the six-month period subsequent to the presenting incident were collected for offenders. A follow-up interview was conducted approximately six months after the presenting incident and focused primarily on recidivism since the initial interview. Arrest recidivism was defined as any arrest for any subsequent offense by the same offender against the same victim committed within six months of the presenting incident. Victims were asked to estimate how often each type of victimization had occurred and to answer more detailed questions on the first and most recent incidents of victimization.
Curated
Partially restricted
Chicago Crimes, 2001-2018 (ICPSR 37256)
Released/updated on: 2019-03-04
Geographic coverage: United States, Chicago, Illinois
Time period: 2001-01-01--2018-01-01
This dataset reflects reported incidents of crime (with the exception of murders where data exists for each victim) that occurred in the City of Chicago from 2001 to November 29, 2018. Data are extracted from the Chicago Police Department's Citizen Law Enforcement Analysis and Reporting (CLEAR) system. In order to protect the privacy of crime victims, addresses are shown at the block level only and specific locations are not identified.
Users with questions about this dataset may contact the Research and Development Division of the Chicago Police Department at [email protected].
Disclaimer: These crimes may be based upon preliminary information supplied to the Police Department by the reporting parties that have not been verified. The preliminary crime classifications may be changed at a later date based upon additional investigation and there is always the possibility of mechanical or human error. Therefore, the Chicago Police Department does not guarantee (either expressed or implied) the accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or correct sequencing of the information and the information should not be used for comparison purposes over time. The Chicago Police Department will not be responsible for any error or omission, or for the use of, or the results obtained from the use of this information. All data visualizations on maps should be considered approximate and attempts to derive specific addresses are strictly prohibited. The Chicago Police Department is not responsible for the content of any off-site pages that are referenced by or that reference this web page other than an official City of Chicago or Chicago Police Department web page. The user specifically acknowledges that the Chicago Police Department is not responsible for any defamatory, offensive, misleading, or illegal conduct of other users, links, or third parties and that the risk of injury from the foregoing rests entirely with the user. The unauthorized use of the words "Chicago Police Department," "Chicago Police," or any colorable imitation of these words or the unauthorized use of the Chicago Police Department logo is unlawful. This web page does not, in any way, authorize such use.
Curated
Child Abuse, Neglect, and Violent Criminal Behavior in a Midwest Metropolitan Area of the United States, 1967-1988 (ICPSR 9480)
Released/updated on: 2006-01-12
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1967-01-01--1988-01-01
These data examine the relationships between childhood abuse and/or neglect and later criminal and violent criminal behavior. In particular, the data focus on whether being a victim of violence and/or neglect in early childhood leads to being a criminal offender in adolescence or early adulthood and whether a relationship exists between childhood abuse or neglect and arrests as a juvenile, arrests as an adult, and arrests for violent offenses. For this data collection, adult and juvenile criminal histories of sampled cases with backgrounds of abuse or neglect were compared to those of a matched control group with no official record of abuse or neglect. Variables contained in Part 1 include demographic information (age, race, sex, and date of birth). In Part 2, information is presented on the abuse/neglect incident (type of abuse or neglect, duration of the incident, whether the child was removed from the home and, if so, for how long, results of the placement, and whether the individual was still alive). Part 3 contains family information (with whom the child was living at the time of the incident, family disruptions, and who reported the abuse or neglect) and data on the perpetrator of the incident (relation to the victim, age, race, sex, and whether living in the home of the victim). Part 4 contains information on the charges filed within adult arrest incidents (occasion for arrest, multiple counts of the same type of charge, year and location of arrest, and type of offense or charge), and Part 5 includes information on the charges filed within juvenile arrest incidents (year of juvenile charge, number of arrests, and type of offense or charge). The unit of analysis for Parts 1 through 3 is the individual at age 11 or younger, for Part 4 the charge within the adult arrest incident, and for Part 5 the charge within the juvenile arrest incident.
Curated
Civil Litigation in the United States, 1977-1979 (ICPSR 7994)
Released/updated on: 1994-02-18
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1977-01-01--1979-01-01
The Civil Litigation Research Project, based at the University of Wisconsin Law School, was organized in 1979 to develop a large database on dispute processing and litigation and to collect information on the costs of civil litigation. Data were gathered on topics such as negotiation proceedings, relationship between lawyer and client, and organizations' influence on the outcome of a dispute.
Curated
Restricted
Comparative Evaluation of Court-Based Responses to Offenders with Mental Illnesses, Cook County, Illinois, 1953-2014 (ICPSR 35650)
Released/updated on: 2018-05-09
Geographic coverage: United States, Illinois
Time period: 2012-01-01--2013-01-01, 1953-01-01--2014-01-01, 2010-01-01--2014-01-01
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 was designed to provide a mixed methods comparative evaluation of three established court-based programs that serve offenders with serious mental illness (SMI). These programs were selected in response to criticism of similar research for studying young programs that are still in development, employing short follow up periods that are unable to indicate sustained effectiveness, and utilizing less than ideal comparison conditions. The study was conducted in Cook County, Illinois, and data were collected from three distinct court-based programs: the Cook County Felony Mental Health Court (MHC) which serves individuals with SMI who have been arrested for nonviolent felonies, the Specialized Mental Health Probation Unit which involves specially trained probation officers who supervise a reduced caseload of probationers diagnosed with SMI, and the Cook County Adult Probation Department which has an active caseload of approximately 25,000 probationers, a portion of whom have SMI. Probation officer interviews were coded for themes regarding beliefs about the relationship between mental illness and crime, views on the purpose of their program, and approaches used with probationers with SMI. The coding of probationer interviews focused on experiences related to having SMI and being on probation, including: the extent to which probation was involved with mental health treatment; development of awareness of mental health issues; evaluations of the programs based on subjective experiences; and the relationship dynamics between probationers and staff.
The collection includes 3 Stata data files: DRI-R_data_for_NACJD_041315.dta with 98 cases and 61 variables, Epperson_NIJ_Quantitative_Data_for_NACJD_041315.dta with 25203 cases and 49 variables, and incarceration_data_061515.dta with 676 cases and 4 variables. The qualitative data are not available as part of this data collection at this time.
Curated
Comparison of Drug Control Strategies in San Diego, 1989 (ICPSR 9990)
Released/updated on: 2000-03-21
Geographic coverage: San Diego, United States, California
This study assesses the consequences for offenders of various drug enforcement strategies employed by the San Diego Police Department and profiles the factors that characterize street-level and mid-level dealers, drug users, and the drug market. The drug enforcement strategies examined include the use of search warrants, body wires, police decoys, surveillance, officer buys and sells, wiretaps, and sweeps. Measures of the consequences of arrests include drug and property seizures, convictions, and sentences. The data were drawn from police and court records of drug arrests made by three special sections of the police department in San Diego, California. Additionally, data were collected through personal interviews conducted at the time of arrest with a subsample of persons arrested for drug charges. The arrest tracking file, Part 1, contains demographic information about the offenders, including criminal history and gang membership, as well as data on each arrest through final disposition, charges, and sentencing. The interview portion of the study, Part 2, provides information about the demographics and characteristics of drug users and dealers, criminal history and drug use history, current arrest information, and offenders' opinions about drug use, drug sales, police strategies, and the drug market.
Curated
Crack, Powder Cocaine, and Heroin: Drug Purchase and Use Patterns in Six Cities in the United States, 1995-1996 (ICPSR 2564)
Released/updated on: 2012-08-22
Geographic coverage: New York City, Oregon, District of Columbia, San Diego, San Antonio, United States, Chicago, Illinois, Texas, Portland (Oregon), California, New York (state)
Time period: 1995-01-01--1996-01-01
This study was designed to address the practical and policy implications of various drug market participation patterns. In 1995, the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) and the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) collaborated on a project called the Procurement Study. This study was executed as an addendum to NIJ's Drug Use Forecasting (DUF) program (DRUG USE FORECASTING IN 24 CITIES IN THE UNITED STATES, 1987-1997 [ICPSR 9477]) with the goal of extending previous research in which heroin users were interviewed on various aspects of drug market activity. The present study sought to explore additional features of drug market participation and use, both within and across drug types and cities, and included two additional drugs -- powder cocaine and crack cocaine. Data were collected from recently arrested users of powder cocaine, crack cocaine, and heroin in six DUF cities (Chicago, New York, Portland, San Diego, San Antonio, and Washington, DC). Each of the three files in this collection, Crack Data (Part 1), Heroin Data (Part 2), and Powder Cocaine Data (Part 3), is comprised of data from a procurement interview, urine test variables, and a DUF interview. During the procurement interview, information was collected on purchase and use patterns for specific drugs. Variables from the procurement interview include the respondent's method of using the drug, the term used to refer to the drug, whether the respondent bought the drug in the neighborhood, the number of different dealers the respondent bought the drug from, how the respondent made the connection with the dealer (i.e., street, house, phone, beeper, business/store, or friends), their main drug source, whether the respondent went to someone else if the source was not available, how the respondent coped with not being able to find drugs to buy, whether the respondent got the drug for free, the means by which the respondent obtained money, the quantity and packaging of the drug, and the number of minutes spent searching for, traveling to, and waiting for their last purchase. Urine tests screened for the presence of ten drugs, including marijuana, opiates, cocaine, PCP, methadone, benzodiazepines (Valium), methaqualone, propoxyphene (Darvon), barbiturates, and amphetamines (positive test results for amphetamines were confirmed by gas chromatography). Data from the DUF interview provide detailed information about each arrestee's self-reported use of 15 drugs. For each drug type, arrestees were asked whether they had ever used the drug, the age at which they first used the drug, whether they had used the drug within the past three days, how many days they had used the drug within the past month, whether they had ever needed or felt dependent on the drug, and whether they were dependent on the drug at the time of the interview. Data from the DUF interview instrument also included alcohol/drug treatment history, information about whether arrestees had ever injected drugs, and whether they were influenced by drugs when the crime that they were charged with was committed. The data also include information about whether the arrestee had been to an emergency room for drug-related incidents and whether he or she had had prior arrests in the past 12 months. Demographic data include the age, race, sex, educational attainment, marital status, employment status, and living circumstances of each respondent.
Curated
Crime Days Precursors Study: Baltimore, 1952-1976 (ICPSR 8222)
Released/updated on: 1992-02-16
Geographic coverage: Baltimore, United States, Maryland
Time period: 1952-01-01--1976-01-01
This data collection focuses on 354 male narcotic addicts who were selected using a stratified random sample from a population of 6,149 known narcotic abusers arrested or identified by the Baltimore, Maryland, Police Department between 1952 and 1976. Variables include respondent's use of controlled drugs, including marijuana, hallucinogens, amphetamines, barbiturates, codeine, heroin, methadone, cocaine, tranquilizers, and other narcotics. Also of interest is the respondent's past criminal activity including arrests, length of incarceration, educational attainment, employment history, personal income, mobility, and drug treatment, if any.
Curated
Crime Stoppers: A National Evaluation of Program Operations and Effects, [United States], 1984 (ICPSR 9349)
Released/updated on: 2006-01-12
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1984-02-01--1984-05-01
The goal of this data collection was to answer three basic questions about the Crime Stoppers (CS) program, a program encouraging citizen involvement in averting crime and apprehending suspects. First, how does Crime Stoppers work in theory and in practice? Second, what are the opinions and attitudes of program participants toward the Crime Stoppers program? Third, how do various components of the program such as rewards, anonymity, use of informants, and media participation affect criminal justice outcome measures such as citizen calls and arrests? This collection marks the first attempt to examine the operational procedures and effectiveness of Crime Stoppers programs in the United States. Police coordinators and board chairs of local Crime Stoppers programs described their perceptions of and attitudes toward the Crime Stoppers program. The Police Coordinator File includes variables such as the police coordinator's background and experience, program development and support, everyday operations and procedures, outcome statistics on citizen calls (suspects arrested, property recovered, and suspects prosecuted), reward setting and distribution, and program relations with media, law enforcement, and the board of directors. Also available in this file are data on citizen calls received by the program, the program's arrests and clearances, and the program's effects on investigation procedure. The merged file contains data from police coordinators and from Crime Stoppers board members. Other variables include city population, percent of households living in poverty, percent of white population, number of Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) Part I crimes involved, membership and performance of the board, fund raising methods, and ratings of the program.
Curated
Criminal Justice Outcomes of Male Offenders in 14 Jurisdictions in the United States, 1985-1988 (ICPSR 9671)
Released/updated on: 2006-01-12
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1985-01-01--1988-01-01
This data collection provides information on multiple prosecutions for individual offenders. The data are intended for use in the exploration and description of relationships among the various elements of the adjudication process (characteristics of the offender and offense and decisions made by various actors in the prosecution and sentencing of the offenders). The sampled incidents were drawn from two types of offenses: residential burglary and armed robbery. The collection includes only those incidents involving male offenders who were previously unknown to their victims and who were facing adjudication in adult court. The data collection instrument probed five areas for each offender and incident sampled: A. Related Incidents (information to identify all other incidents for which processing overlapped that of the sampled incident), B. Incident Description (information about the criminal incident itself, such as date and location of the incident, date of arrest, victims, weapons, accomplices, witnesses, and evidence), C. Adjudication Process (information such as bond amount, legal representation, adjudication events and outcomes, date of sentencing, and type and length of incarceration), D. Defendant (information about the defendant himself, including date of birth, race/descent, and employment status), and E. Prior Record (information about the defendant's record, such as his age at first arrest and first incarceration, the number of times he was incarcerated, and history of drug and/or alcohol abuse).
Curated
Criminal Justice Response to Victim Harm in the United States, 1981 (ICPSR 8249)
Released/updated on: 2006-01-12
Geographic coverage: United States
This data collection examines the ways in which victim harm affects decisions regarding arrest, prosecution, and sentencing, and the impact of these decisions on the victim's perception of the criminal justice system. Five types of offenses were studied: homicide, sexual assault, burglary, robbery, and aggravated assault. The victim file contains information on personal characteristics, results of victimization, involvement in case processing, use of victim assistance service, satisfaction with case outcomes, and opinions about the court system. The police file and the prosecutor file variables cover personal background, screening decisions on scenario cases, communication with victims, and opinions about the role of victims in the criminal justice system. The prosecutor file also includes sentencing recommendations on the scenarios. Data in the judge file cover personal background, sentencing recommendations on the scenario cases, communications with victims, sources of information regarding victim harm, and opinions about the role of victims in the criminal justice system.
Curated
Data Bank of Minority Group Conflict, 1955-1965 (ICPSR 5209)
Released/updated on: 2009-07-16
Geographic coverage: Myanmar, Cyprus, Cambodia, Sudan, Malaysia, Paraguay, Portugal, Iceland, Global, Syria, North Korea, Greece, South Korea, Austria, Yugoslavia, El Salvador, Morocco, Iran, Luxembourg, Panama, Brazil, Guatemala, Iraq, Chile, Laos, Ecuador, Colombia, Argentina, Hungary, Japan, Zambia, Ghana, India, Albania, New Zealand, Turkey, Belgium, Finland, Italy, Honduras, Peru, Germany, Ethiopia, Haiti, Afghanistan, United States, Egypt, China (Peoples Republic), Thailand, Bolivia, Libya, Costa Rica, Saudi Arabia, Netherlands, Sweden, Pakistan, Ireland, Poland, France, Jordan, Bulgaria, Tunisia, Romania, Uruguay, Sri Lanka, Philippines, United Kingdom, Switzerland, Spain, Lebanon, Liberia, Cuba, Czech Republic, Nicaragua, Norway, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Mexico, Zimbabwe, Israel, Australia, Soviet Union, Indonesia
Time period: 1955-01-01--1965-01-01
This study contains data on conflict events between ethnic, racial, linguistic, and religious minority groups and predominant groups within society in 84 nations in the period 1955-1965. For each event, data are provided for the type of event, number and type of initiator and target of event, nature of minority tension, issues involved, date, location and duration of event, presence of violence, outcome of the event, number of initiators, targets, and mediators injured, arrested, or killed, and number of significant persons involved in the event as initiators, targets, or mediators that were injured, killed, or arrested. A summary scale was developed to measure the different intensity levels of aggressive behavior as well as the degree of friendliness signified by an event in minority tensions.
Curated
Restricted
Data on Crime, Supervision, and Economic Change in the Greater Washington, DC Area, 2000 - 2014 (ICPSR 36366)
Released/updated on: 2018-02-14
Geographic coverage: District of Columbia, United States, Virginia, Maryland
Time period: 2000-01-01--2014-01-01
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.
The study includes data collected with the purpose of creating an integrated dataset that would allow researchers to address significant, policy-relevant gaps in the literature--those that are best answered with cross-jurisdictional data representing a wide array of economic and social factors. The research addressed five research questions:
- What is the impact of gentrification and suburban diversification on crime within and across jurisdictional boundaries?
- How does crime cluster along and around transportation networks and hubs in relation to other characteristics of the social and physical environment?
- What is the distribution of criminal justice-supervised populations in relation to services they must access to fulfill their conditions of supervision?
- What are the relationships among offenders, victims, and crimes across jurisdictional boundaries?
- What is the increased predictive power of simulation models that employ cross-jurisdictional data?
Curated
Restricted
Deaths in Custody Reporting Program: Arrest-Related Deaths, 2003-2009 (ICPSR 36291)
Released/updated on: 2016-01-29
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 2003-01-01--2009-01-01
The Arrest-Related Deaths (ARD) program is an annual national census of persons who die either during the process of arrest or while in the custody of state or local law enforcement personnel. The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) implemented the ARD program in 2003 as part of the Deaths in Custody Reporting Program (DCRP). The DCRP was initiated to fulfill the data collection requirement of the Deaths in Custody Reporting Act of 2000 (DICRA, P.L. 106- 247). It collects in-depth information on deaths during arrest and incarceration, and it provides national-level information on the deaths of suspects and offenders from their initial contact with law enforcement personnel through the time they are incarcerated in a jail or prison. ARD data are collected to quantify and describe the circumstances surrounding civilian deaths that take place during an arrest or while in the custody of law enforcement. These data describe the prevalence and incidence of arrest-related deaths across the nation, identify the circumstances or activities that contribute to these deaths, and reveal trends in the causes and circumstances of these deaths in custody at national and state levels. These data can be used to inform specific policies that may increase the safety of law enforcement officers and citizens, identify training needs in law enforcement agencies, and assist in developing prevention strategies. The current ARD program relies on state reporting coordinators (SRCs) in each of the 50 states and the District of Columbia to identify and report on all eligible cases of arrest-related deaths. BJS compiles data from the states to produce national-level statistics on deaths that occur in the process of arrest by, or while in the custody of, state and local law enforcement personnel.
Curated
Deterrent Effects of Arrests and Imprisonment in the United States, 1960-1977 (ICPSR 7973)
Released/updated on: 2005-11-04
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1960-01-01--1977-01-01
Emerging from the tradition of econometric models of deterrence and crime, this study attempts to improve estimates of how crime rates are affected by the apprehension and punishment of persons charged with criminal activity. These data are contained in two files: Part 1, State Data, consists of a panel of observations from each of the 50 states and contains information on crime rates, clearance rates, length of time served, probability of imprisonment, socioeconomic factors such as unemployment rates, population levels, and income levels, and state and local expenditures for police protection. Part 2, SMSA Data, consists of a panel of 77 SMSAs and contains information on crime rates, clearance rates, length of time served, probability of imprisonment, socioeconomic factors such as employment rates, population levels, and income levels, and taxation and expenditure information.
Curated
Restricted
Development and Validation of an Actuarial Risk Assessment Tool for Juveniles with a History of Sexual Offending, 5 U.S. states, 2009-2013 (ICPSR 38335)
Released/updated on: 2022-08-30
Geographic coverage: Oregon, United States, Florida, New York (state), Virginia, Pennsylvania
Time period: 2009-01-01--2013-12-31
Because there are few existing tools for assessing the risk of recidivism for youth with a history of sexual offending that are empirically valid and reliable, knowledge and practice in this area has historically been limited. This project examined current practice and policy in the assessment, treatment, and management of juvenile sex offenders across multiple jurisdictions (Florida, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Virginia). The researchers developed a prototype assessment tool, state-specific risk assessment models, and practical guidance for building a risk assessment for sexual recidivism in juvenile justice settings.
The data file contains individual records for the full sample (n=8,035), including their risk predictors, recidivism measures, and resulting outputs (i.e., predicted probabilities of sexual recidivism) from the risk models.
Curated
Differential Use of Jail Confinement in San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Yolo Counties, 1981 (ICPSR 8920)
Released/updated on: 1992-02-16
Geographic coverage: United States, Los Angeles County, California, Yolo County, San Francisco County
This study provides detailed information on inmate characteristics, length of time in jail, methods of release, conditions of release, disciplinary violations, and types of program participation while in jail. The file contains variables for each inmate, including information about inmates' demographic characteristics, current offenses, prior records, confinement conditions, disciplinary problems, and nature and time of disposition.
Curated
Domestic Violence and Substance Abuse Among the Arrestee Population in Albuquerque, New Mexico, 1999-2001 (ICPSR 3585)
Released/updated on: 2003-06-25
Geographic coverage: United States, New Mexico
Time period: 1999-01-01--2001-01-01
The focus of this study was to examine levels of aggressive behavior during incidents of domestic violence in relation to self-reported drug and alcohol use among an arrestee population from Bernalillo County in Albuquerque, New Mexico. The research questions motivating this project were: (1) Are acts of domestic violence committed while the offender is taking illicit psychoactive substances, as ascertained by self-reports? (2) For those individuals with domestic violence charges, do urinalyses conducted within 48 hours of an individual's arrest indicate the recent use of a psychoactive substance? (3) Which substances are most prevalently associated with incidents of domestic violence? (4) Is there a difference in levels of aggressive behavior that is dependent on the individual? (5) Does the severity of domestic violence increase with the presence of psychoactive substances? (6) What differences (if any) exists between batterers who take psychoactive substances and batterers who do not? The data for this research were collected in conjunction with the National Institute of Justice's Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) programs. The domestic violence survey addendum was administered to all arrestees from Bernalillo County in Albuquerque, New Mexico, who had completed the ADAM interview and provided a urine specimen and were willing to answer additional questions concerning domestic violence. Variables from the ADAM instruments were comprised of demographic data on each arrestee, calendar of admissions to drug treatment-related programs, data on dependence and abuse, drug market and use data, and urine test results. Variables from the domestic violence addendum include demographics on the intimate partner, whether specific physical events occurred, whether specific injuries had been sustained by both arrestee and partner, and the specific circumstances surrounding the physical abuse event.
Curated
Domestic Violence Experience in Omaha, Nebraska, 1986-1987 (ICPSR 9481)
Released/updated on: 2006-07-24
Geographic coverage: Omaha, United States, Nebraska
Time period: 1986-01-01--1987-01-01
The purpose of this data collection was to corroborate the findings of SPECIFIC DETERRENT EFFECTS OF ARREST FOR DOMESTIC ASSAULT: MINNEAPOLIS, 1981-1982 (ICPSR 8250) that arrest is an effective deterrent against continued domestic assaults. The data addressed the following questions: (1) To what extent does arrest decrease the likelihood of continued violence, as assessed by the victim? (2) To what extent does arrest decrease the likelihood of continued complaints of crime, as assessed by police records? (3) What are the differences in arrest recidivism between cases that involved arrest versus cases that involved mediation, separation, warrant issued, or no warrant issued? Domestic violence cases in three sectors of Omaha, Nebraska, meeting established eligibility criteria, were assigned to one of five experimental treatments: mediation, separation, arrest, warrant issued, or no warrant issued. Data for victim reports were collected from three interviews with the victims conducted one week, six months, and 12 months after the domestic violence incident. Arrest, charge, and complaint data were collected on the suspects at six- and twelve-month intervals following the original domestic violence incident. The investigators used arrest recidivism, continued complaints of crime, and victim reports of repeated violence (fear of injury, pushing/hitting, and physical injury) as outcome measures to assess the extent to which treatments prevented subsequent conflicts. Other variables include victim's level of fear, self-esteem, locus of control, and welfare dependency, changes in the relationship between suspect and victim, extent of the victim's injury, and extent of drug use by the victim and the suspect. Demographic variables include race, age, sex, income, occupational status, and marital status.
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
Drugs and Crime in Public Housing, 1986-1989: Los Angeles, Phoenix, and Washington, DC (ICPSR 6235)
Released/updated on: 2006-01-12
Geographic coverage: District of Columbia, United States, Phoenix, Los Angeles, California, Arizona
Time period: 1986-01-01--1989-01-01
This study investigates rates of serious crime for selected public housing developments in Washington, DC, Phoenix, Arizona, and Los Angeles, California, for the years 1986 to 1989. Offense rates in housing developments were compared to rates in nearby areas of private housing as well as to city-wide rates. In addition, the extent of law enforcement activity in housing developments as represented by arrests was considered and compared to arrest levels in other areas. This process allowed both intra-city and inter-city comparisons to be made. Variables cover study site, origin of data, year of event, offense codes, and location of event. Los Angeles files also include police division.
Curated
Early Identification of the Chronic Offender, [1978-1980: California] (ICPSR 8226)
Released/updated on: 2006-01-12
Time period: 1978-01-01--1980-01-01
Patterns of adult criminal behavior are examined in this data collection. Data covering the adult years of peak criminal activity (from approximately 18 to 26 years of age) were obtained from samples of delinquent youths who had been incarcerated in three California Youth Authority institutions during the 1960s: Preston, Fricot, and the Northern California Youth Center. Data were obtained from three sources: official arrest records of the California Bureau of Criminal Investigation and Identification (CII), supplementary data from the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the California Bureau of Vital Statistics. Follow-up data were collected between 1978 and 1981. There are two files per sample site. The first is a background data file containing information obtained while the subjects were housed in Youth Authority institutions, and the second is a follow-up history offense file containing data from arrest records. Each individual is identified by a unique ID number, which is the same in the background and offense history files.
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 Arrests and Incarceration on Informal Social Control in Baltimore, Maryland, Neighborhoods, 1980-1994 (ICPSR 3796)
Released/updated on: 2003-12-11
Geographic coverage: Baltimore, United States, Maryland
Time period: 1980-01-01--1994-01-01
This study examined the effects of police arrest policies and incarceration policies on communities in 30 neighborhoods in Baltimore. Specifically, the study addressed the question of whether aggressive arrest and incarceration policies negatively impacted social organization and thereby reduced the willingness of area residents to engage in informal social control, or collective efficacy. CRIME CHANGES IN BALTIMORE, 1970-1994 (ICPSR 2352) provided aggregate community-level data on demographics, socioeconomic attributes, and crime rates as well as data from interviews with residents about community attachment, cohesiveness, participation, satisfaction, and experiences with crime and self-protection. Incident-level offense and arrest data for 1987 and 1992 were obtained from the Baltimore Police Department. The Maryland Department of Public Safety and Corrections provided data on all of the admissions to and releases from prisons in neighborhoods in Baltimore City and Baltimore County for 1987, 1992, and 1994.
Curated
Effects of Prior Record in Sentencing Research in a Large Northeastern City, 1968-1979: [United States] (ICPSR 8929)
Released/updated on: 1992-02-16
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1968-01-01--1979-01-01
This data collection examines the impact of defendants' prior criminal records on the sentencing of male and female defendants committing violent and non-violent crimes. The collection also provides data on which types of prior records most influenced the sentencing judges. Variables deal specifically with the defendant, the judge and the characteristics of the current case. Only cases that fell into one of 14 categories of common offenses were included. These offenses were murder, manslaughter, rape, robbery, assault, minor assault, burglary, auto theft, embezzlement, receiving stolen property, forgery, sex offenses other than rape, drug possession, and driving while intoxicated.