Search results

Showing 1 – 6 of 6 results.

Curated

Simple Crosstabs

A*CENSUS II Administrators Survey, United States, 2022 (ICPSR 38827)

Released/updated on: 2023-12-06

Geographic coverage: United States

Time period: 2022-03-07--2022-04-25

The Archives Administrators Survey endeavored to reach administrators leading archives in the United States. Archives administrators are defined as the most senior leaders and decision makers at their archives, regardless of archive size. Administrators may oversee large archives organizations, archives departments or units situated within broader institutions, or community archives collections. Archives administrators may manage employees or volunteers or, in some cases, may be the sole steward of an archival collection.

Respondents were asked about the characteristics of their archives department or organization; staff scope; administrator responsibilities; recruitment and retention; funding and spending; organizational strategy; diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility; the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic; upskilling and professional development; and community archives.

Demographic variables include respondents' years in their current role, total years of experience, degrees, age, gender, race, and sexual orientation, as well as whether they are transgender, have a disability, or are a care-giver.

Curated

Restricted

Collecting DNA from Juveniles in 30 U.S. States, 2009-2010 (ICPSR 31281)

Released/updated on: 2014-12-19

Geographic coverage: Oregon, United States, Tennessee, Maine, Alabama, Arkansas, Utah, Washington, South Carolina, Massachusetts, Colorado, Alaska, Wisconsin, Arizona, Montana, Kentucky, South Dakota, Minnesota, California, Kansas, Florida, New Jersey, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Iowa, Illinois, Texas, New Hampshire, Louisiana, Ohio, Virginia

Time period: 2007-01-01--2010-12-31

This study examined the laws, policies, and practices related to juvenile DNA collection, as well as their implications for the juvenile and criminal justice systems. DNA evidence proved valuable in solving crimes, which motivated a concerted effort to expand the categories of offenders who provided DNA samples for analysis and inclusion in the Combined DNA Index System (CODIS), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)-operated national database.

State requirements for DNA collection, which initially focused on adult offenders convicted of sexual or violent offenses, expanded to include other categories of convicted felons, convicted misdemeanants, arrestees, and juveniles. In 30 states, certain categories of juveniles handled in the juvenile justice system must now provide DNA samples. The study was designed to explore the practice and implications of collecting DNA from juveniles and addressed the following questions:

How have state agencies, juvenile justice agencies and state laboratories implemented juvenile DNA collection laws?
What were the number and characteristics of juveniles with profiles included in CODIS?
How have juvenile profiles in CODIS contributed to public safety or other justice outcomes?
What improvements to policies and practices needed to be made?

To examine these questions, researchers at the Urban Institute: (1) systematically reviewed all state DNA statutes; (2) conducted semi-structured interviews with CODIS lab representatives in states that collect DNA from juveniles to understand how the laws were implemented; (3) collected and analyzed descriptive data provided by these labs on the volume and characteristics of juvenile profiles in CODIS; (4) conducted semi-structured interviews with juvenile and criminal justice stakeholders in five case study states; and (5) convened a meeting of federal officials and experts from the forensic and juvenile justice committees to explore the broader impacts of juvenile DNA collection.

Curated

Restricted

Evaluation of the Community Supervision Mapping System for Released Prisoners in Rhode Island, 2008-2010 (ICPSR 32004)

Released/updated on: 2014-09-30

Geographic coverage: Rhode Island, United States

Time period: 2008-01-01--2010-12-31

This study evaluated the Community Supervision Mapping System (CSMS), an online geospatial tool that enables users to map the formerly incarcerated and others on probation, along with related data such as service provider locations and police districts. Probation officers in the state of Rhode Island were surveyed a few weeks before and 18 months after the implementation of CSMS. A total of 56 probation officers participated in the first wave of the study (pre-implementation survey), and 52 probation officers participated in the second wave (post-implementation survey), yielding an overall sample size of 108 probation officers. Dataset 1 contains the data for both waves of the study. The dataset is comprised of 140 variables. Both waves of the study examined the following categories of variables: the probation officer's professional background, contact with clients, amount of time spent on job duties specific to the profession, contact with other agencies, and computer usage. The second wave added 86 variables to explore officers' experiences with CSMS, which features they used, how it impacted their work, and their expected use of CSMS in the future.

Curated

Missing Data in the Uniform Crime Reports (UCR), 1977-2000 [United States] (ICPSR 32061)

Released/updated on: 2012-11-26

Geographic coverage: United States

Time period: 1977-01-01--2000-12-31

This study reexamined and recoded missing data in the Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) for the years 1977 to 2000 for all police agencies in the United States. The principal investigator conducted a data cleaning of 20,067 Originating Agency Identifiers (ORIs) contained within the Offenses-Known UCR data from 1977 to 2000. Data cleaning involved performing agency name checks and creating new numerical codes for different types of missing data including missing data codes that identify whether a record was aggregated to a particular month, whether no data were reported (true missing), if more than one index crime was missing, if a particular index crime (motor vehicle theft, larceny, burglary, assault, robbery, rape, murder) was missing, researcher assigned missing value codes according to the "rule of 20", outlier values, whether an ORI was covered by another agency, and whether an agency did not exist during a particular time period.

Curated

Compassion Capital Fund Demonstration Program Outcome Study, FY 2003-2005, United States (ICPSR 29482)

Released/updated on: 2011-10-19

Geographic coverage: United States

Time period: 2007-08-01--2008-02-29

The Compassion Capital Fund (CCF) program conducted a study of the financial and technical assistance (TA) provided by intermediary organizations and the effects of those services in improving the organizational capacity of the Faith-based and Community Organizations (FBCOs) they assisted in 2006. Information obtained through this survey was used for research purposes in a study sponsored by the United States Department of Health and Human Services to learn about the effects of capacity building services supported through the CCF program. Approximately 15 months after participant organizations applied for financial or technical assistance, they were asked to complete an additional questionnaire to provide current and up-to-date information about the operations of the organization, and any changes associated with the received assistance. The study sample was the entire population of nonprofit organizations (NPOs) that applied for assistance and were determined eligible by the 10 intermediary organizations awarded CCF Demonstration Program grants in the 2006 grant cycle. In total, 1,221 organizations completed the survey. Survey questions were categorized into topics including organization profile, financial management practices, previous funding sources, record keeping, organizational governance, technological equipment, and level of community engagement. Questions included the purpose for which the organization was applying for assistance, whether the organization was religious or faith-based, the organizations primary service areas, how the organization measures effectiveness and conducts self-evaluations, human resource practices, total expenditures for the year, whether the organization previously applied for funding, sources of revenue, whether the organization participated in grant writing workshops, methods used to spread awareness of the organization to various groups, the purpose of partnerships with other groups and how the organization used the Internet. Other questions included a head count of paid and volunteer staff, the number of organizational leaders, the level of involvement of organizational leaders in staff development, the level of staff participation in training and development opportunities, the activities of the Board of Directors, whether there was sufficient technological equipment to meet organizational needs, focus areas and goals of the organization, and questions measuring change, development and helpfulness of the received assistance in the above mentioned areas.

Curated

A*CENSUS (Archival Census and Education Needs Survey in the United States), 2004 (ICPSR 4265)

Released/updated on: 2005-08-18

Geographic coverage: United States

Time period: 2004-01-01--2004-12-31

The A*CENSUS, the first comprehensive survey of individuals in the archival profession since 1982, was designed to collect baseline demographic data on archivists in the workforce in the United States, identify the knowledge and skills archivists need to do their jobs and adapt to future demands, and gauge the capacity of graduate and continuing education programs to deliver the necessary knowledge and skills. Detailed information was collected from all respondents in the following subject areas: basic demographic information (age, gender, race/ethnicity), employment (full/part-time, average hours per week, type of employer, years employed, functions), education (degrees, majors, years awarded), training and continuing education (sources, delivery formats and methods, support from employer for obtaining, barriers to obtaining, topical priorities), career paths (impetus for first archival job, careers prior to entering archival work, plans to leave archival work including retirement), professional association affiliation (membership in archival and other associations, support from employer for participation, impetus for joining), leadership/professional involvement (conference attendance, presentations, publications authored, teaching experience, leadership positions in archival and nonarchival organizations, strength of ties to archival profession), and issues of greatest importance.