Showing 1 – 2 of 2 results.
Curated
Restricted
Reentry Mapping Network Project in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Washington, DC, and Winston-Salem, North Carolina, 2003-2004 (ICPSR 20560)
Released/updated on: 2010-07-30
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Milwaukee, District of Columbia, United States, Winston-Salem, Wisconsin
Time period: 2003-01-01--2003-12-31, 2004-01-01--2004-12-31, 2003-01-01--2003-12-31
The Urban Institute established the Reentry Mapping Network (RMN), a group of jurisdictions applying a data-driven, spatial approach to prisoner reentry. The purpose of the study was to examine three National Institute of Justice-funded RMN sites: Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Washington, DC, and Winston-Salem, North Carolina. As members of the Reentry Mapping Network, the three sites collected local data related to incarceration, reentry, and community well-being. The Nonprofit Center of Milwaukee's Neighborhood Data Center was the lead Reentry Mapping Network partner in Milwaukee. Data on a total of 168 census tracts in Milwaukee (Part 1) during the calendar year 2003 were obtained from the Wisconsin Department of Corrections. NeighborhoodInfo DC was the lead reentry mapping network partner in Washington, DC. Data on a total of 7,286 ex-offenders in Washington, DC (Part 2) during the calendar year 2004 were obtained from the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency (CSOSA) for the District of Columbia. The Winston-Salem Reentry Mapping Network project was managed by the Center for Community Safety (CCS), a public service and research center of Winston-Salem State University. Data on a total of 2,896 ex-offenders in Forsyth County (Part 3) during the calendar year 2003 were obtained from the North Carolina Department of Corrections (DOC), the Forsyth County Sheriff's Department (Forsyth County Detention Center [FCDC]), and the North Carolina Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (DJJDP). The Milwaukee, Wisconsin Data (Part 1) contain a total of 95 variables including race, ethnicity, gender, marital status, education, job status, dependents, general risk assessment, alcohol risk, drug risk, need for alcohol treatment, and need for drug treatment. Also included are four geographic variables. The Washington, DC Data (Part 2) contain a total of 13 variables including supervision type, whether supervision began in calendar year 2004, date supervision period began, date supervision period ended, sex, marital status, ethnicity, age, education, unemployment status, state, and Census tract. The Winston-Salem, North Carolina Data (Part 3) contain a total of 14 variables including race, sex, primary offense, admittance date, date pardoned, street, city, state, status, jurisdiction, and age at admission.
Curated
Restricted
Use of Computerized Crime Mapping by Law Enforcement in the United States, 1997-1998 (ICPSR 2878)
Released/updated on: 2008-04-18
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1997-01-01--1998-01-01
As a first step in understanding law enforcement agencies' use and knowledge of crime mapping, the Crime Mapping Research Center (CMRC) of the National Institute of Justice conducted a nationwide survey to determine which agencies were using geographic information systems (GIS), how they were using them, and, among agencies that were not using GIS, the reasons for that choice. Data were gathered using a survey instrument developed by National Institute of Justice staff, reviewed by practitioners and researchers with crime mapping knowledge, and approved by the Office of Management and Budget. The survey was mailed in March 1997 to a sample of law enforcement agencies in the United States. Surveys were accepted until May 1, 1998. Questions asked of all respondents included type of agency, population of community, number of personnel, types of crimes for which the agency kept incident-based records, types of crime analyses conducted, and whether the agency performed computerized crime mapping. Those agencies that reported using computerized crime mapping were asked which staff conducted the mapping, types of training their staff received in mapping, types of software and computers used, whether the agency used a global positioning system, types of data geocoded and mapped, types of spatial analyses performed and how often, use of hot spot analyses, how mapping results were used, how maps were maintained, whether the department kept an archive of geocoded data, what external data sources were used, whether the agency collaborated with other departments, what types of Department of Justice training would benefit the agency, what problems the agency had encountered in implementing mapping, and which external sources had funded crime mapping at the agency. Departments that reported no use of computerized crime mapping were asked why that was the case, whether they used electronic crime data, what types of software they used, and what types of Department of Justice training would benefit their agencies.