Showing 1 – 10 of 10 results.
Curated
Assessment of a Multiagency Approach to Drug-Involved Gang Members in San Diego County, California, 1988-1992 (ICPSR 2022)
Released/updated on: 2002-03-05
Geographic coverage: United States, California
Time period: 1988-01-01--1992-01-01
In 1988, with funds from the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) via the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1987, a multiagency task force, Jurisdictions Unified for Drug Gang Enforcement (JUDGE), was created. Spearheaded by the San Diego County District Attorney's Office and representing a unique blend of police officers, probation officers, and deputy district attorneys working together, the JUDGE program targeted documented gang members also involved in drug use and sales. The task force incorporated an intensive supervision approach that enforced conditions of probation and drug laws and provided vertical prosecution for probation violations and new offenses involving targeted offenders. This research project sought to address the following research objectives: (1) to determine if the JUDGE program objectives were met during the grant period, (2) to assess the results of program activities, such as surveillance, special enforcement, and vertical prosecution, in terms of probation violations, arrests, pretrial custody, probation revocations, convictions, and sentences, (3) to evaluate the impact of the program on offenders as measured by recidivism and the need for probation intervention, (4) to assess the cost of JUDGE probation compared to regular probation caseloads, and (5) to provide recommendations regarding the implementation of similar programs in other jurisdictions. This research project consisted of a process evaluation and an impact assessment that focused on the first two years of the JUDGE program, when youthful offenders were the targets (1988 and 1989). The research effort focused only on new targets for whom adequate records were maintained, yielding a study size of 279. The tracking period for targets ended in 1992. For the impact assessment, the research was structured as a within-subjects design, with the comparison focusing on target youths two years before the implementation of JUDGE and the same group two years after being targeted by JUDGE. Data were compiled on the juveniles' age at target, race, sex, gang affiliation, type of target (gang member, drug history, and/or ward), status when targeted, and referrals to other agencies. Variables providing data on criminal histories include age at first contact/arrest, instant offense and disposition, highest charges for each subsequent arrest that resulted in probation supervision, drug charges, highest conviction charges, probation conditions before selection date and after JUDGE target, number of contacts by probation and JUDGE staff, number of violations for each probation condition and action taken, and new offenses during probation. For the process evaluation, case outcome data were compared to project objectives to measure compliance in terms of program implementation and results. Variables include number of violations for each probation condition and action taken, and number of failed drug tests. The consequences of increased probation supervision, including revocation, sentences, custody time, and use of vertical prosecution, were addressed by comparing the processing of cases prior to the implementation of JUDGE to case processing after JUDGE targeting.
Curated
Community Supervision of Drug-Involved Probationers in San Diego County, California, 1991-1993 (ICPSR 2023)
Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: San Diego, United States, California
Time period: 1991-01-01--1993-01-01
The Probationers in Recovery (PIR) program, developed by the San Diego County Probation Department, targeted high-risk, drug-abusing offenders with the goal of controlling offender behavior without increasing risks to communities. This evaluation of PIR was based on a quasiexperimental design that compared program activities and outcomes for two matched groups of high-risk probationers receiving different levels of service and supervision. The assessment included both a process evaluation to discover if expected service levels were implemented as designed, and an impact evaluation to assess the effectiveness of drug treatment within an intensive community supervision program. The experimental group included 209 PIR participants who received intensive community supervision and drug treatment, and the control group consisted of 151 probationers who were assigned to regular high-risk probation caseloads and who met the PIR screening criteria. The samples were selected from probationers entering community supervision from February to December 1991. The length of the PIR program varied, but for purposes of analysis the minimum time in the program to represent the intervention period was set at eight months, including relapse prevention. A comparable period was used for the control group. The subsequent six-month period was used to measure the effects of PIR and regular high-risk probation after intervention. Intake interviews were conducted with a subsample of 96 probationers in PIR and 80 in the control group (Part 1). The interviews were conducted within the first two weeks after intake. Follow-up interviews were conducted with these probationers after they had completed eight months of PIR or regular high-risk probation to measure experiences on probation and changes in behavior and attitudes (Part 2). Follow-up interviews were completed with 47 probationers from the experimental group in the PIR program and 35 in the control group. The case tracking portion of the study involved the review of probation, treatment, and state and local criminal history files (Part 3). Data on technical violations and arrests for new crimes were compiled for the following time periods: (1) six months prior to the instant offense (the baseline), (2) the first eight months of community supervision (the in-program period), (3) the six months after intervention, and (4) the combined 14-month period. The initial interview (Part 1) included questions regarding sociodemographic characteristics, current offense, awareness of probation conditions ordered, perceived consequences for violations of probation, drug use and drug history, prior drug treatment and treatment needs, criminal history, expectations regarding the probation term, opinions regarding probation and treatment, daily activities prior to the current offense, current life satisfaction, and prospects for the future. Questions on the follow-up interview (Part 2) focused on changes in probationers' personal lives (e.g., employment, income, education, marital status, living situation, and relationships with family and friends), technical probation violations and new offenses committed during the eight-month period, sanctions imposed by probation staff, contacts with probation and treatment staff, changes in drug use and daily activities, expectations with regard to remaining crime- and drug-free in the future, attitudes regarding probation and treatment, treatment needs, and significant life changes over the eight-month period. Variables in the tracking data file (Part 3) include sociodemographic characteristics, current offense and sentence imposed, probation conditions ordered, drug use history, offense and probation violations occurring before, during, and after an eight-month probation period, custody time, changes in level of probation supervision, and program interventions such as drug tests, services delivered, and sanctions imposed.
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
Effectiveness of Alternative Victim Assistance Service Delivery Models in the San Diego Region, 1993-1994 (ICPSR 2789)
Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: San Diego, United States, California
Time period: 1993-01-01--1994-01-01
This study had a variety of aims: (1) to assess the needs of violent crime victims, (2) to document the services that were available to violent crime victims in the San Diego region, (3) to assess the level of service utilization by different segments of the population, (4) to determine how individuals cope with victimization and how coping ability varies as a function of victim and crime characteristics, (5) to document the set of factors related to satisfaction with the criminal justice system, (6) to recommend improvements in the delivery of services to victims, and (7) to identify issues for future research. Data were collected using five different survey instruments. The first survey was sent to over 3,000 violent crime victims over the age of 16 and to approximately 60 homicide witnesses and survivors in the San Diego region (Part 1, Initial Victims' Survey Data). Of the 718 victims who returned the initial survey, 330 victims were recontacted six months later (Part 2, Follow-Up Victims' Survey Data). Respondents in Part 1 were asked what type of violent crime occurred, whether they sustained injury, whether they received medical treatment, what the nature of their relationship to the suspect was, and if the suspect had been arrested. Respondents for both Parts 1 and 2 were asked which service providers, if any, contacted them at the time of the incident or afterwards. Respondents were also asked what type of services they needed and received at the time of the incident or afterwards. Respondents in Part 2 rated the overall service and helpfulness of the information received at the time of the incident and after, and their level of satisfaction regarding contact with the police, prosecutor, and judge handling their case. Respondents in Part 2 were also asked what sort of financial loss resulted from the incident, and whether federal, state, local, or private agencies provided financial assistance to them. Finally, respondents in Part 1 and Part 2 were asked about the physical and psychological effects of their victimization. Demographic variables for Part 1 and Part 2 include the marital status, employment status, and type of job of each violent crime victim/witness/survivor. Part 1 also includes the race, sex, and highest level of education of each respondent. Police and court case files were reviewed six months after the incident occurred for each initial sample case. Data regarding victim and incident characteristics were collected from original arrest reports, jail booking screens, and court dockets (Part 3, Tracking Data). The variables for Part 3 include the total number of victims, survivors, and witnesses of violent crimes, place of attack, evidence collected, and which service providers were at the scene of the crime. Part 3 also includes a detailed list of the services provided to the victim/witness/survivor at the scene of the crime and after. These services included counseling, explanation of medical and police procedures, self-defense and crime prevention classes, food, clothing, psychological/psychiatric services, and help with court processes. Additional Part 3 variables cover circumstances of the incident, initial custody status of suspects, involvement of victims and witnesses at hearings, and case outcome, including disposition and sentencing. The race, sex, and age of each victim/witness/survivor are also recorded in Part 3 along with the same demographics for each suspect. Data for Part 4, Intervention Programs Survey Data, were gathered using a third survey, which was distributed to members of the three following intervention programs: (1) the San Diego Crisis Intervention Team, (2) the EYE Counseling and Crisis Services, Crisis and Advocacy Team, and (3) the District Attorney's Victim-Witness Assistance Program. A modified version of the survey with a subset of the original questions was administered one year later to members of the San Diego Crisis Intervention Team (Part 5, Crisis Intervention Team Survey Data) and to the EYE Counseling and Crisis Services, Crisis and Advocacy Team (Part 6, EYE Crisis and Advocacy Team Survey Data). The survey questions for Parts 4-6 asked each respondent to provide their reasons for becoming involved with the program, the goals of the program, responsibilities of the staff or volunteers, the types of referral services their agency provided, the number of hours of training required, and the topics covered in the training. Respondents for Parts 4-6 were further asked about the specific types of services they provided to victims/witnesses/survivors. Part 4 also contains a series of variables regarding coordination efforts, problems, and resolutions encountered when dealing with other intervention agencies and law enforcement agencies. Demographic variables for Parts 4-6 include the ethnicity, age, gender, and highest level of education of each respondent, and whether the respondent was a staff member of the agency or volunteer. The fourth survey was mailed to 53 referral agencies used by police and crisis interventionists (Part 7, Service Provider Survey Data). Part 7 contains the same series of variables as Part 4 on dealing with other intervention and law enforcement agencies. Respondents in Part 7 were further asked to describe the type of victims/witnesses/survivors to whom they provided service (e.g., domestic violence victims, homicide witnesses, or suicide survivors) and to rate their level of satisfaction with referral procedures provided by law enforcement officers, hospitals, paramedics, religious groups, the San Diego Crisis Intervention Team, the EYE Crisis Team, and the District Attorney's Victim/Witness Program. Part 7 also includes the hours of operation for each service provider organization, as well as which California counties they serviced. Finally, respondents in Part 7 were given a list of services and asked if they provided any of those services to victims/witnesses/survivors. Services unique to this list included job placement assistance, public awareness campaigns, accompaniment to court, support groups, and advocacy with outside agencies (e.g., employers or creditors). Demographic variables for Part 7 include the ethnicity, age, and gender of each respondent. The last survey was distributed to over 1,000 law enforcement officers from the Escondido, San Diego, and Vista sheriff's agencies (Part 8, Law Enforcement Survey Data). Respondents in Part 8 were surveyed to determine their familiarity with intervention programs, how they learned about the program, the extent to which they used or referred others to intervention services, appropriate circumstances for calling or not calling in interventionists, their opinions regarding various intervention programs, their interactions with interventionists at crime scenes, and suggestions for improving delivery of services to victims. Demographic variables for Part 8 include the rank and agency of each law enforcement respondent.
Curated
Evaluation of a Centralized Response to Domestic Violence by the San Diego County Sheriff's Department Domestic Violence Unit, 1998-1999 (ICPSR 3488)
Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: San Diego, United States, California
Time period: 1998-01-01--1999-01-01
This study examined the implementation of a specialized domestic violence unit within the San Diego County Sheriff's Department to determine whether the creation of the new unit would lead to increased and improved reporting, and more filings for prosecution. In order to evaluate the implementation of the specialized domestic violence unit, the researchers conducted the following tasks: (1) They surveyed field deputies to assess their level of knowledge about domestic violence laws and adherence to the countywide domestic violence protocol. (2) They studied a sample from the case tracking system that reported cases of domestic violence handled by the domestic violence unit to determine changes in procedures compared to an earlier case tracking study with no specialized unit. (3) They interviewed victims of domestic violence by phone to explore the responsiveness of the field deputies and the unit detectives to the needs of the victims. Part 1 (Deputy Survey Data) contains data on unit detectives' knowledge about the laws concerning domestic violence. Information includes whether or not the person considered the primary aggressor was the person who committed the first act of aggression, if a law enforcement officer could decide whether or not to complete a domestic violence supplemental report, whether an arrest should be made if there was reasonable cause to believe that a misdemeanor offense had been committed, and whether the decision to prosecute a suspect lay within the discretion of the district or city attorney. Demographic variables include deputy's years of education and law enforcement experience. Part 2 (Case Tracking Data) includes demographic variables such as race and sex of the victim and the suspect, and the relationship between the victim and the suspect. Other information was collected on whether the victim and the suspect used alcohol and drugs prior to or during the incident, if the victim was pregnant, if children were present during the incident, highest charge on the incident report, if the reporting call was made at the same place the incident occurred, suspect actions described on the report, if a gun, knife, physical force, or verbal abuse was used in the incident, if the victim or the suspect was injured, and if medical treatment was provided to the victim. Data were also gathered on whether the suspect was arrested or booked, how the investigating officer decided whether to request that the prosecutor file charges, type of evidence collected, if a victim or witness statement was collected, if the victim had a restraining order, prior history of domestic violence, if the victim was provided with information on domestic violence law, hotline, shelter, transportation, and medical treatment, highest arrest charge, number of arrests for any drug charges, weapon charges, domestic violence charges, or other charges, case disposition, number of convictions for the charges, and number of prior arrests and convictions. Part 3 (Victim Survey Data) includes demographic variables such as victim's gender and race. Other variables include how much time the deputy spent at the scene when s/he responded to the call, number of deputies the victim interacted with at the scene, number of deputies at the scene that were male or female, if the victim used any of the information the deputy provided, if the victim used referral information for counseling, legal, shelter, and other services, how helpful the victim found the information, and the victim's rating of the performance of the deputy.
Curated
Evaluation of the Regional Auto Theft Task (RATT) Force in San Diego County, 1993-1996 (ICPSR 3483)
Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: San Diego, United States, California
Time period: 1993-01-01--1996-01-01
The Criminal Justice Research Division of the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) received funds from the National Institute of Justice to assist the Regional Auto Theft Task (RATT) force and evaluate the effectiveness of the program. The project involved the development of a computer system to enhance the crime analysis and mapping capabilities of RATT. Following the implementation of the new technology, the effectiveness of task force efforts was evaluated. The primary goal of the research project was to examine the effectiveness of RATT in reducing auto thefts relative to the traditional law enforcement response. In addition, the use of enhanced crime analysis information for targeting RATT investigations was assessed. This project addressed the following research questions: (1) What were the characteristics of vehicle theft rings in San Diego and how were the stolen vehicles and/or parts used, transported, and distributed? (2) What types of vehicles were targeted by vehicle theft rings and what was the modus operandi of suspects? (3) What was the extent of violence involved in motor vehicle theft incidents? (4) What was the relationship between the locations of vehicle thefts and recoveries? (5) How did investigators identify motor vehicle thefts that warranted investigation by the task force? (6) Were the characteristics of motor vehicle theft cases investigated through RATT different than other cases reported throughout the county? (7) What investigative techniques were effective in apprehending and prosecuting suspects involved in major vehicle theft operations? (8) What was the impact of enhanced crime analysis information on targeting decisions? and (9) How could public education be used to reduce the risk of motor vehicle theft? For Part 1 (Auto Theft Tracking Data), data were collected from administrative records to track auto theft cases in San Diego County. The data were used to identify targets of enforcement efforts (e.g., auto theft rings, career auto thieves), techniques or strategies used, the length of investigations, involvement of outside agencies, property recovered, condition of recoveries, and consequences to offenders that resulted from the activities of the investigations. Data were compiled for all 194 cases investigated by RATT in fiscal year 1993 to 1994 (the experimental group) and compared to a random sample of 823 cases investigated through the traditional law enforcement response during the same time period (the comparison group). The research staff also conducted interviews with task force management (Parts 2 and 3, Investigative Operations Committee Initial Interview Data and Investigative Operations Committee Follow-Up Interview Data) and other task force members (Parts 4 and 5, Staff Initial Interview Data and Staff Follow-Up Interview Data) at two time periods to address the following issues: (1) task force goals, (2) targets, (3) methods of identifying targets, (4) differences between RATT strategies and the traditional law enforcement response to auto theft, (5) strategies employed, (6) geographic concentrations of auto theft, (7) factors that enhance or impede investigations, (8) opinions regarding effective approaches, (9) coordination among agencies, (10) suggestions for improving task force operations, (11) characteristics of auto theft rings, (12) training received, (13) resources and information needed, (14) measures of success, and (15) suggestions for public education efforts. Variables in Part 1 include the total number of vehicles and suspects involved in an incident, whether informants were used to solve the case, whether the stolen vehicle was used to buy parts, drugs, or weapons, whether there was a search warrant or an arrest warrant, whether officers used surveillance equipment, addresses of theft and recovery locations, date of theft and recovery, make and model of the stolen car, condition of vehicle when recovered, property recovered, whether an arrest was made, the arresting agency, date of arrest, arrest charges, number and type of charges filed, disposition, conviction charges, number of convictions, and sentence. Demographic variables include the age, sex, and race of the suspect, if known. Variables in Parts 2 and 3 include the goals of RATT, how the program evolved, the role of the IOC, how often the IOC met, the relationship of the IOC and the executive committee, how RATT was unique, why RATT was successful, how RATT could be improved, how RATT was funded, and ways in which auto theft could be reduced. Variables in Parts 4 and 5 include the goals of RATT, sources of information about vehicle thefts, strategies used to solve auto theft cases, location of most vehicle thefts, how motor vehicle thefts were impacted by RATT, impediments to the RATT program, suggestions for improving the program, ways in which auto theft could be reduced, and methods to educate citizens about auto theft. In addition, Part 5 also has variables about the type of officers' training, usefulness of maps and other data, descriptions of auto theft rings in terms of the age, race, and gender of its members, and types of cars stolen by rings.
Curated
Guardian Angels: Citizen Response to Crime in Selected Cities of the United States, 1984 (ICPSR 8935)
Released/updated on: 2006-01-18
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1984-01-01--1985-01-01
This study was designed to assess the effects of the activities of the Guardian Angels on citizens' fear of crime, incidence of crime, and police officers' perceptions of the Guardian Angels. The data, which were collected in several large American cities, provide information useful for evaluating the activities of the Guardian Angels from the perspectives of transit riders, residents, merchants, and police officers. Respondents who were transit riders were asked to provide information on their knowledge of and contacts with the Angels, attitudes toward the group, feelings of safety on public transit, victimization experience, and demographic characteristics. Police officers were asked about their knowledge of the Angels, attitudes toward the group, opinions regarding the benefits and effectiveness of the group, and law enforcement experiences. Data for residents and merchants include demographic characteristics, general problems in the neighborhood, opinions regarding crime problems, crime prevention activities, fear of crime, knowledge of the Angels, attitudes toward the group, and victimization experiences.
Curated
Illegal Immigration and Crime in San Diego and El Paso Counties, 1985-1986 (ICPSR 9330)
Released/updated on: 2006-01-18
Geographic coverage: United States, Texas, California
Time period: 1985-01-01--1986-01-01
This study was conducted to examine whether a rising crime rate in El Paso, Texas and San Diego, California in 1986 could be attributed to, among other factors, the influx of undocumented aliens. Variables include level of involvement of undocumented aliens in serious felony arrests in San Diego and El Paso Counties, the outcome of serious felony arrest cases involving undocumented persons compared to others arrested for similar offenses, the impact of arrests of undocumented aliens on the criminal justice system in terms of workload and cost, the extent that criminal justice agencies coordinate their efforts to apprehend and process undocumented aliens who have committed serious crimes in San Diego and El Paso counties, and how differences in agency objectives impede or enhance coordination. Data are also provided on how many undocumented persons were arrested/convicted for repeat offense in these counties and which type of policies or procedures could be implemented in criminal justice agencies to address the issue of crimes committed by undocumented aliens. Data were collected in the two cities with focus on serious felony offenses. The collection includes sociodemographic characteristics, citizenship status, current arrest, case disposition, and prior criminal history with additional data from San Diego to compute the costs involving undocumented aliens.
Curated
Nature and Correlates of Domestic Violence Among Female Arrestees in San Diego, California, 2000-2001 (ICPSR 3873)
Released/updated on: 2005-01-07
Geographic coverage: United States, California
Time period: 2000-01-01--2001-01-01
This study sought to examine the incidence and prevalence of domestic violence among female arrestees. The data for this research were collected in conjunction with the National Institute of Justice's Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) programs. Female arrestees in San Diego, California, who had completed the ADAM interview and provided a urine specimen were asked if they would be willing to answer an additional set of questions concerning their experience with domestic violence. Respondents were asked a series of questions about the types of abuse they experienced and a host of supplemental questions detailing the abusive incidents they experienced in their lifetime and in the last 12 months.
Curated
Nature and Scope of Violence Against Women in San Diego [California], 1996-1998 (ICPSR 3019)
Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: San Diego, United States, California
Time period: 1996-01-01--1998-01-01
The goal of this study was to compile and analyze data about incidents of domestic violence in San Diego County, California, in order to enhance understanding of the nature and scope of violence against women. The following objectives were set to achieve this goal: (1) to develop a standardized interview instrument to be used by all emergency shelters for battered women in the region, and (2) to conduct interviews with shelter staff. For this study, the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) collected information about domestic violence in San Diego County from clients admitted to battered women's shelters. The Compilation of Research and Evaluation (CORE) intake interview (Part 1) was initiated in March of 1997. Through this interview, researchers gathered data over a 22-month period, through December 1998, for 599 clients. The CORE discharge interview (Part 2) was theoretically completed at the time of exit with each client who completed the CORE intake interview in order to document the services received. However, data collection at exit was not reliable, due to factors beyond the researchers' control, and thus researchers did not receive a discharge form for each individual who had an intake form. For Part 1 (Intake Data), demographic variables include the client's primary language, and the client and batterer's age, education, race, how they supported themselves, their annual incomes, and their children's sex, age, and ethnicity. Other variables cover whether the client had been to this shelter within the last 12 months, the kind of housing the client had before she came to the shelter, person's admitted along with the client, drug and alcohol use by the client, the batterer, and the children, relationship between the client and the batterer (e.g., spouse, former spouse), if the client and batterer had been in the military, if the client or children were military dependents, the client's citizenship, if the client and batterer had any physical/mental limitations, abuse characteristics (e.g., physical, verbal, sexual, weapon involved), and the client's medical treatment history (e.g., went to hospital, had been abused while pregnant, witnessed abuse while growing up, had been involved in other abusive relationships, had attempted suicide). Additional variables provide legal information (number of times police had been called to the client's household as a result of domestic violence, if anyone in the household had been arrested as a result of those calls, if any charges were filed, if the client or batterer had been convicted of abuse), if the client had a restraining order against the batterer, how the client found out about the shelter, the number of times the client had been admitted to a domestic violence shelter, the client's assessment of her needs at the time of admittance, and the interviewer/counselor's assessment of the client's needs at the time of admittance. Part 2 (Discharge Data) provides information on services the client received from the shelter during her stay (food, clothing, permanent housing, transitional housing, financial assistance, employment, education, medical help, assistance with retrieving belongings, assistance with retrieving/replacing legal documents, law enforcement, temporary restraining order), and services this client received as a referral to another agency (attorney, divorce, child care, counseling, transportation, safety plan, victim/witness funds, mental health services, department of social services, Children's Services Bureau, help with immigration, drug treatment).