Showing 1 – 8 of 8 results.
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
Simple Crosstabs
Do Department of Justice Intervention and Citizen Oversight Improve Police Accountability?, United States, 1995-2019 (ICPSR 38413)
Released/updated on: 2023-07-27
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Detroit, Charlotte, Albuquerque, Berkeley, Cincinnati, Austin, Oakland, San Diego, Boston, Pittsburgh, Providence, Seattle, California, Florida, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Texas, Portland (Oregon), Eugene, Georgia, Maryland, Idaho, Oregon, United States, Cleveland, Washington, Minneapolis, Atlanta, Massachusetts, Colorado, Honolulu, New Orleans, Denver, District of Columbia, Rhode Island, Boise City, Chicago, Hawaii, Minnesota, Michigan, Miami, San Francisco, Baltimore, New Mexico, Louisiana, Ohio, Los Angeles, Philadelphia
Time period: 1995-01-01--2019-01-01
The data in this study assess police misconduct by considering civilian review boards (CRBs) and federal intervention by the United States Department of Justice (DOJ). The latter involves civil rights investigations of alleged pattern-or-practice violations that resulted in consent decrees or memoranda of agreement under 42 USC 14141 (re-codified in 2017 as 34 USC 12601) of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (1994 Crime Bill); technical assistance letters based on the outcome of DOJ investigations, which lead to voluntary reforms; and requests for assistance from the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS).
Curated
Impact of Legal Advocacy on Intimate Partner Homicide in the United States, 1976-1997 (ICPSR 25621)
Released/updated on: 2009-07-10
Geographic coverage: Milwaukee, Oklahoma City, Detroit, Indiana, Tucson, Albuquerque, Fort Worth, Cincinnati, Austin, Oakland, San Jose, San Diego, Columbus (Ohio), Memphis, Jacksonville, Arizona, Buffalo, Boston, Pittsburgh, Sacramento, Seattle, El Paso, Nashville, California, Florida, Pennsylvania, Tulsa, Fresno, Illinois, Texas, Portland (Oregon), Georgia, Virginia, Maryland, Indianapolis, Oregon, Virginia Beach, United States, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Cleveland, Washington, Nebraska, Omaha, Minneapolis, Atlanta, Massachusetts, Colorado, Honolulu, Missouri, New Orleans, Phoenix, Denver, Dallas, St. Louis, Wisconsin, District of Columbia, San Antonio, Chicago, Hawaii, Minnesota, Kansas City (Missouri), New York (state), Michigan, Miami, San Francisco, Baltimore, New Mexico, Long Beach, Louisiana, Ohio, Los Angeles, Toledo, Philadelphia, Houston
Time period: 1976-01-01--1996-01-01, 1976-01-01--1997-01-01
This study examined the impacts of jurisdictions' domestic violence policies on violent behavior of family members and intimate partners, on the likelihood that the police discovered an incident, and on the likelihood that the police made an arrest. The research combined two datasets. Part 1 contains information on police, prosecution policies, and local victim services. Informants within the local agencies of the 50 largest cities in the United States were contacted and asked to complete a survey inventorying policies and activities by type and year of implementation. Data from completed surveys covered 48 cities from 1976 to 1996. Part 2 contains data on domestic violence laws. Data on state statutes from 1976 to 1997 that related to protection orders were collected by a legal expert for all 50 states and the District of Columbia.
Curated
Restricted
A Multi-Method, Multi-Site Study of Gang Desistance, United States, 2012 (ICPSR 36446)
Released/updated on: 2017-12-08
Geographic coverage: Oregon, United States, Chicago, Tennessee, Albuquerque, Nashville, Pennsylvania, New Mexico, Illinois, Texas, Colorado, Portland (Oregon), Dallas, Philadelphia
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.
These data were collected as part of an effort to gain a more in depth understanding of the processes surrounding disengagement from a youth gang, and come from structured interviews with their parent or guardian. The interview included such topics as parental monitoring practices, attitudes about the youth's peer group, and perceptions about the neighborhood. Study participants lived in seven geographically diverse cities in the United States, making it one of few multi-site studies of gangs or gang members.
Curated
Restricted
Process and Outcome Evaluation of the Gang Resistance Education and Training (G.R.E.A.T.) Program, 2006-2011 [UNITED STATES] (ICPSR 34899)
Released/updated on: 2016-10-25
Geographic coverage: Chicago, Tennessee, Albuquerque, Fort Worth, Nashville, Pennsylvania, New Mexico, Illinois, Texas, Greeley, Colorado, Portland (Oregon), Dallas, Philadelphia
Time period: 2006-09-01--2011-12-01
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 goal of the study was to determine what effect, if any, the Gang Resistance Education and Training (G.R.E.A.T.) program had on students. The G.R.E.A.T., a 13-lesson general prevention program taught by uniformed law enforcement officers to middle school students, had three stated goals: 1) to reduce gang membership, 2) to reduce delinquency, especially violent offending, and 3) to improve students' attitudes toward the police.
To assess program effectiveness, researchers conducted a randomized control trial involving 3,820 students nested in 195 classrooms in 31 schools in 7 cities. A process evaluation consisted of multiple methods to assess program fidelity: 1) observations of G.R.E.A.T. Officer Trainings, 2) surveys and interviews of G.R.E.A.T.-trained officers and supervisors, 3) surveys of school personnel, and 4) "on-site," direct observations of officers delivering the G.R.E.A.T. program in the study sites. Only the data from the student surveys, law enforcement officer surveys, and school personnel surveys are available.
Data file 1 (Student Survey Data) has 3,820 cases and 1,926 variables. Data file 2 (Law Enforcement Survey Data) has 137 cases and 140 variables. Data file 3 (School Personnel Survey Data) has 230 cases and 148 variables.
Curated
Techniques for Assessing the Accuracy of Recidivism Prediction Scales, 1960-1980: [Miami, Albuquerque, New York City, Alameda and Los Angeles Counties, and the State of California] (ICPSR 9988)
Released/updated on: 2006-01-18
Geographic coverage: New York City, United States, New Mexico, Albuquerque, California, Florida, New York (state), Miami
Time period: 1960-01-01--1980-01-01
The purpose of this data collection was to measure the validity or accuracy of four recidivism prediction instruments: the INSLAW, RAND, SFS81, and CGR scales. These scales estimate the probability that criminals will commit subsequent crimes quickly, that individuals will commit crime frequently, that inmates who are eligible for release on parole will commit subsequent crimes, and that defendants awaiting trial will commit crimes while on pretrial arrest or detention. The investigators used longitudinal data from five existing independent studies to assess the validity of the four predictive measures in question. The first data file was originally collected by the Vera Institute of Justice in New York City and was derived from an experimental evaluation of a jobs training program called the Alternative Youth Employment Strategies Project implemented in Albuquerque, New Mexico, Miami, Florida, and New York City, New York. The second file contains data from a RAND Corporation study, EFFECTS OF PRISON VERSUS PROBATION IN CALIFORNIA, 1980-1982 (ICPSR 8700), from offenders in Alameda and Los Angeles counties, California. Parts 3 through 5 pertain to serious juvenile offenders who were incarcerated during the 1960s and 1970s in three institutions of the California Youth Authority. A portion of the original data for these parts was taken from EARLY IDENTIFICATION OF THE CHRONIC OFFENDER, [1978-1980: CALIFORNIA] (ICPSR 8226). All files present demographic and socioeconomic variables such as birth information, race and ethnicity, education background, work and military experience, and criminal history, including involvement in criminal activities, drug addiction, and incarceration episodes. From the variables in each data file, standard variables across all data files were constructed. Constructed variables included those on background (such as drug use, arrest, conviction, employment, and education history), which were used to construct the four predictive scales, and follow-up variables concerning arrest and incarceration history. Scores on the four predictive scales were estimated.