Showing 1 – 5 of 5 results.
Curated
Alaska Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner (SANE) Data, 1996-2006 (ICPSR 28367)
Released/updated on: 2012-10-05
Geographic coverage: Fairbanks, Kotzebue, United States, Kodiak, Alaska, Anchorage, Homer, Soldotna, Bethel, Nome
Time period: 1996-01-01--2006-01-01
This project examined the characteristics of sexual assault victimizations in Alaska, as observed and recorded by sexual assault nurse examiners in Anchorage, Kodiak, Bethel, Soldotna, Nome, Fairbanks, Homer, and Kotzebue. The sample utilized for this study included all sexual assault nurse examinations conducted in Anchorage from 1996 to 2004, in Bethel and Fairbanks in 2005 and 2006, and in Homer, Kodiak, Kotzebue, Nome, and Soldotna in 2005. A total of 1,699 examinations were collected. More specifically, the information contains demographic characteristics of patients, pre-assault patient characteristics, assault characteristics, post assault characteristics, exam characteristics and findings, and suspect characteristics. Demographic characteristics of patients include gender, race / ethnicity, and age, whether the patient was disabled, and whether the patient reported being homeless. Pre-assault characteristics included whether the patient reported engaging in consensual sexual activity within three days prior to the assault and information on the location of the initial contact with the suspect. Assault characteristics included information on the location of the assault, methods employed by the suspect, the patients' condition at the time of the assault, the patients' use of drugs and alcohol, and a detailed description of the assault itself. This detailed description included the patient's position during the assault, whether condoms and lubricants had been used, whether ejaculation had occurred, and an inventory of 17 different sexual acts. Post-assault characteristics included information on post-assault actions taken by the patient, whether the patient engaged in consensual sexual activity between the time of the assault to the examination, and the time elapsed from the assault to the examination. Exam characteristics and findings included information on whether the exam was completed, the type of exam that was conducted, the patients' behavioral and emotional state during the exam, whether the patient required emergency medical care, whether the presence of sperm was documented, whether patients tested positive for sexually transmitted infections or other genital infections, whether the patient was pregnant, and whether injuries were documented. Injury characteristics included descriptions of both non-genital and genital injury. A total of 108 indicators of non-genital injury were captured. These included nine possible injuries (i.e., bruising, redness, abrasions, lacerations, swelling, fractures, bite marks, pain, and other) to 12 possible sites (i.e., head/face, mouth, neck, shoulders, arms, hands, chest, abdomen, back, buttocks/hips, legs, and feet). A total of 60 indicators of genital injury were also captured. These included four possible injuries (i.e., bruising, abrasions, lacerations, and tenderness) to 15 possible sites (i.e., mons pubis, labia majora, labia minora, labia majora / minora junction, clitoral hood, clitoris, periurethra, hymen, fossa navicularis, posterior fourchette, perineum, vaginal walls, cervix, anus, and rectum). Suspect characteristics included the number of suspects, whether the identity of the suspect was known, demographic characteristics (gender, race/ethnicity, and age), whether the suspect had used alcohol or drugs, and the relationship between the patient and the suspect. In addition to providing detailed information from sexual assault nurse examinations, the data also include three indicators of legal resolutions - whether cases were referred for prosecution, whether cases were accepted for prosecution, and whether cases resulted in a conviction. Data on legal resolutions are only available for 1,229 cases examined from 1999 to 2005.
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
An Exploratory Study of Labor Trafficking Among U.S. Citizen Victims, 2019-2020 (ICPSR 38137)
Released/updated on: 2024-02-13
Geographic coverage: New York City, San Diego, United States, Massachusetts, Alaska, Anchorage, California, New York (state), Boston
Time period: 2019-01-01--2020-01-01
Recent research has identified numerous challenges facing victims of labor trafficking in the U.S. (Owens, et al., 2014; Brennan, 2014). Most of the research on labor trafficking occurring in the U.S., however, has focused on the experiences of non-citizen and foreign national victims. There are many reasons to suspect that labor trafficking victimization occurs among U.S. citizens, although the identification of this phenomenon has been difficult. For example, the homeless and those with insecure housing, individuals with intellectual and physical disability, low-wage and transitional workers, and those working in illicit economic markets or within sexualized labor services are anticipated to be at higher risk for labor trafficking victimization.
In this exploratory mixed-methods study, the research team answered four main questions to help illuminate the phenomenon of labor trafficking of U.S. citizens.
- What are the personal, economic, or structural vulnerabilities that put U.S. citizens at risk for labor trafficking?
- What does labor trafficking looks like for U.S. citizens and where does it fall on a continuum of labor exploitation?
- How are U.S. citizens recruited into, move to, experience, and escape from labor trafficking victimization?
- How do U.S. citizen labor trafficking victims seek help or exit exploitative labor situations?
These questions were answered through surveys with individuals at high risk for labor trafficking victimization across four U.S. sites (n=240), individual interviews with a subsample of survey respondents (n=27), and interviews with service providers (n=20). The surveyed population were citizens who were born in the U.S., those who were naturalized citizens at the time of their victimization, and legal permanent residents. The sampling strategy relied on several snowball and purposive sampling techniques and were developed in partnership with social service agencies, government agencies, and community contacts with knowledge of or contact with labor trafficking in each of the sites. As such, the study was not designed to generate prevalence estimation or to claim any representativeness of labor trafficking violations among U.S. citizens.
This collection only includes the quantitative survey data. Qualitative interview data are not available.