Showing 1 – 6 of 6 results.
Curated
Evaluating Alternative Police Responses to Spouse Assault in Colorado Springs: an Enhanced Replication of the Minneapolis Experiment, 1987-1989 (ICPSR 9982)
Released/updated on: 2006-01-12
Geographic coverage: United States, Colorado, Colorado Springs
Time period: 1987-03-01--1989-04-01
The purpose of this study was to replicate an experiment in Minneapolis (MINNEAPOLIS INTERVENTION PROJECT, 1986-1987 [ICPSR 9808]) testing alternative police response to cases of spouse assault, using a larger number of subjects and a more complex research design. The study focused on how police response affected subsequent incidents of spouse assault. Police responses studied included arrest, issuing emergency protection orders, referring the suspect to counseling, separating the suspect and the victim, and restoring order only (no specific action). Data were obtained through initial incident reports, counseling information, and personal interviews. Follow-up interviews were conducted at three- and six-month periods, and recidivists were identified through police and court record checks. Variables from initial incident reports include number of charges, date, location, and disposition of charges, weapon(s) used, victim injuries, medical attention received, behavior towards police, victim and suspect comments, and demographic information such as race, sex, relationship to victim/offender, age, and past victim/offender history. Data collected from counseling forms provide information on demographic characteristics of the suspect, type of counseling, topics covered in counseling, suspect's level of participation, and therapist comments. Court records investigate victim and suspect criminal histories, including descriptions of charges and their disposition, conditions of pretrial release, and the victim's contact with pretrial services. Other variables included in follow-up checks focus on criminal and offense history of the suspect. The data collection includes separate data files for the original, second, and final versions of some of the forms that were used.
Curated
Evaluating a Multi-Disciplinary Response to Domestic Violence in Colorado Springs, 1996-1999 (ICPSR 3282)
Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: United States, Colorado, Colorado Springs
The Colorado Springs Police Department formed a nontraditional domestic violence unit in 1996 called the Domestic Violence Enhanced Response Team (DVERT). This unit involved a partnership and collaboration with the Center for the Prevention of Domestic Violence, a private, nonprofit victim advocacy organization, and 25 other city and county agencies. DVERT was unique in its focus on the safety of the victim over the arrest and prosecution of the batterer. It was also different from the traditional police model for a special unit because it was a systemic response to domestic violence situations that involved the coordination of criminal justice, social service, and community-based agencies. This study is an 18-month evaluation of the DVERT unit. It was designed to answer the following research and evaluation questions: (1) What were the activities of DVERT staff? (2) Who were the victims and perpetrators of domestic violence? (3) What were the characteristics of domestic violence-related incidents in Colorado Springs and surrounding jurisdictions? (4) What was the nature of the intervention and prevention activities of DVERT? (5) What were the effects of the intervention? (6) What was the nature and extent of the collaboration among criminal justice agencies, victim advocates, and city and county human services agencies? (7) What were the dynamics of the collaboration? and (8) How successful was the collaboration? At the time of this evaluation, the DVERT program focused on three levels of domestic violence situations: Level I included the most lethal situations in which a victim might be in serious danger, Level II included moderately lethal situations in which the victim was not in immediate danger, and Level III included lower lethality situations in which patrol officers engaged in problem-solving. Domestic violence situations came to the attention of DVERT through a variety of mechanisms. Most of the referrals came from the Center for the Prevention of Domestic Violence. Other referrals came from the Department of Human Services, the Humane Society, other law enforcement agencies, or city service agencies. Once a case was referred to DVERT, all relevant information concerning criminal and prosecution histories, advocacy, restraining orders, and human services documentation was researched by appropriate DVERT member agencies. Referral decisions were made on a weekly basis by a group of six to eight representatives from the partner agencies. From its inception in May 1996 to December 31, 1999, DVERT accepted 421 Level I cases and 541 Level II cases. Cases were closed or deactivated when DVERT staff believed that the client was safe from harm. Parts 1-4 contain data from 285 Level I DVERT cases that were closed between July 1, 1996, and December 31, 1999. Parts 5-8 contain data from 515 Level II cases from 1998 and 1999 only, because data were more complete in those two years. Data were collected from (1) police records of the perpetrator and victim, including calls for service, arrest reports, and criminal histories, (2) DVERT case files, and (3) Center for the Prevention of Domestic Violence files on victims. Coding sheets were developed to capture the information within these administrative documents. Part 1 includes data on whether the incident produced injuries or a risk to children, whether the victim, children, or animals were threatened, whether weapons were used, if there was stalking or sexual abuse, prior criminal history, and whether there was a violation of a restraining order. For Part 2 data were gathered on the date of case acceptance to the DVERT program and deactivation, if the offender was incarcerated, if the victim was in a new relationship or had moved out of the area, if the offender had moved or was in treatment, if the offender had completed a domestic violence class, and if the offender had served a sentence. Parts 3 and 4 contain information on the race, date of birth, gender, employment, and relationship to the victim or offender for the offenders and victims, respectively. Part 5 includes data on the history of emotional, physical, sexual, and child abuse, prior arrests, whether the victim took some type of action against the offender, whether substance abuse was involved, types of injuries that the victim sustained, whether medical care was necessary, whether a weapon was used, restraining order violations, and incidents of harassment, criminal trespassing, telephone threats, or kidnapping. Part 6 variables include whether the case was referred to and accepted in Level I and whether a DVERT advocate made contact on the case. Part 7 contains information on the offenders' race and gender. Part 8 includes data on the victims' date of birth, race, and gender.
Curated
Restricted
A Multi-Jurisdictional Test of Risk Terrain Modeling and a Place-Based Evaluation of Environmental Risk-Based Patrol Deployment Strategies, 6 U.S. States, 2012-2014 (ICPSR 36369)
Released/updated on: 2018-05-29
Geographic coverage: United States, Chicago, Kansas City (Missouri), New Jersey, Glendale, Illinois, Texas, Colorado, Missouri, Newark, Colorado Springs, Arizona, Arlington
Time period: 2012-01-01--2014-01-01
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 study used a place-based method of evaluation and spatial units of analysis to measure the extent to which allocating police patrols to high-risk areas effected the frequency and spatial distribution of new crime events in 5 U.S. cities. High-risk areas were defined using risk terrain modeling methods. Risk terrain modeling, or RTM, is a geospatial method of operationalizing the spatial influence of risk factors to common geographic units.
The collection contains 333 shape files, 8 SPSS files, and 9 Excel files. The shape files include both city level risk factor locations and crime data from police departments. SPSS and Excel files contain output from GIS data used for analysis.
Curated
Offender Characteristics, Offense Mix, and Escalation in Domestic Violence in Colorado Springs, Colorado, Miami-Dade, Florida, Omaha, Nebraska, Charlotte, North Carolina, and Milwaukee, Wisconsin, 1987-1989 (ICPSR 4454)
Released/updated on: 2007-02-06
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Milwaukee, Omaha, Charlotte, United States, Colorado, Florida, Colorado Springs, Wisconsin, Nebraska
Time period: 1987-01-01--1989-01-01
Using data from five Spouse Assault Replication Program (SARP) sites, this study examined the extent to which domestic violence offenders exhibit a specialized proclivity toward violence and the extent to which attack severity escalates, de-escalates, or stays about the same over time. The specialization question was examined using official arrest records from the Charlotte, North Carolina, Colorado Springs, Colorado, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and Omaha, Nebraska sites. Escalation was examined using victim interview data from the Charlotte, Milwaukee, Omaha, and Miami-Dada, Florida sites. This collection consists of 18 SAS setup files used to recode the variables from the original datasets, organized in five groups, by city of each data collection site. This collection does not contain the original data files, themselves.
Curated
Role of Stalking in Domestic Violence Crime Reports Generated by the Colorado Springs Police Department, 1998 (ICPSR 3142)
Released/updated on: 2005-11-04
Geographic coverage: United States, Colorado, Colorado Springs
Time period: 1998-04-01--1998-09-01
This study examined the role of stalking in domestic violence crime reports produced by the Colorado Springs Police Department (CSPD). It provided needed empirical data on the prevalence of stalking in domestic violence crime reports, risk factors associated with intimate partner stalking, and police responses to reports of intimate partner stalking. The study was conducted jointly by the Justice Studies Center (JSC) at the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs and the Denver-based Center for Policy Research (CPR). JSC staff generated the sample and collected the data, and CPR staff processed and analyzed the data. The sample was generated from CSPD Domestic Violence Summons and Complaint (DVSC) forms, which were used by CSPD officers to investigate crime reports of victims and suspects who were or had been in an intimate relationship and where there was probable cause to believe a crime was committed. During January to September 1999, JSC staff reviewed and entered information from all 1998 DVSC forms into a computerized database as part of the evaluation process for Domestic Violence Enhanced Response Team (DVERT), a nationally recognized domestic violence prevention program. A subfile of reports initiated during April to September 1998 was generated from this database and formed the basis for the study sample. The DVSC forms contained detailed information about the violation including victim and suspect relationship, type of violation committed, and specific criminal charges made by the police officer. The DVSC forms also contained written narratives by both the victim and the investigating officer, which provided detailed information about the events precipitating the report, including whether the suspect stalked the victim. The researchers classified a domestic violence crime report as having stalking allegations if the victim and/or police narrative specifically stated that the victim was stalked by the suspect, or if the victim and/or police narrative mentioned that the suspect engaged in stalking-like behaviors (e.g., repeated following, face-to-face confrontations, or unwanted communications by phone, page, letter, fax, or e-mail). Demographic variables include victim-suspect relationship, and age, race, sex, and employment status of the victim and suspect. Variables describing the violation include type of violation committed, specific criminal charges made by the police officer, whether the alleged violation constituted a misdemeanor or a felony crime, whether a suspect was arrested, whether the victim sustained injuries, whether the victim received medical attention, whether the suspect used a firearm or other type of weapon, whether items were placed in evidence, whether the victim or suspect was using drugs and/or alcohol at the time of the incident, number and ages of children in the household, whether children were in the home at the time of the incident, and whether there was a no-contact or restraining order in effect against the suspect at the time of the incident.
Curated
Partially restricted
Understanding the Use of Force By and Against the Police in Six Jurisdictions in the United States, 1996-1997 (ICPSR 3172)
Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, San Diego, Charlotte, Mecklenburg, United States, Texas, Colorado, St. Petersburg, California, Florida, Dallas, Colorado Springs
Time period: 1996-08-01--1997-02-01
This study examined the amount of force used by and against law enforcement officers and more than 50 characteristics of officers, civilians, and arrest situations associated with the use of different levels of force. An important component of this multijurisdiction project was to employ a common measurement of elements of force and predictors of force. Data were gathered about suspects' and police officers' behaviors from adult custody arrests in six urban law enforcement agencies. The participating agencies were the Charlotte-Mecklenburg (North Carolina) Police Department, Colorado Springs (Colorado) Police Department, Dallas (Texas) Police Department, St. Petersburg (Florida) Police Department, San Diego (California) Police Department, and San Diego County (California) Sheriff's Department. Data collection began at different times in the participating departments, so the total sample included arrests during the summer, fall, and winter of 1996-1997. Forms were completed and coded for 7,512 adult custody arrests (Part 1). This form was used to record officer self-reports on the characteristics of the arrest situation, the suspects, and the officers, and the specific behavioral acts of officers, suspects, and bystanders in a particular arrest. Similar items were asked of 1,156 suspects interviewed in local jails at the time they were booked following arrest to obtain an independent assessment of officer and suspect use of force (Part 2). Officers were informed that some suspects would be interviewed, but they did not know which would be interviewed or when. Using the items included on the police survey, the research team constructed four measures of force used by police officers -- physical force, physical force plus threats, continuum of force, and maximum force. Four comparable measures of force used by arrested suspects were also developed. These measures are included in the data for Part 1. Each measure was derived by combining specific actions by law enforcement officers or by suspects in various ways. The first measure was a traditional conceptual dichotomy of arrests in which physical force was or was not used. For both the police and for suspects, the definition of physical force included any arrest in which a weapon or weaponless tactic was used. In addition, police arrests in which officers used a severe restraint were included. The second measure, physical force plus threats, was similar to physical force but added the use of threats and displays of weapons. To address the potential limitations of these two dichotomous measures, two other measures were developed. The continuum-of-force measure captured the levels of force commonly used in official policies by the participating law enforcement agencies. To construct the fourth measure, maximum force, 503 experienced officers in five of the six jurisdictions ranked a variety of hypothetical types of force by officers and by suspects on a scale from 1 (least forceful) to 100 (most forceful). Officers were asked to rank these items based on their own personal experience, not official policy. These rankings of police and suspect use of force, which appear in Part 3, were averaged for each jurisdiction and used in Part 1 to weight the behaviors that occurred in the sampled arrests. Variables for Parts 1 and 2 include nature of the arrest, features of the arrest location, mobilization of the police, and officer and suspect characteristics. Part 3 provides officer rankings on 54 items that suspects might do or say during an arrest. Separately, officers ranked a series of 44 items that a police officer might do or say during an arrest. These items include spitting, shouting or cursing, hitting, wrestling, pushing, resisting, fleeing, commanding, using conversational voice, and using pressure point holds, as well as possession, display, threat of use, or use of several weapons (e.g., knife, chemical agent, dog, blunt object, handgun, motor vehicle).