Search results

Showing 1 – 40 of 40 results.
Curated

Age Cohort Arrest Rates, 1970-1980 (ICPSR 8261)

Released/updated on: 2006-01-12
Geographic coverage: United States, Chicago, Tennessee, Tucson, California, Spokane, Washington, San Jose, Knoxville, Atlanta, Illinois, Colorado, Denver, Georgia, Arizona
Time period: 1970-01-01--1980-01-01
The data for this collection were gathered from the 1970 and 1980 Censuses and the Uniform Crime Reports for 1970 through 1980. The unit of analysis in this data collection is cities. Included are population totals by age group and arrest data for selected crimes by age group for Atlanta, Georgia, Chicago, Illinois, Denver, Colorado, Knoxville, Tennessee, San Jose, California, Spokane, Washington, and Tucson, Arizona. Population data by sex and age for all cities are contained in Part 4. The 123 variables provide data by age categories ranging from age 5 to age 69. Part 1, the arrest file for Atlanta and Chicago, provides arrest data for 1970 to 1980 by sex and age, ranging from age 10 and under to age 65 and over. The arrest data for other cities span two data files. Part 2 includes arrest data by sex for ages 15 to 24 for the years 1970 to 1980. Part 3 provides arrest data for ages 25 to 65 and over for the years 1970, 1975, and 1980. Arrest data are collected for the following crimes: murder, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny, motor vehicle theft, other assaults, arson, forgery, fraud, embezzlement, stolen property, vandalism, weapons, prostitution, other sex offenses, opium abuse, marijuana abuse, gambling, family offenses, drunk driving, liquor law violations, drunkenness, disorderly conduct, vagrancy, and all other offenses combined.
Curated
Restricted

Analysis of Current Cold-Case Investigation Practices and Factors Associated with Successful Outcomes, 2008-2009 (ICPSR 33761)

Released/updated on: 2016-12-19
Geographic coverage: District of Columbia, Baltimore, United States, Texas, Colorado, Denver, Dallas, Maryland
Time period: 2008-11-01--2009-02-01

These data are part of NACJD's Fast Track Release and are distributed as they there received from the data depositor. The files have been zipped by NACJD for release, but not checked or processed except of the removal of direct identifiers. Users should refer to the accompany readme file for a brief description of the files available with this collections and consult the investigator(s) if further information is needed.

To assess the current practices in cold-case investigations, this study utilized a national online survey of law enforcement agencies (Cold Case Survey Data, n = 1,051) to document the range of ways in which cold-case work is conducted and assess how this organization affects cold-case clearance rates. In November 2008, the chiefs of police in the sample were sent a letter explaining the purpose of the survey and inviting them to participate. Potential respondents were directed to the web-based survey instrument through a provided web address. The results from the national survey were used to select sites for an analysis of case files. Researchers chose three jurisdictions that conducted a large number of cold-case homicide investigations: the District of Columbia, Baltimore, Maryland, and Dallas, Texas (Cold Case Homicide Data, n = 429). To these three sites, researchers added Denver, Colorado (Cold Case Sexual Assault Data, n = 105) because it had received a Department of Justice grant to conduct testing of DNA material in sexual assault cold cases. At all four sites, cold cases were examined for seven categories of data including victim's characteristics, crime context, motivation, human capital, physical evidence, basis for cold-case investigations and cold-case actions.

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

Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring Program II in the United States, 2007 (ICPSR 25821)

Released/updated on: 2010-01-28
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Oregon, District of Columbia, Charlotte, Sacramento, Indiana, United States, Chicago, Minnesota, California, New York (state), New York City, Minneapolis, Atlanta, Illinois, Colorado, Portland (Oregon), Denver, Georgia, Indianapolis
Time period: 2007-04-01--2007-09-01
The Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) II program was designed to monitor trends in drug use among arrested populations in key urban areas across the United States. The first ADAM data collection was instituted in 2000 as a replacement for the Drug Use Forecasting program (DUF), which employed a non-scientific sampling procedure to select primarily felony arrestees in 23 urban areas throughout the country. The year 2000 revision of ADAM instituted a representative sampling strategy among booked male arrestees in an expanded network of 35 sites. The program was suspended by the National Institute of Justice in 2003 and restarted in 2007 with funding from the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP). With ADAM II, the ONDCP and Abt Associates have initiated a new data collection that replicates the ADAM methodology in order to obtain data comparable to previously established trends. ADAM II implemented two quarters of data collection in ten sentinel ADAM sites to revive monitoring drug trends, with a particular focus on obtaining valid and reliable information on methamphetamine use. A total of 8,296 arrestees were interviewed during the second and third quarters of 2007. Participation was voluntary and confidential, and the procedures included a personal interview (lasting approximately 20 minutes) and collection of a urine specimen. The Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) II survey collected data about drug use, drug and alcohol dependency and treatment, and drug market participation among booked male arrestees within 48 hours of arrest. Demographic variables include age, race, most serious charge, date of arrest, time of arrest, and education level. The data also include whether the provided urine specimen was positive for several drugs including marijuana, cocaine, PCP, methamphetamines, and barbiturates.
Curated

Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring Program II in the United States, 2008 (ICPSR 27221)

Released/updated on: 2010-03-31
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Oregon, District of Columbia, Charlotte, Sacramento, Indiana, United States, Chicago, Minnesota, California, New York (state), New York City, Minneapolis, Atlanta, Illinois, Colorado, Portland (Oregon), Denver, Georgia, Indianapolis
The Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM II) program was designed to monitor trends in drug use among arrested populations in key urban areas across the United States. The first ADAM data collection was instituted in 2000 as a replacement for the Drug Use Forecasting program (DUF), which employed a non-scientific sampling procedure to select primarily felony arrestees in 23 urban areas throughout the country. The year 2000 revision of ADAM instituted a representative sampling strategy among booked male arrestees in an expanded network of 35 sites. The program was suspended by the National Institute of Justice in 2003 and restarted in 2007 with funding from the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP). With ADAM II, ONDCP and its contractor, Abt Associates Inc. have initiated a new data collection that replicates the ADAM methodology in order to obtain data comparable to previously established trends. ADAM II implements two quarters of data collection in ten sentinel ADAM sites to revive monitoring drug trends, with a particular focus on obtaining valid and reliable information on methamphetamine use. Representing minimal adjustments to the previously employed ADAM survey, the ADAM II survey collects data about drug use, drug and alcohol dependency and treatment, and drug market participation among booked male arrestees within 48 hours of arrest. Data collection has been conducted across two back-to-back quarters in each of 10 counties from a county-based representative sample of 250 male arrestees per quarter for a total of 500 arrestees annually per site or a total of 5,000 arrestees across sites annually. A total of 7,717 arrestees were interviewed during the second and third quarters of 2008. Collection occurs in two cycles in booking facilities at each site to provide estimates for two calendar quarters each year. Data in this file were collected beginning April 1, 2007 and ending March 31, 2008. Additional data collection periods were optioned by ONDCP, and subsequent cycles of back-to-back data collection (not yet available) began April 1, 2008. Participation is voluntary and confidential, and the procedures include a personal interview (lasting approximately 20 minutes) and collection of a urine specimen. Demographic variables include age, race, most serious charge, date of arrest, time of arrest, and education level. The data also include whether the provided urine specimen was positive for several drugs including marijuana, cocaine, PCP, methamphetamines, and barbiturates.
Curated

Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring Program II in the United States, 2009 (ICPSR 30061)

Released/updated on: 2011-02-24
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Oregon, District of Columbia, Charlotte, Sacramento, Indiana, United States, Chicago, Minnesota, California, New York (state), New York City, Minneapolis, Atlanta, Illinois, Colorado, Portland (Oregon), Denver, Georgia, Indianapolis
The Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM II) program was designed to monitor trends in drug use among arrested populations in key urban areas across the United States. The first ADAM data collection was instituted in 2000 as a replacement for the Drug Use Forecasting program (DUF), which employed a non-scientific sampling procedure to select primarily felony arrestees in 23 urban areas throughout the country. The year 2000 revision of ADAM instituted a representative sampling strategy among booked male arrestees in an expanded network of 35 sites. The program was suspended by the National Institute of Justice in 2003 and restarted in 2007 with funding from the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP). With ADAM II, ONDCP and its contractor, Abt Associates Inc., initiated a new data collection that replicated the ADAM methodology in order to obtain data comparable to previously established trends. ADAM II implemented two quarters of data collection in ten sentinel ADAM sites to revive monitoring drug trends, with a particular focus on obtaining valid and reliable information on methamphetamine use. Representing minimal adjustments to the previously employed ADAM survey, the ADAM II survey collected data about drug use, drug and alcohol dependency and treatment, and drug market participation among booked male arrestees within 48 hours of arrest. A total of 7,794 arrestees were interviewed during the second and third quarters of 2009. Collection occurred in two cycles in booking facilities at each site to provide estimates for two calendar quarters each year. Data in this file were collected beginning April 1, 2009, and ending September 30, 2009. Participation was voluntary and confidential, and the procedures included a personal interview (lasting approximately 20 minutes) and collection of a urine specimen. Demographic variables include age, race, most serious charge, date of arrest, time of arrest, and education level. The data also include whether the provided urine specimen was positive for several drugs including marijuana, cocaine, PCP, methamphetamines, and barbiturates.
Curated

Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring Program II in the United States, 2010 (ICPSR 32321)

Released/updated on: 2011-11-04
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Oregon, District of Columbia, Charlotte, Sacramento, Indiana, United States, Chicago, Minnesota, California, New York (state), New York City, Minneapolis, Atlanta, Illinois, Colorado, Portland (Oregon), Denver, Georgia, Indianapolis
The Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM II) program was designed to monitor trends in drug use among arrested populations in key urban areas across the United States. The first ADAM data collection was instituted in 2000 as a replacement for the Drug Use Forecasting program (DUF), which employed a non-scientific sampling procedure to select primarily felony arrestees in 23 urban areas throughout the country. The year 2000 revision of ADAM instituted a representative sampling strategy among booked male arrestees in an expanded network of 35 sites. The program was suspended by the National Institute of Justice in 2003 and restarted in 2007 with funding from the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP). With ADAM II, ONDCP and its contractor, Abt Associates Inc., initiated a new data collection that replicated the ADAM methodology in order to obtain data comparable to previously established trends. ADAM II implemented two quarters of data collection in ten sentinel ADAM sites to revive monitoring drug trends, with a particular focus on obtaining valid and reliable information on methamphetamine use. Representing minimal adjustments to the previously employed ADAM survey, the ADAM II survey collected data about drug use, drug and alcohol dependency and treatment, and drug market participation among booked male arrestees within 48 hours of arrest. A total of 8,332 arrestees were interviewed during the second and third quarters of 2010. Collection occurred in two cycles in booking facilities at each site to provide estimates for two calendar quarters each year. Data in this file were collected beginning April 1, 2010, and ending September 30, 2010. Participation was voluntary and confidential, and the procedures included a personal interview (lasting approximately 20 minutes) and collection of a urine specimen. Demographic variables include age, race, most serious charge, date of arrest, time of arrest, and education level. The data also include whether the provided urine specimen was positive for several drugs including marijuana, cocaine, PCP, methamphetamines, and barbiturates.
Curated
Partially restricted

Benefits and Limitations of Civil Protection Orders for Victims of Domestic Violence in Wilmington, Delaware, Denver, Colorado, and the District of Columbia, 1994-1995 (ICPSR 2557)

Released/updated on: 2005-11-04
Geographic coverage: District of Columbia, United States, Colorado, Denver, Delaware, Wilmington
Time period: 1994-01-01--1995-01-01
This study was designed to explore whether civil protection orders were effective in providing safer environments for victims of domestic violence and enhancing their opportunities for escaping violent relationships. The researchers looked at the factors that might influence civil protection orders, such as accessibility to the court process, linkages to public and private services and sources of support, and the criminal record of the victim's abuser, and then examined how courts in three jurisdictions processed civil protection orders. Wilmington, Delaware, Denver, Colorado, and the District of Columbia were chosen as sites because of structural differences among them that were believed to be linked to the effectiveness of civil protection orders. Since these jurisdictions each had different court processes and service models, the researchers expected that these models would produce various results and that these variations might hold implications for improving practices in other jurisdictions. Data were collected through initial and follow-up interviews with women who had filed civil protection orders. The effectiveness of the civil protection orders was measured by the amount of improvement in the quality of the women's lives after the order was in place, versus the extent of problems created by the protection orders. Variables from the survey of women include police involvement at the incident leading to the protection order, the relationship of the petitioner and respondent to the petition prior to the order, history of abuse, the provisions asked for and granted in the order, if a permanent order was not filed for by the petitioner, the reasons why, the court experience, protective measures the petitioner undertook after the order, and how the petitioner's life changed after the order. Case file data were gathered on when the order was filed and issued, contempt motions and hearings, stipulations of the order, and social service referrals. Data on the arrest and conviction history of the petition respondent were also collected.
Curated
Restricted

Changing Attitudes and Motivation in Parolees (CHAMPS) Pilot Study in Dallas, Denver, and Des Moines, 2015-2016 (ICPSR 37091)

Released/updated on: 2018-09-17
Geographic coverage: Des Moines, Iowa, United States, Texas, Colorado, Denver, Dallas
Time period: 2015-04-01--2016-08-01

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 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.

This study examined the implementation of a pilot parole-based intervention, known as the Next Generation of Parole Supervision (NG). Drs. Caleb Lloyd and Ralph Serin developed the NG model with funding from the National Institute of Justice (NIJ), and the National Institute of Corrections developed the NG curriculum for parole officers to implement. The Bureau of Justice Assistance funded the implementation of NG in three study sites: Dallas, Texas; Denver, Colorado; and Des Moines, Iowa.

This mixed-methods study focused on understanding how NG was implemented as it was piloted in the three sites, and assessed NG-trained parole officers' fidelity to the NG model. In order to better understand NG's implementation and the business as usual practices it was intended to replace, the study also included a second group of parole officers who were not trained in NG. The groups were not randomly assigned. Data collected for this study included interview data, parole officer questionnaires related to concepts of the NG curriculum, coaching logs providing measures of whether officers received coaching and its frequency, video recordings of parole supervision meetings, and parole caseload data.

Demographic variables included as part of this collection are parole officers' age and sex, and site location. The data collection includes 3 SAS data files:

  • Parole officer-level data (archive_raf170831_po): Includes 31 cases and 26 variables.
  • Video-level data (archive_raf170831_video): Includes 241 cases and 15 variables.
  • Questionnaire-level data (archive_raf180719_tests): Includes 50 cases and 8 variables.
Curated

Commercial Victimization Surveys, 1972-1975 [United States]: Cities Sample (ICPSR 8002)

Released/updated on: 2006-01-12
Geographic coverage: Oregon, Milwaukee, Detroit, United States, Cincinnati, Oakland, Cleveland, New York City, San Diego, Minneapolis, Atlanta, Massachusetts, Colorado, Missouri, New Orleans, Denver, Dallas, St. Louis, Wisconsin, Buffalo, Boston, Pittsburgh, District of Columbia, Chicago, Minnesota, California, Florida, New York (state), New Jersey, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Miami, San Francisco, Baltimore, Illinois, Texas, Portland (Oregon), Louisiana, Ohio, Los Angeles, Newark, Georgia, Maryland, Philadelphia, Houston
Time period: 1972-01-01--1975-01-01
The National Crime Surveys, of which these Commercial Victimization Surveys are a part, were conducted to obtain current and reliable measures of serious crime in the United States. The Commercial Victimization Surveys are restricted to coverage of burglary and robbery incidents. They include all types of commercial establishments as well as political, cultural, and religious organizations. The survey includes a series of questions about the business, e.g., type and size, form of ownership, insurance, security, and break-in and robbery characteristics. Time and place, weapon, injury, entry evidence, offender characteristics, and stolen property data were collected for each of the incidents. Data on both victimized and nonvictimized establishments in 26 different cities were collected during 1972, 1973, and 1974. In the 1975 survey, data from the 13 cities surveyed during 1972 and 1973 were collected again.
Curated

Commercial Victimization Surveys, 1973-1977 [United States]: National Sample (ICPSR 8003)

Released/updated on: 2006-01-12
Geographic coverage: Oregon, Milwaukee, Detroit, United States, Cincinnati, Oakland, Cleveland, New York City, San Diego, Minneapolis, Atlanta, Massachusetts, Colorado, Missouri, New Orleans, Denver, Dallas, St. Louis, Wisconsin, Buffalo, Boston, Pittsburgh, District of Columbia, Chicago, Minnesota, California, Florida, New York (state), New Jersey, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Miami, Baltimore, Illinois, Texas, Portland (Oregon), Louisiana, Ohio, Los Angeles, Newark, Georgia, Maryland, Philadelphia, Houston
Time period: 1973-01-01--1977-01-01
These Commercial Victimization Surveys were collected as part of the National Crime Surveys. They document burglary and robbery incidents for all types of commercial establishments, as well as political, cultural, and religious organizations. Business characteristics gathered include form of ownership and operation, size and type of business, and security measures. Information regarding the reported incidents includes time and place, weapon involvement, offender and entry characteristics, injuries and deaths, and type and value of stolen property. Data were collected by calendar quarter for four quarters in 1973-1976 and for two quarters in 1977, while the actual incidents reported in the files reflect those occurring six months prior to the interview date.
Curated

Crime in Boomburb Cities: 1970-2004 [United States] (ICPSR 29202)

Released/updated on: 2011-08-10
Geographic coverage: San Bernardino, United States, St. Petersburg, California, Florida, Miami, Santa Clara, San Diego, Atlanta, Orlando, Texas, Colorado, Phoenix, Denver, Georgia, Tampa, Dallas, Arizona, Las Vegas, Nevada, Houston, Riverside
Time period: 1970-01-01--2004-01-01
This study focused on the effect of economic resources and racial/ethnic composition on the change in crime rates from 1970-2004 in United States cities in metropolitan areas that experienced a large growth in population after World War II. A total of 352 cities in the following United States metropolitan areas were selected for this study: Atlanta, Dallas, Denver, Houston, Las Vegas, Miami, Orange County, Orlando, Phoenix, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, Silicon Valley (Santa Clara), and Tampa/St. Petersburg. Selection was based on the fact that these areas developed during a similar time period and followed comparable development trajectories. In particular, these 14 areas, known as the "boomburbs" for their dramatic, post-World War II population growth, all faced issues relating to the rapid growth of tract-style housing and the subsequent development of low density, urban sprawls. The study combined place-level data obtained from the United States Census with crime data from the Uniform Crime Reports for five categories of Type I crimes: aggravated assaults, robberies, murders, burglaries, and motor vehicle thefts. The dataset contains a total of 247 variables pertaining to crime, economic resources, and race/ethnic composition.
Curated
Partially restricted

Criminal Behavior of Gangs in Aurora and Denver, Colorado, and Broward County, Florida: 1993-1994 (ICPSR 2626)

Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: Aurora, United States, Colorado, Denver, Florida
Time period: 1993-01-01--1994-01-01
This study was undertaken to measure the criminal behavior of gangs, including their involvement in delinquent behavior such as drug use and drug trafficking activities, and to compare gang behavior with that of youth who were at risk, but who had not yet become active in gangs. The project assessed the role that gangs play in the lives of youth whose living conditions are otherwise comparable. In order to study the criminal behavior of gangs, investigators sought to interview 50 gang members and 50 non-gang, at-risk youth at two sites in Colorado and one site in Florida. A large portion of the interview questions asked in both the gang member interview and the at-risk youth interview were parallel. The following variables appear in both the gang member and at-risk youth files (Parts 1 and 2 respectively) created for this data collection: gang popularity variables (respondents' perceptions of the positive and negative attributes of a gang, and why gangs endure over time), drug involvement variables (whether respondents or fellow members/friends sold various types of drugs, why selling drugs increases a person's "juice", the drug source organization, and where they traveled to get the drugs), criminal history variables (the reasons why respondents believed they were able to get away with crimes, their first arrest age, and their most serious arrest charge), personal activity variables (whether respondents or fellow members/friends participated in dances, sporting events, fighting, drug use or selling, shoplifting, assaulting people, or burglarizing homes), variables concerning the future (whether respondents would join a gang again/join a gang today, why some gangs survive and others don't, and how respondents see their future), and demographic variables (respondents' age, sex, race, city, neighborhood, school, school status, type of work, marital status, and relationship with parent(s)). In addition, Part 1, the Gang Member Data, contains gang status variables (gang symbols, gang nickname, gang turf, and how members define a gang) and gang membership variables (roles of the respondents within the gang, why members join a gang, what the most important gang rule is, and what happens to those who refuse the gang). Part 2, At-Risk Youth Data, contains additional variables on gang contact (the names of gangs who had approached the respondents, methods used to try to get the youths to join, how the youths refused the gang, and what happened as a result of refusing) and prevention (how at-risk youth would advise a young person to react if approached by a gang, and what the youths felt was the best way to prepare children to deal with gangs).
Curated
Restricted

Denver Youth Survey Waves 1-5, (1988-1992) [Denver, Colorado] (ICPSR 36473)

Released/updated on: 2017-01-04
Geographic coverage: United States, Colorado, Denver
Time period: 1988-01-01--1992-01-01

The Denver Youth Survey (DYS) is part of the larger "Program of Research on the Causes and Correlates of Delinquency" initiated by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention in 1986. The DYS is a longitudinal study of problem and successful behavior over the life course that focuses on delinquency, drug use, victimization, and mental health. The DYS is based on a probability sample of households in "high-risk" neighborhoods of Denver, Colorado. These neighborhoods were selected on the basis of their social ecology in terms of population and housing characteristics. Only socially disorganized neighborhoods with high official crime rates (top one-third) were included. The survey respondents include 1,528 children and youth who were 7, 9, 11, 13, or 15 years old in 1987, and one of their parents, who lived in one of the more than 20,000 randomly selected households.

The survey respondents include 807 boys and 721 girls and include White (10 percent), Latino (45 percent), and African American (33 percent) youth, as well as 12 percent from other racial/ethnic backgrounds. The child and youth respondents, along with one caretaker, were interviewed annually from 1988 until 1992, and annually from 1995 until 1999. The age range covered by the study is from age 7 through age 26.

The dataset contains 1,528 cases and 22,081 variables.

Curated
Restricted

Denver Youth Survey Waves 6-11 (1993-2003) [Denver, Colorado] (ICPSR 36474)

Released/updated on: 2016-12-30
Geographic coverage: United States, Colorado, Denver
Time period: 1993-01-01--2003-01-01

The Denver Youth Survey (DYS) is part of the larger "Program of Research on the Causes and Correlates of Delinquency" initiated by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention in 1986. It is a longitudinal study of problem and successful behavior over the life course that focuses on delinquency, drug use, victimization, and mental health. DYS variables also address family demographics, neighborhood characteristics, parenting, and involvement in social roles.

The DYS is based on a probability sample of households in "high-risk" neighborhoods of Denver, Colorado. These neighborhoods were selected on the basis of their social ecology in terms of population and housing characteristics. Only socially disorganized neighborhoods with high (top one-third) official crime rates were included. The survey respondents include 1,528 children and youth who were 7, 9, 11, 13, or 15 years old in 1987, and one of their parents, who lived in one of the more than 20,000 randomly selected households.

The survey respondents include 807 boys and 721 girls and include White (10%), Latino (45%), and African American (33%) youth, as well as 12% from other racial/ethnic backgrounds. The child and youth respondents, along with one caretaker, were interviewed annually from 1988 until 1992 (waves 1-5), annually from 1995 until 1999 (waves 6-10), and in 2003 (wave 11). The study covers an age range of 7 through 26.

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

Drugs and Police Response: Survey of Public Housing Residents in Denver, Colorado, 1989-1990 (ICPSR 6482)

Released/updated on: 1995-08-16
Geographic coverage: United States, Colorado, Denver
Time period: 1989-01-01--1990-01-01
This data collection is the result of an evaluation of the NEPHU program, conducted by the Police Foundation under the sponsorship of the National Institute of Justice (NIJ). In August 1989, the Bureau of Justice Assistance supported a grant in Denver, Colorado, to establish a special Narcotics Enforcement in Public Housing Unit (NEPHU) within the Denver Police Department. The goal of the Denver NEPHU was to reduce the availability of narcotics in and around the city's public housing areas by increasing drug arrests. NEPHU's six full-time officers made investigations and gathered intelligence leading to on-street arrests and search warrants. The unit also operated a special telephone Drug Hotline and met regularly with tenant councils in the developments to improve community relations. The program worked in cooperation with the Denver Housing Authority and the uniformed patrol division of the Denver Police Department, which increased levels of uniformed patrols to maintain high visibility in the project areas to deter conventional crime. Using a panel design, survey interviews were conducted with residents in the Quigg Newton and Curtis Park public housing units, focusing on events that occurred during the past six months. Respondents were interviewed during three time periods to examine the onset and persistence of any apparent program effects. In December 1989, interviews were completed with residents in 521 households. In June 1990, 422 respondents were interviewed in Wave 2. Wave 3 was conducted in December 1990 and included 423 respondents. In all, 642 individuals were interviewed, 283 of whom were interviewed for all three waves. Because of the evaluation's design, the data can be analyzed to reveal individual-level changes for the 283 respondents who were interviewed on all three occasions, and the data can also be used to determine a cross-section representation of the residents by including the 359 "new" persons interviewed during the course of the evaluation. Information collected includes years and months lived in the development, assessments of changes in the neighborhood, whether the respondent planned to stay in the development, interactions among residents, awareness of anti-drug programs, ranking of various problems in the development, concerns and reports of being a victim of various crimes, perceived safety of the development, assessment of drug use and availability, assessment of police activity and visibility, and personal contacts with police. The unit of analysis is the individual.
Curated

The Effectiveness of Coordinated Outreach in Intimate Partner Violence Cases in Denver, Colorado 2007 to 2009 (ICPSR 30961)

Released/updated on: 2014-11-07
Geographic coverage: United States, Colorado, Denver
Time period: 2007-01-01--2009-01-01

In collaboration with community- and system-based partners, the current study used an experimental design to test the impact of phone outreach from community-based agencies to women exposed to Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) compared to phone referrals provided by system-based unit (i.e., the Victim Assistance Unit of the DPD or the City Attorney's Office) in a racially and ethnically diverse sample of women whose cases have come to the attention of the criminal justice system. The phone outreach was informed by an interdisciplinary team involving both system- and community-based team members. Participants, who were randomly selected to receive outreach or treatment-as-usual, were interviewed at three time points: after an incident of IPV was reported to the police (T1), 6 months after T1, and 12 months after T1. The study addressed three primary roles. First, investigators evaluated the effectiveness of a coordinated, community-based outreach program in improving criminal justice and victim safety and empowerment outcomes for IPV victims using a longitudinal, randomized control design. Second, victim and case characteristics that moderated outcomes were identified. Third, the influence of spatial characteristics on criminal justice outcomes was evaluated.

Curated

Effectiveness of Police Response: Denver, 1982 (ICPSR 8217)

Released/updated on: 2006-01-18
Geographic coverage: United States, Colorado, Denver
Time period: 1982-06-01--1982-09-01
This data collection investigates the nature of law enforcement by recording police behavior in problematic situations, primarily disturbances and traffic stops. The data collection contains two files. The first consists of information on disturbance encounters. Disturbance variables include type of disturbance, manner of investigation, designation of police response, several situational variables such as type of setting, number of victims, bystanders, suspects, and witnesses, demeanor of participants toward the police, type of police response, and demeanor of police toward participants. The second file contains data on traffic offenses. The variables include manner of investigation, incident code, officers' description of the incident, condition of the vehicle stopped, police contact with the passengers of the vehicle, demeanor of passengers toward the police, demeanor of police toward the passengers, and resolution of the situation. The data were collected based on field observation, using an instrument for recording observations.
Curated
Restricted

Estimating the Unlawful Commercial Sex Economy in the United States [Eight Cities]; 2003-2007 (ICPSR 35159)

Released/updated on: 2017-06-09
Geographic coverage: District of Columbia, Seattle, United States, Kansas City (Missouri), Florida, Washington, Miami, San Diego, Atlanta, Texas, Colorado, Missouri, Denver, Georgia, Dallas
Time period: 2003-01-01--2007-01-01

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.

This study measures the size and structure of the underground commercial sex economy in eight major US cities: San Diego, Seattle, Dallas, Denver, Washington, DC, Kansas City, Atlanta, and Miami. The goals of this study were to derive a more rigorous estimate of the underground commercial sex economy (UCSE) in eight major US cities and to provide an understanding of the structure of this underground economy.

Researchers relied on a multi-method approach using both qualitative and quantitative data to estimate the size of UCSE including:

  1. Collecting official data on crime related to the underground weapons and drugs economies
  2. Conducting semi-structured interviews with convicted traffickers, pimps, child pornographers, and sex workers at the federal, state, and local levels
  3. Conducting semi-structured interviews with local and federal police investigators and prosecutors to inform our analysis of the interrelationship across different types of underground commercial sex activity.
Curated

Evaluating Gunshot Detection Technology (GDT) to Aid in the Reduction of Firearms Violence, United States, 2006-2016 (ICPSR 37448)

Released/updated on: 2023-05-30
Geographic coverage: Milwaukee, United States, Colorado, Denver, California, Wisconsin
Time period: 2008-01-01--2016-04-30, 2008-01-01--2016-12-31, 2006-01-01--2015-12-31, 2015-01-08--2016-05-28, 2011-02-25--2016-05-31, 2009-06-01--2015-10-31, 2015-01-08--2016-06-15, 2011-02-25--2016-12-31, 2009-06-01--2015-10-31

In 2015, the National Institute of Justice funded the Urban Institute's Evaluation of Gunshot Detection Technology to Aid in the Reduction of Firearms Violence. This project was designed to investigate the degree to which gunshot detection technology (GDT) aids in the response, investigation, and prevention of firearms violence and related crimes. The goal of this study was to conduct a rigorous process and impact evaluation of GDT to inform policing researchers and practitioners about the impact GDT may have. To achieve this goal, the research team implemented a mixed-methods research design with police departments in Denver, Colorado; Milwaukee, Wisconsin; and Richmond, California.

Quantitative data collection included administrative data on calls for service (CFS), crime, and GDT alerts, as well as comprehensive case file reviews of 174 crimes involving a firearm. Quantitative analyses examined the impact of GDT by (1) comparing counts of gunshot notifications for GDT alerts to shooting-related CFS, (2) comparing response times of GDT alerts to shooting-related CFS, (3) examining the impact GDT has had on CFS and crimes, and (4) conducting a cost-benefit analysis of the GDT. Qualitative data collection included 46 interviews with criminal justice stakeholders to learn implementation processes and challenges associated with its GDT, and 6 focus groups with 49 community members to learn how residents feel about policing efforts to reduce firearm violence and its use of GDT.

Three types of files were uploaded for each site. They include quantitative data on crimes and CFS (DS1-DS3), gunshot notifications (DS4-DS6), and response times (DS7-DS9). The qualitative data are not currently available as part of this collection.

Curated

Evaluation of Boot Camps for Juvenile Offenders in Cleveland, Denver, and Mobile, 1992-1993 (ICPSR 6922)

Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: United States, Colorado, Ohio, Denver, Alabama, Cleveland, Mobile
Time period: 1992-01-01--1993-01-01
Boot camps, a popular alternative to standard correctional facilities, are characterized by a strong emphasis on military structure, drill, and discipline and by an abbreviated period of incarceration. In 1990, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) launched a demonstration program to develop boot camp models for juveniles and to test the feasibility and appropriateness of their implementation. In September 1991, three groups received awards to develop and implement boot camps as intermediate sanctions: the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas in Cleveland, Ohio, the Colorado Division of Youth Services in Denver, Colorado, and the Boys and Girls Clubs of Greater Mobile, Alabama. Simultaneously, the National Institute of Justice sponsored an evaluation of the implementation of the demonstration programs, focusing on the experiences of youths who entered the program during the first year of operation, from 1992 to 1993. This collection contains data from the program evaluation conducted on these three boot camps during the first year. The core of the assessment was a management information system that captured administrative data as the offenders progressed through the demonstration program. At intake, researchers collected demographic, criminal, and family and social information. Demographic information collected at intake includes age, race, education, and employment. Criminal data covers criminal history, current offense, and case information, while family and social history variables include whether the youths' parents had a criminal record, whether their family received public assistance, and whether they had delinquent friends, delinquent siblings, discipline problems at home or school, or a history of psychological problems. At the beginning and end of the boot camp term, staff rated the youths' performance on educational and behavioral measures. The youths were also surveyed about the rules of boot camp, their opinions of instructors, and their self-esteem, drug and alcohol use, and criminal behavior. At the end of the first 90 days (the residential period), data were collected on the date of graduation, infractions during boot camp, honors or awards, and special services received. Five months after graduation, youths were evaluated on their aftercare experiences. Some sites supplemented the basic management information with data collected on educational performance, employment history and expectations, physical fitness, and youth attitudes.
Curated

Evaluation of the Office for Victims of Crime Wraparound Victim Legal Assistance Network Demonstration Project, 5 U.S. states, 2013-2018 (ICPSR 38187)

Released/updated on: 2024-01-30
Geographic coverage: Illinois, Texas, Colorado, Alaska, Los Angeles, Denver, California
Time period: 2013-01-01--2018-12-31

The Office for Victims of Crime (OVC) created a new demonstration grant program, the OVC Wraparound Victim Legal Assistance Network Demonstration Project, to address the wide range of legal needs victims of crime have in relation to the victimization they experienced. The original four-year demonstration, which was increased to six years, included two phases: (1) a 15-month phase for planning, designing a new service delivery model in collaboration with local partners, and conducting a needs assessment, and (2) a second phase for grantees to implement the model as designed. The program originally funded six sites to plan and implement a new model of legal assistance for victims:

  1. Alaska Immigrant Justice Center (entire state of Alaska)
  2. Council on Crime and Justice (entire state of Minnesota)
  3. Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles (Los Angeles County, California)
  4. Lone Star Legal Aid (72 counties in East Texas)
  5. Metropolitan Family Services' Legal Aid Society (Cook County, Illinois)
  6. Rocky Mountain Victim Law Center (City of Denver, Colorado)

The new wraparound service delivery models were expected to facilitate the implementation of wraparound pro bono legal assistance networks to provide legal services to victims. Because victims often receive legal services from a variety of uncoordinated organizations (e.g., victim legal clinics for help with enforcing rights, and legal aid offices or law school clinics for help with other specific civil legal needs), integrated networks may be better able to provide a wide array of legal services from a single, coordinated system. The demonstration grant requirements included: creating and actively engaging a steering committee, working cooperatively with technical assistance provider(s) as needed, and employing a local research partner to help perform the needs assessment and work closely with the evaluation team.

Curated
Restricted

Expanding Use of the Social Reactions Questionnaire among Diverse Women, Denver, Colorado, 2013-2016 (ICPSR 36776)

Released/updated on: 2018-09-19
Geographic coverage: United States, Colorado, Denver
Time period: 2013-01-01--2016-01-01

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 Social Reactions Questionnaire (SRQ) is a widely used instrument designed to measure perceptions of social reactions. Studies using the SRQ have generally asked women to report on social reactions from "other persons told about the assault," without specifying which persons. The purpose of this study was to test a modified version of the SRQ that asked women to report separately on social reactions from criminal justice personnel, community-based providers, and informal supports. The researchers sought to examine changes in social reactions longitudinally as well as the impact of social reactions on criminal justice engagement and post-traumatic distress among diverse women following a recent sexual assault. The study included testing hypotheses about the inter-relationships among social reactions, victim well-being (e.g., psychological distress), and criminal justice variables (e.g., victim engagement with prosecution). Addressing the dearth of longitudinal research on social reactions, this study examined causal links among variables. In particular, researchers tested hypotheses about changes in social reactions over time in relation to criminal justice cases and victims' post-traumatic reactions.

The data included as part of this collection includes one SPSS data file (2_1-Data_Quantiative-Variables-Updated-20180611.sav) with 3,310 variables for 228 cases. Demographic variables included: respondent's age, race, ethnicity, country of origin, sexual orientation, marital status, education level, employment status, income source, economic level, religion, household characteristics, and group identity. The data also contain transcripts of qualitative interviews and one SPSS qualitative coding dataset (file7-2_4_Data_Open_ended_Codes_from_Transcripts.sav) with 19 variables and 225 cases, which are not included in this fast track release.

Curated

The Impact of a Forensic Collaborative for Older Adults on Criminal Justice and Victim Outcomes: A Randomized-Control, Longitudinal Design, Denver, Colorado, 2014-2018 (ICPSR 37167)

Released/updated on: 2020-07-30
Geographic coverage: United States, Colorado, Denver
Time period: 2014-01-01--2018-01-01

Initially funded in 2013 by the National Institute of Justice, the primary purpose of this project was to conduct a randomized-control test of the impact of a victim-focused, forensic collaborative relative to usual care (UC) on older adult victims' health, mental health, and criminal justice outcomes. During the course of the project, researchers responded to enrollment and consent challenges by implementing Arm 2 that focused on collecting caseworker and victim advocate perceptions of cases as well as administrative data from Adult Protective Services (APS).

This collection contains 6 datasets:

  • Arm 1 (DS1) contains survey results from victim-focused interviews of 40 older adults who were reported to be victims of abuse, neglect, and/or financial exploitation over 4 time points. Variables describe victim and case characteristics, service use/needs, risk factors for abuse, consequences of abuse and exploitation, and criminal justice process and outcomes.
  • Arm 2 (DS2) includes a survey of APS caseworkers reporting on a case of older adult abuse, such as client (older adult victim) and perpetrator demographics, mistreatment details (verbal abuse, physical abuse, sexual abuse, neglect, financial exploitation, and/or housing exploitation), and service use.
  • Collateral assessments (DS3) surveyed a trusted individual related to the older adult respondent in Arm 1. This included data on the perceptions of the older adult's functioning and use of services; and the quality of decision-making procedures, desired treatment, and outcomes in the criminal justice system. Of the 40 Arm 1 participants interviewed, 33 gave collateral contact information. Of those 33, 16 could not be reached, one failed the consent quiz, and two declined to participate. Of the 14 who participated in an initial interview, only three participated at the follow-up nine months later.
  • Revictimization and Prosecutorial Outcome Data (DS5) includes information on new incidents reported to law enforcement over the nine months following the original incident report and prosecution outcomes, gathered from publicly-accessible police reports and court information for Arm 1 and Arm 2 cases.
  • APS administrative data (DS6), such as the demographics of the older adult victim and the primary perpetrator, assessment scores for risk and safety, the alleged mistreatment type, whether mistreatment was substantiated, and APS case status. The data included overall risk/safety scores and summary scores for the domains of physical functioning, environmental context, financial resources, mental health, cognition, medical issues, and mistreatment.

Arm 1 demographic variables includes age, gender, education, employment status, marital status, household size, ethnic minority, and income source. Arm 2 surveys reported ethnicity, gender, age, education, marital status, and employment status; APS data reported age and gender.

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

Leaving Gangs and Desisting From Crime Using a Multidisciplinary Team Approach: A Randomized Control Trial Evaluation of the Gang Reduction Initiative of Denver (GRID), Colorado, 2014-2022 (ICPSR 38824)

Released/updated on: 2024-02-12
Geographic coverage: United States, Colorado, Denver
Time period: 2014-06-20--2022-12-09

This dataset is from an evaluation of an intervention program designed to facilitate disengagement from gangs and desistance from crime. Led by the Gang Reduction Initiative of Denver (GRID), a multidisciplinary team and street outreach workers carried out the randomized controlled trial between 2019 and 2022. One hundred forty-three people referred to GRID were assigned at random to receive individualized, coordinated case management, developed by the multidisciplinary team and facilitated by street outreach workers. Intake data was gathered for each referred individual by the referring agent (i.e. their probation officer) and sent to the study personnel. A baseline survey was attempted for each individual shortly after referral; a follow-up survey was attempted roughly 10 months after referral. Judicial data for each referred individual was gathered from official sources from the 5 years prior to referral and for an 18-month period after referral.

Curated

Linking Theory to Practice: Examining Geospatial Predictive Policing, Denver, Colorado, 2013-2015 (ICPSR 37299)

Released/updated on: 2020-02-26
Geographic coverage: United States, Colorado, Denver
Time period: 2013-01-01--2015-12-31

This research sought to examine and evaluate geospatial predictive policing models across the United States. The purpose of this applied research is three-fold: (1) to link theory and appropriate data/measures to the practice of predictive policing; (2) to determine the accuracy of various predictive policing algorithms to include traditional hotspot analyses, regression-based analyses, and data-mining algorithms; and (3) to determine how algorithms perform in a predictive policing process.

Specifically, the research project sought to answer questions such as:

  • What are the underlying criminological theories that guide the development of the algorithms and subsequent strategies?
  • What data are needed in what capacity and when?
  • What types of software and hardware are useful and necessary?
  • How does predictive policing "work" in the field? What is the practical utility of it?
  • How do we measure the impacts of predictive policing?

The project's primary phases included: (1) employing report card strategies to analyze, review and evaluate available data sources, software and analytic methods; (2) reviewing the literature on predictive tools and predictive strategies; and (3) evaluating how police agencies and researchers tested predictive algorithms and predictive policing processes.

Curated

Monitoring Drug Epidemics and the Markets That Sustain Them, Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) and ADAM II Data, 2000-2003 and 2007-2010 (ICPSR 33201)

Released/updated on: 2012-12-13
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Oregon, District of Columbia, Charlotte, Sacramento, Indiana, United States, Chicago, Minnesota, California, New York (state), New York City, Minneapolis, Atlanta, Illinois, Colorado, Portland (Oregon), Denver, Georgia, Indianapolis
Time period: 2000-01-01--2003-01-01, 2007-01-01--2010-01-01
This study examined trends in the use of five widely abused drugs among arrestees at 10 geographically diverse locations from 2000 to 2010: Atlanta, Charlotte, Chicago, Denver, Indianapolis, Manhattan, Minneapolis, Portland Oregon, Sacramento, and Washington DC. The data came from the Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring Program reintroduced in 2007 (ADAM II) and its predecessor the ADAM program. ADAM data included urinalysis results that provided an objective measure of recent drug use, provided location specific estimates over time, and provided sample weights that yielded unbiased estimates for each location. The ADAM data were analyzed according to a drug epidemics framework, which has been previously employed to understand the decline of the crack epidemic, the growth of marijuana use in the 1990s, and the persistence of heroin use. Similar to other diffusion of innovation processes, drug epidemics tend to follow a natural course passing through four distinct phases: incubation, expansion, plateau, and decline. The study also searched for changes in drug markets over the course of a drug epidemic.
Curated

Multi-Site Evaluation of Batterer Intervention in Pennsylvania, Texas, and Colorado, 1995-1999 (ICPSR 4696)

Released/updated on: 2015-05-15
Geographic coverage: United States, Texas, Colorado, Denver, Dallas, Pennsylvania, Houston, Pittsburgh
Time period: 1995-01-01--1999-01-01
A multi-site evaluation of batterer intervention systems included a four year follow-up of male batterers and their female partners (initial partners at program intake and identified new partners during the follow-up) recruited from four batterer intervention programs in Denver, Colorado, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Dallas and Houston, Texas, in 1995. Approximately 220 men were consecutively recruited at each of the four programs. The men and their female partners were interviewed at the time of program intake and for every three months over the next four years. Besides an extensive background interview at program intake, the men were also administered the MAST and MCMI-III. Their clinical records were collected that included program attendance and a clinical rating form. Arrest records were also collected for the four year follow-up. The primary objective of the research was to improve prediction of continued violence using a more complex analysis that includes both multiple outcomes and conditional factors, with a secondary objective of exploring additional ways to improve prediction.
Curated

National Crime Surveys: Cities, 1972-1975 (ICPSR 7658)

Released/updated on: 2006-01-12
Geographic coverage: Oregon, Milwaukee, Detroit, United States, Cincinnati, Oakland, Cleveland, New York City, San Diego, Minneapolis, Atlanta, Massachusetts, Colorado, Missouri, New Orleans, Denver, Dallas, St. Louis, Wisconsin, Buffalo, Boston, Pittsburgh, District of Columbia, Chicago, Minnesota, California, Florida, New York (state), New Jersey, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Miami, San Francisco, Baltimore, Illinois, Texas, Portland (Oregon), Louisiana, Ohio, Los Angeles, Newark, Georgia, Maryland, Philadelphia, Houston
Time period: 1972-01-01--1975-01-01
This sample of the National Crime Survey contains information about victimization in 26 central cities in the United States. The data are designed to achieve three primary objectives: 1) to develop detailed information about the victims and consequences of crime, 2) to estimate the numbers and types of crimes not reported to police, and 3) to provide uniform measures of selected types of crimes and permit reliable comparisons over time and between areas of the country. Information about each household or personal victimization was recorded. The data include type of crime (attempts are covered as well), description of offender, severity of crime, injuries or losses, time and place of occurrence, age, race and sex of offender(s), relationship of offenders to victims, education, migration, labor force status, occupation, and income of persons involved.
Curated
Restricted

National Evaluation of the Safe Start Promising Approaches Initiative, 2011-2016 (ICPSR 36610)

Released/updated on: 2017-03-14
Geographic coverage: Detroit, El Paso, United States, Hawaii, Kalamazoo, New York (state), Spokane, Washington, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Aurora, Queens, Worcester, Texas, Massachusetts, Colorado, Honolulu, Denver, Philadelphia
Time period: 2011-11-01--2016-06-01

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 Safe Start Promising Approaches for Children Exposed to Violence Initiative funded 10 sites to implement and evaluate programs to improve outcomes for children exposed to violence. RAND conducted the national evaluation of these programs, in collaboration with the sites and a national evaluation team, to focus on child-level outcomes. The dataset includes data gathered at the individual family-level at baseline, 6-, 12-months. All families were engaged in experimental or quasi-experimental studies comparing the Safe Start intervention to enhanced services-as-usual, alternative services, a wait-list control group, or a comparable comparison group of families that did not receive Safe Start services. Data sources for the outcome evaluation were primary caregiver interviews, child interviews (for ages 8 and over), and family/child-level service utilization data provided by the Safe Start program staff.

Curated
Restricted

Official Crime Rates of Participants in Trials of the Nurse-Family Partnership, Denver, Elmira, New York, and Memphis, 1977-2005 (ICPSR 36580)

Released/updated on: 2020-05-14
Geographic coverage: Elmira, United States, Tennessee, Colorado, Denver, Memphis, New York (state)
Time period: 1994-01-01--1995-01-01, 2000-01-01--2001-01-01, 1977-01-01--1980-01-01, 1992-01-01--1995-01-01, 1996-01-01--1999-01-01

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.

This study examined maternal and youth self-reports of arrests and convictions with official records of crime among participants in three randomized controlled trials of the Nurse-Family Partnership (NFP) in Denver, Colorado, Elmira, New York, and Memphis, Tennessee.

Official records were obtained from third-party sources as well as directly from New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services.

The collection contains 10 SAS data files:

  • dmom_all.sas7bdat (n=735; 3 variables)
  • dmom_control.sas7bdat (n=247; 26 variables)
  • echild_all.sas7bdat (n=374; 4 variables)
  • echild_control.sas7bdat (n=173; 22 variables)
  • emom_all.sas7bdat (n=399; 4 variables)
  • emom_control.sas7bdat (n=184; 17 variables)
  • mchild_all.sas7bdat (n=708; 5 variables)
  • mchild_control.sas7bdat (n=482; 46 variables)
  • mmom_all.sas7bdat (n=742; 5 variables)
  • mmom_control.sas7bdat (n=514; 25 variables)

Demographic variables include race, ethnicity, highest grade completed, household income, marital status, housing density, maternal age, maternal education, husband/boyfriend education, and head of household employment status.

Curated

Police Documentation of Drunk Driving Arrests, 1984-1987: Los Angeles, Denver, and Boston (ICPSR 9400)

Released/updated on: 2005-11-04
Geographic coverage: United States, Massachusetts, Colorado, Los Angeles, Denver, California, Boston
Time period: 1984-01-01--1987-01-01
These data measure the effects of blood alcohol content coupled with officer reports at the time of arrest on driving while intoxicated (DWI) case outcomes (jury verdicts and guilty pleas). Court records and relevant police reports for drunk-driving cases drawn from the greater metropolitan areas of Boston, Denver, and Los Angeles were compiled to produce this data collection. Cases were selected to include roughly equal proportions of guilty pleas, guilty verdicts, and not-guilty verdicts. DWI cases were compared on the quality and quantity of evidence concerning the suspect's behavior, with the evidence coming from any mention of 20 standard visual detection cues prior to the stop, 13 attributes of general appearance and behavior immediately after the stop, and the results of as many as 7 field sobriety tests. Questions concerned driving-under-the-influence cues (scoring sheet), observed traffic violations and actual traffic accidents, the verdict, DWI history, whether the stop resulted from an accident, whether the attorney was public or private, and sanctions that followed the verdict. Also included were demographic questions on age, sex, and ethnicity.
Curated
Restricted

Preventing Revictimization in Teen Dating Relationships, 2010-2013, Denver, Colorado (ICPSR 34599)

Released/updated on: 2016-10-28
Geographic coverage: Colorado, Denver
Time period: 2010-01-01--2013-01-01

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.

This study addressed the urgent need to target interventions to high risk groups, such as teen girls who have come to the attention of the child welfare system; rigorously test interventions grounded in empirical research on revictimization; and examine processes implied by revictimization theories. In particular, adolescent girls recruited from the child welfare system were randomized to one of two revictimization prevention conditions: social learning/feminist and risk detection/executive function.

The study contains one data file with 180 cases and 545 variables.

Curated

Process Evaluation of the Comprehensive Communities Program in Selected Cities in the United States, 1994-1996 (ICPSR 3492)

Released/updated on: 2009-06-30
Geographic coverage: Indiana, United States, Fort Worth, Utah, Washington, South Carolina, Wichita, Atlanta, Columbia (South Carolina), Massachusetts, Colorado, Denver, Salt Lake City, Boston, Gary, Seattle, East Bay, California, Kansas, Baltimore, Texas, Connecticut, Hartford, Georgia, Maryland
Time period: 1995-09-01--1997-04-01, 1995-09-01--1997-04-01, 1995-09-01--1997-04-01, 1995-09-01--1997-04-01, 1995-11-01--1997-03-01, 1997-12-01--1998-01-01, 1996-01-01--1997-03-01, 1997-12-01--1998-01-01, 1995-11-01--1997-01-01, 1997-12-01--1998-01-01, 1995-09-01--1996-12-01, 1997-12-01--1998-01-01
This study was a process evaluation of the Comprehensive Communities Program (CCP) intended to develop insights into how community approaches to crime and drug abuse prevention and control evolved, to track how each site implemented its comprehensive strategy, to determine the influence of preexisting ecological, social, economic, and political factors on implementation, and to monitor the evolution of strategies and projects over time. Intensive evaluations were done at six CCP sites: Baltimore, Maryland; Boston, Massachusetts; Columbia, South Carolina; Fort Worth, Texas; Salt Lake City, Utah; and Seattle, Washington. Less intensive evaluations were done at six other CCP sites: Gary, Indiana; Hartford, Connecticut; Wichita, Kansas; the Denver, Colorado, metropolitan area; the Atlanta, Georgia, metropolitan area; and the East Bay area of northern California. At all 12 sites, 2 waves of a Coalition Survey (Parts 1 and 2) were sent to everyone who participated in CCP. Likewise, 2 waves of the Community Policing Survey (Parts 3 and 4) were sent to the police chiefs of all 12 sites. Finally, all 12 sites were visited by researchers at least once (Parts 5 to 13). Variables found in this data collection include problems facing the communities, the implementation of CCP programs, the use of community policing, and the effectiveness of the CCP programs and community policing efforts.
Curated

Reducing Youth Access to Firearms Through the Healthcare Setting, Denver, Colorado, 2018-2019 (ICPSR 37282)

Released/updated on: 2021-08-31
Geographic coverage: United States, Colorado, Denver
Time period: 2018-01-01--2019-01-01
The purpose of this project was to determine whether the health care setting can be utilized to decrease firearm access for adolescents, including those who are demonstrating a higher risk probability of accessing firearms that would result in harmful consequences. This project evaluated firearm access screening for youth and parents, means restriction counseling education for health care providers, the delivery of means restriction counseling to parents by health care providers, the effectiveness of means restriction counseling on parental storage practices, and whether the distribution of firearm storage devices decreased adolescent access to firearms.
Curated
Restricted

The Role and Impact of Forensic Evidence on the Criminal Justice System, 2004-2008 [United States] (ICPSR 33462)

Released/updated on: 2017-03-30
Geographic coverage: San Diego, United States, Colorado, Denver, California, Florida, Miami
Time period: 2004-01-01--2006-01-01, 2005-01-01--2008-01-01

These data are part of NACJD's Fast Track Release and are distributed as they there received from the data depositor. The files have been zipped by NACJD for release, but not checked or processed except of the removal of direct identifiers. Users should refer to the accompany readme file for a brief description of the files available with this collections and consult the investigator(s) if further information is needed.

This collection includes data gathered through three separate study designs. The first study called for tracking cases and forensic evidence through local criminal justice processes for five offenses: homicide, sexual assault, aggravated assault, robbery and burglary. Two sites, Denver, Colorado, and San Diego, California, participated in the study. Demographic data were collected on victims (Victim Data n = 7,583) and defendants (Defendant Data n = 2,318). Data on forensic evidence collected at crime scenes included DNA material (DNA Evidence Data n = 1,894), firearms evidence (Ballistics Evidence Data n = 488), latent prints (Latent Print Evidence Data n = 766), trace evidence (Other Impressions Evidence Data n = 49), and drug evidence (Drug Evidence Data n = 43). Comparisons were then made between open and closed cases from the participating sites. Two smaller studies were conducted as part of this grant. The second study was an analysis of an experiment in the Miami-Date, Florida Police Department (Miami-Data County Data n = 1,421) to determine whether clearance rates for no-suspect property crimes could be improved through faster processing of DNA evidence. The third study was a survey of 75 police departments across the nation (Crime Labs Survey Data) to obtain information on the organizational placement, staffing and responsibilities of crime lab units.