Showing 1 – 50 of 93 results.
Curated
Alcohol Availability, Type of Alcohol Establishment, Distribution Policies, and Their Relationship to Crime and Disorder in the District of Columbia, 2000-2006 (ICPSR 25763)
Released/updated on: 2009-07-31
Geographic coverage: District of Columbia, United States
Time period: 2000-01-01--2006-01-01
The purpose of the study was to investigate the relationship between alcohol availability, type of alcohol establishment, distribution policies, and violence and disorder at the block group level in the District of Columbia. This study developed and tested a grounded comprehensive theoretical model of the relationship between alcohol availability and violence and disorder. The study also developed a geographic information system (GIS) containing neighborhood crime and demographic and physical environmental characteristics at the block group level for 431 block groups in the District of Columbia. The principal investigator calculated density measures of alcohol availability and distribution practices and aggregated characteristics of neighborhoods to examine the relationships of those measures to crime and violence. The project used data from various sources to create multiple variables measuring the physical, social, economic, and cultural characteristics of a given area in addition to the density of alcohol-selling establishments by type and incidence of criminal activity. This study examined the influence of alcohol outlets on four outcomes: (1) aggravated assault incidents, (2) calls for service for disorderly conduct, (3) calls for services for social disorder more broadly defined, and (4) calls for service for a domestic incident. The dataset for this study contains a total of 103 variables including crime variables, Census variables, alcohol outlet variables, neighborhood structural constraints variables, motivated offenders variables, and physical environment variables.
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
Anticipating and Combating Community Decay and Crime in Washington, DC, and Cleveland, Ohio, 1980-1990 (ICPSR 6486)
Released/updated on: 2006-01-12
Geographic coverage: District of Columbia, United States, Ohio, Cleveland
Time period: 1980-01-01--1990-01-01
The Urban Institute undertook a comprehensive assessment of communities approaching decay to provide public officials with strategies for identifying communities in the early stages of decay and intervening effectively to prevent continued deterioration and crime. Although community decline is a dynamic spiral downward in which the physical condition of the neighborhood, adherence to laws and conventional behavioral norms, and economic resources worsen, the question of whether decay fosters or signals increasing risk of crime, or crime fosters decay (as investors and residents flee as reactions to crime), or both, is not easily answered. Using specific indicators to identify future trends, predictor models for Washington, DC, and Cleveland were prepared, based on data available for each city. The models were designed to predict whether a census tract should be identified as at risk for very high crime and were tested using logistic regression. The classification of a tract as a "very high crime" tract was based on its crime rate compared to crime rates for other tracts in the same city. To control for differences in population and to facilitate cross-tract comparisons, counts of crime incidents and other events were converted to rates per 1,000 residents. Tracts with less than 100 residents were considered nonresidential or institutional and were deleted from the analysis. Washington, DC, variables include rates for arson and drug sales or possession, percentage of lots zoned for commercial use, percentage of housing occupied by owners, scale of family poverty, presence of public housing units for 1980, 1983, and 1988, and rates for aggravated assaults, auto thefts, burglaries, homicides, rapes, and robberies for 1980, 1983, 1988, and 1990. Cleveland variables include rates for auto thefts, burglaries, homicides, rapes, robberies, drug sales or possession, and delinquency filings in juvenile court, and scale of family poverty for 1980 through 1989. Rates for aggravated assaults are provided for 1986 through 1989 and rates for arson are provided for 1983 through 1988.
Curated
Anticipating Community Drug Problems in Washington, DC, and Portland, Oregon, 1984-1990 (ICPSR 9924)
Released/updated on: 1994-02-17
Geographic coverage: Oregon, District of Columbia, United States, Portland (Oregon)
Time period: 1984-01-01--1990-01-01
This study examined the use of arrestee urinalysis results as a predictor of other community drug problems. A three-stage public health model was developed using drug diffusion and community drug indicators as aggregate measures of individual drug use careers. Monthly data on drug indicators for Washington, DC, and Portland, Oregon, were used to: (1) estimate the correlations of drug problem indicators over time, (2) examine the correlations among indicators at different stages in the spread of new forms of drug abuse, and (3) estimate lagged models in which arrestee urinalysis results were used to predict subsequent community drug problems. Variables included arrestee drug test results, drug-overdose deaths, crimes reported to the local police department, and child maltreatment incidents. Washington variables also included drug-related emergency room episodes. The unit of analysis was months covered by the study. The Washington, DC, data consist of 78 records, one for each month from April 1984 through September 1990. The Portland, Oregon, data contain 33 records, one for each month from January 1988 through September 1990.
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
Restricted
Assessing the Link Between Foreclosure and Crime Rates: A Multi-level Analysis of Neighborhoods Across 29 Large United States Cities, 2007-2009 (ICPSR 34570)
Released/updated on: 2016-09-29
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Oregon, Indiana, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Arkansas, Washington, Nebraska, Colorado, Missouri, Wisconsin, Arizona, Nevada, District of Columbia, Kentucky, Minnesota, California, Kansas, Florida, New York (state), Michigan, Pennsylvania, New Mexico, Illinois, Texas, Ohio, Georgia, Virginia, Maryland
Time period: 2007-01-01--2009-01-01
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 integrated neighborhood-level data on robbery and burglary gathered from local police agencies across the United States, foreclosure data from RealtyTrac (a real estate information company), and a wide variety of social, economic, and demographic control variables from multiple sources. Using census tracts to approximate neighborhoods, the study regressed 2009 neighborhood robbery and burglary rates on foreclosure rates measured for 2007-2008 (a period during which foreclosure spiked dramatically in the nation), while accounting for 2007 robbery and burglary rates and other control variables that captured differences in social, economic, and demographic context across American neighborhoods and cities for this period. The analysis was based on more than 7,200 census tracts in over 60 large cities spread across 29 states. Core research questions were addressed with a series of multivariate multilevel and single-level regression models that accounted for the skewed nature of neighborhood crime patterns and the well-documented spatial dependence of crime.
The study contains one data file with 8,198 cases and 99 variables.
Curated
Restricted
Assessing Trends and Best Practices of Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Programs in the United States, 2003 (ICPSR 4278)
Released/updated on: 2007-09-27
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Vermont, United States, Tennessee, Arkansas, Utah, West Virginia, Colorado, Missouri, Virgin Islands of the United States, Phoenix, Arizona, Las Vegas, Nevada, District of Columbia, Montana, Sacramento, Seattle, Hawaii, Minnesota, California, Florida, Delaware, New York (state), New Jersey, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Mississippi, Iowa, Illinois, Connecticut, Maryland
Time period: 2002-10-01--2004-04-01
This trends and best practices evaluation geared toward motor vehicle theft prevention with a particular focus on the Watch Your Car (WYC) program was conducted between October 2002 and March 2004. On-site and telephone interviews were conducted with administrators from 11 of 13 WYC member states. Surveys were mailed to the administrators of auto theft prevention programs in 36 non-WYC states and the 10 cities with the highest motor vehicle theft rates. Completed surveys were returned from 16 non-WYC states and five of the high auto theft rate cities. Part 1, the survey for Watch Your Car (WYC) program members, includes questions about how respondents learned about the WYC program, their WYC related program activities, the outcomes of their program, ways in which they might have done things differently if given the opportunity, and summary questions that asked WYC program administrators for their opinions about various aspects of the overall WYC program. The survey for the nonmember states, Part 2, and cities, Part 3, collected information about motor vehicle theft prevention within the respondent's state or city and asked questions about the respondent's knowledge of, and opinions about, the Watch Your Car program.
Curated
Attitudes and Perceptions of Police Officers in Boston, Chicago, and Washington, DC, 1966 (ICPSR 9087)
Released/updated on: 2005-11-04
Geographic coverage: District of Columbia, United States, Chicago, Illinois, Massachusetts, Boston
This survey was designed to explore perceptions and attitudes of police officers in three metropolitan areas toward their work and the organizations and publics with which they interact. Issues of interest include (1) the nature of police careers and police work, and officers' satisfaction with their jobs, (2) officers' orientations toward policing tasks and their relationships with the public, and (3) officers' perceptions of organizations and systems that influence or change police work.
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
Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement, 1997-2010 -- Concatenated Data [United States] (ICPSR 27541)
Released/updated on: 2013-02-28
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Indiana, Wyoming, Utah, Arizona, Montana, Kentucky, California, Kansas, Florida, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Mississippi, Iowa, Illinois, Texas, Connecticut, Georgia, Virginia, Maryland, Idaho, Oregon, Vermont, United States, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Maine, Alabama, Arkansas, Washington, South Carolina, Nebraska, West Virginia, Massachusetts, Colorado, Missouri, Alaska, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Nevada, District of Columbia, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Hawaii, Minnesota, New York (state), New Jersey, Michigan, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Louisiana, Ohio
The Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement (CJRP) was administered for the first time in 1997 by the United States Bureau of the Census, for the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP). CJRP replaced the Census of Public and Private Juvenile Detention, Correctional, and Shelter Facilities, also known as the Children in Custody (CIC) census, which had been conducted since the early 1970s. The CJRP differs fundamentally from CIC in that the CIC collected aggregate data on juveniles held in each facility (e.g., number of juveniles in the facility) and the CJRP collects an individual record on each juvenile held in the residential facility to provide a detailed picture of juveniles in custody. The CJRP, which is conducted biennially, asked juvenile residential custody facilities in the United States to describe each youth assigned a bed in the facility on a specified reference date. For 1997, the reference date was the fifth Wednesday in October. For 1999-2003 and 2007, the reference date was the fourth Wednesday in October. For 2006 and 2010, the reference date was the fourth Wednesday in February. Characteristics of the facility, treatment services, and facility population were also collected. Each record in the data that provides information about a juvenile also includes the characteristics of the facility in which the juvenile was held. Therefore, the CJRP data can be analyzed at the juvenile or facility level. Some state and regional agencies provide CJRP data for more than one facility under their jurisdiction. The census was not sent to adult facilities or to facilities exclusively for drug or mental health treatment or for abused or neglected children. The concatenated data include the seven years of CJRP data in one file. Data were harmonized so that variables present across years are identically named to facilitate analysis.
Curated
Restricted
Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement, 1997 [United States] (ICPSR 4673)
Released/updated on: 2016-08-10
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Indiana, Wyoming, Utah, Arizona, Montana, Kentucky, California, Kansas, Florida, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Mississippi, Iowa, Illinois, Texas, Connecticut, Georgia, Virginia, Maryland, Idaho, Oregon, Vermont, United States, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Maine, Alabama, Arkansas, Washington, South Carolina, Nebraska, West Virginia, Massachusetts, Colorado, Missouri, Alaska, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Nevada, District of Columbia, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Hawaii, Minnesota, New York (state), New Jersey, Michigan, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Louisiana, Ohio
The Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement (CJRP) was administered for the first time in 1997 by the United States Bureau of the Census, for the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP). CJRP replaced the Census of Public and Private Juvenile Detention, Correctional, and Shelter Facilities, also known as the Children in Custody (CIC) census, which had been conducted since the early 1970s. The CJRP differs fundamentally from CIC in that the CIC collected aggregate data on juveniles held in each facility (e.g., number of juveniles in the facility) and the CJRP, which is conducted biennially, collects an individual record on each juvenile held in the residential facility to provide a detailed picture of juveniles in custody. The CJRP asked juvenile residential custody facilities in the United States to describe each youth assigned a bed in the facility on a specified reference date. In 1997, the reference date was the fifth Wednesday in October. Characteristics of the facility, treatment services, and facility population were also collected. Each record in the data that provides information about a juvenile also includes the characteristics of the facility in which the juvenile was held. Therefore, the CJRP data can be analyzed at the juvenile or facility level. Some state and regional agencies provide CJRP data for more than one facility under their jurisdiction. The census was not sent to adult facilities or to facilities exclusively for drug or mental health treatment or for abused or neglected children.
Curated
Restricted
Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement, 1999 [United States] (ICPSR 4674)
Released/updated on: 2016-08-10
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Indiana, Wyoming, Utah, Arizona, Montana, Kentucky, California, Kansas, Florida, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Mississippi, Iowa, Illinois, Texas, Connecticut, Georgia, Virginia, Maryland, Idaho, Oregon, Vermont, United States, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Maine, Alabama, Arkansas, Washington, South Carolina, Nebraska, West Virginia, Massachusetts, Colorado, Missouri, Alaska, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Nevada, District of Columbia, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Hawaii, Minnesota, New York (state), New Jersey, Michigan, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Louisiana, Ohio
The Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement (CJRP) was administered for the first time in 1997 by the United States Bureau of the Census, for the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP). CJRP replaced the Census of Public and Private Juvenile Detention, Correctional, and Shelter Facilities, also known as the Children in Custody (CIC) census, which had been conducted since the early 1970s. The CJRP differs fundamentally from CIC in that the CIC collected aggregate data on juveniles held in each facility (e.g., number of juveniles in the facility) and the CJRP, which is conducted biennially, collects an individual record on each juvenile held in the residential facility to provide a detailed picture of juveniles in custody. The CJRP asked juvenile residential custody facilities in the United States to describe each youth assigned a bed in the facility on a specified reference date. In 1999, the reference date was the fourth Wednesday in October. Characteristics of the facility, treatment services, and facility population were also collected. Each record in the data that provides information about a juvenile also includes the characteristics of the facility in which the juvenile was held. Therefore, the CJRP data can be analyzed at the juvenile or facility level. Some state and regional agencies provide CJRP data for more than one facility under their jurisdiction. The census was not sent to adult facilities or to facilities exclusively for drug or mental health treatment or for abused or neglected children.
Curated
Restricted
Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement, 2001 [United States] (ICPSR 4670)
Released/updated on: 2016-08-10
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Indiana, Wyoming, Utah, Arizona, Montana, Kentucky, California, Kansas, Florida, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Mississippi, Iowa, Illinois, Texas, Connecticut, Georgia, Virginia, Maryland, Idaho, Oregon, Vermont, United States, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Maine, Alabama, Arkansas, Washington, South Carolina, Nebraska, West Virginia, Massachusetts, Colorado, Missouri, Alaska, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Nevada, District of Columbia, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Hawaii, Minnesota, New York (state), New Jersey, Michigan, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Louisiana, Ohio
Time period: 2001-10-12--2002-06-26
The Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement (CJRP) was administered for the first time in 1997 by the United States Bureau of the Census, for the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP). CJRP replaced the Census of Public and Private Juvenile Detention, Correctional, and Shelter Facilities, also known as the Children in Custody (CIC) census, which had been conducted since the early 1970s. The CJRP differs fundamentally from CIC in that the CIC collected aggregate data on juveniles held in each facility (e.g., number of juveniles in the facility) and the CJRP, which is conducted biennially, collects an individual record on each juvenile held in the residential facility to provide a detailed picture of juveniles in custody. The CJRP asked juvenile residential custody facilities in the United States to describe each youth assigned a bed in the facility on a specified reference date. In 2001, the reference date was the fourth Wednesday in October. Characteristics of the facility, treatment services, and facility population were also collected. Each record in the data that provides information about a juvenile also includes the characteristics of the facility in which the juvenile was held. Therefore, the CJRP data can be analyzed at the juvenile or facility level. Some state and regional agencies provide CJRP data for more than one facility under their jurisdiction. The census was not sent to adult facilities or to facilities exclusively for drug or mental health treatment or for abused or neglected children.
Curated
Restricted
Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement, 2003 [United States] (ICPSR 23480)
Released/updated on: 2016-08-10
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Indiana, Wyoming, Utah, Arizona, Montana, Kentucky, California, Kansas, Florida, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Mississippi, Iowa, Illinois, Texas, Connecticut, Georgia, Virginia, Maryland, Idaho, Oregon, Vermont, United States, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Maine, Alabama, Arkansas, Washington, South Carolina, Nebraska, West Virginia, Massachusetts, Colorado, Missouri, Alaska, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Nevada, District of Columbia, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Hawaii, Minnesota, New York (state), New Jersey, Michigan, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Louisiana, Ohio
Time period: 2003-10-24--2004-04-21
The Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement (CJRP) was administered for the first time in 1997 by the United States Bureau of the Census, for the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP). CJRP replaced the Census of Public and Private Juvenile Detention, Correctional, and Shelter Facilities, also known as the Children in Custody (CIC) census, which had been conducted since the early 1970s. The CJRP differs fundamentally from CIC in that the CIC collected aggregate data on juveniles held in each facility (e.g., number of juveniles in the facility) and the CJRP, which is conducted biennially, collects an individual record on each juvenile held in the residential facility to provide a detailed picture of juveniles in custody. The CJRP asked juvenile residential custody facilities in the United States to describe each youth assigned a bed in the facility on a specified reference date. In 2003, the reference date was the fourth Wednesday in October. Characteristics of the facility, treatment services, and facility population were also collected. Each record in the data that provides information about a juvenile also includes the characteristics of the facility in which the juvenile was held. Therefore, the CJRP data can be analyzed at the juvenile or facility level. Some state and regional agencies provide CJRP data for more than one facility under their jurisdiction. The census was not sent to adult facilities or to facilities exclusively for drug or mental health treatment or for abused or neglected children.
Curated
Restricted
Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement, 2006 [United States] (ICPSR 24300)
Released/updated on: 2016-08-10
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Indiana, Wyoming, Utah, Arizona, Montana, Kentucky, California, Kansas, Florida, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Mississippi, Iowa, Illinois, Texas, Connecticut, Georgia, Virginia, Maryland, Idaho, Oregon, Vermont, United States, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Maine, Alabama, Arkansas, Washington, South Carolina, Nebraska, West Virginia, Massachusetts, Colorado, Missouri, Alaska, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Nevada, District of Columbia, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Hawaii, Minnesota, New York (state), New Jersey, Michigan, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Louisiana, Ohio
Time period: 2006-02-23--2006-12-12
The Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement (CJRP) was administered for the first time in 1997 by the United States Bureau of the Census, for the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP). CJRP replaced the Census of Public and Private Juvenile Detention, Correctional, and Shelter Facilities, also known as the Children in Custody (CIC) census, which had been conducted since the early 1970s. The CJRP differs fundamentally from CIC in that the CIC collected aggregate data on juveniles held in each facility (e.g., number of juveniles in the facility) and the CJRP, which is conducted biennially, collects an individual record on each juvenile held in the residential facility to provide a detailed picture of juveniles in custody. The CJRP asked juvenile residential custody facilities in the United States to describe each youth assigned a bed in the facility on a specified reference date. In 2006, the reference date was the fourth Wednesday in February. Characteristics of the facility, treatment services, and facility population were also collected. Each record in the data that provides information about a juvenile also includes the characteristics of the facility in which the juvenile was held. Therefore, the CJRP data can be analyzed at the juvenile or facility level. Some state and regional agencies provide CJRP data for more than one facility under their jurisdiction. The census was not sent to adult facilities or to facilities exclusively for drug or mental health treatment or for abused or neglected children.
Curated
Restricted
Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement, 2007 [United States] (ICPSR 34401)
Released/updated on: 2016-08-10
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Indiana, Wyoming, Utah, Arizona, Montana, Kentucky, California, Kansas, Florida, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Mississippi, Iowa, Illinois, Texas, Connecticut, Georgia, Virginia, Maryland, Idaho, Oregon, Vermont, United States, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Maine, Alabama, Arkansas, Washington, South Carolina, Nebraska, West Virginia, Massachusetts, Colorado, Missouri, Alaska, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Nevada, District of Columbia, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Hawaii, Minnesota, New York (state), New Jersey, Michigan, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Louisiana, Ohio
Time period: 2007-10-22--2008-06-30
The Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement (CJRP) was administered for the first time in 1997 by the United States Bureau of the Census, for the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP). CJRP replaced the Census of Public and Private Juvenile Detention, Correctional, and Shelter Facilities, also known as the Children in Custody (CIC) census, which had been conducted since the early 1970s. The CJRP differs fundamentally from CIC in that the CIC collected aggregate data on juveniles held in each facility (e.g., number of juveniles in the facility) and the CJRP, which is conducted biennially, collects an individual record on each juvenile held in the residential facility to provide a detailed picture of juveniles in custody. The CJRP asked juvenile residential custody facilities in the United States to describe each youth assigned a bed in the facility on a specified reference date. In 2007, the reference date was the fourth Wednesday in October. Characteristics of the facility, treatment services, and facility population were also collected. Each record in the data that provides information about a juvenile also includes the characteristics of the facility in which the juvenile was held. Therefore, the CJRP data can be analyzed at the juvenile or facility level. Some state and regional agencies provide CJRP data for more than one facility under their jurisdiction. The census was not sent to adult facilities or to facilities exclusively for drug or mental health treatment or for abused or neglected children.
Curated
Restricted
Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement, 2010 [United States] (ICPSR 34448)
Released/updated on: 2016-08-10
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Indiana, Wyoming, Northern Mariana Islands, Utah, Virgin Islands of the United States, Arizona, Montana, Kentucky, California, Kansas, Florida, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Mississippi, Iowa, Illinois, Texas, Connecticut, Georgia, Virginia, Maryland, Idaho, Oregon, Vermont, Puerto Rico, United States, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Maine, Alabama, Arkansas, Washington, South Carolina, Nebraska, West Virginia, Massachusetts, Colorado, Missouri, Alaska, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Nevada, District of Columbia, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Hawaii, Minnesota, New York (state), New Jersey, Michigan, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Louisiana, Ohio
Time period: 2010-02-26--2010-09-09
The Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement (CJRP) was administered for the first time in 1997 by the United States Bureau of the Census, for the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP). CJRP replaced the Census of Public and Private Juvenile Detention, Correctional, and Shelter Facilities, also known as the Children in Custody (CIC) census, which had been conducted since the early 1970s. The CJRP differs fundamentally from CIC in that the CIC collected aggregate data on juveniles held in each facility (e.g., number of juveniles in the facility) and the CJRP, which is conducted biennially, collects an individual record on each juvenile held in the residential facility to provide a detailed picture of juveniles in custody. The CJRP asked juvenile residential custody facilities in the United States to describe each youth assigned a bed in the facility on a specified reference date. In 2010, the reference date was the fourth Wednesday in February. Characteristics of the facility, treatment services, and facility population were also collected. Each record in the data that provides information about a juvenile also includes the characteristics of the facility in which the juvenile was held. Therefore, the CJRP data can be analyzed at the juvenile or facility level. Some state and regional agencies provide CJRP data for more than one facility under their jurisdiction. The census was not sent to adult facilities or to facilities exclusively for drug or mental health treatment or for abused or neglected children.
Curated
Restricted
Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement, 2011 [United States] (ICPSR 36436)
Released/updated on: 2016-09-12
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Indiana, Wyoming, Northern Mariana Islands, Utah, Virgin Islands of the United States, Arizona, Montana, Kentucky, California, Kansas, Florida, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Mississippi, Iowa, Illinois, Texas, Connecticut, Georgia, Virginia, Maryland, Idaho, Oregon, Vermont, Puerto Rico, United States, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Maine, Alabama, Arkansas, Washington, South Carolina, Nebraska, West Virginia, Massachusetts, Colorado, Missouri, Alaska, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Nevada, District of Columbia, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Hawaii, Minnesota, New York (state), New Jersey, Michigan, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Louisiana, Ohio
Time period: 2011-10-28--2012-05-28
The Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement (CJRP), conducted every other year, asks juvenile residential custody facilities in the United States to describe all youth assigned a bed in the facility on a specified reference date. In 2011, the reference date was Wednesday, October 26 (the last Wednesday in October).
Each record in the data provides information on a juvenile in a residential facility on the reference date, including information on placement (e.g. placing agency), the judicial process (e.g. court adjudication status), and demographics (e.g. age). Each record that provides information about a juvenile also includes information about institutional characteristics (e.g. facility type, use of locked doors or gates), treatment services, and population of the facility in which the juvenile was held. Therefore, CJRP data can be analyzed at the individual or facility level.
Some state and regional agencies provide CJRP data for more than one facility under their jurisdiction. The census was not sent to adult facilities or to facilities exclusively for drug or mental health treatment or for abused or neglected children.
Curated
Restricted
Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement, 2013 [United States] (ICPSR 36463)
Released/updated on: 2016-08-04
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Indiana, Wyoming, Northern Mariana Islands, Utah, Virgin Islands of the United States, Arizona, Montana, Kentucky, California, Kansas, Florida, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Mississippi, Iowa, Illinois, Texas, Connecticut, Georgia, Virginia, Maryland, Idaho, Oregon, Vermont, Puerto Rico, United States, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Maine, Alabama, Arkansas, Washington, South Carolina, Nebraska, West Virginia, Massachusetts, Colorado, Missouri, Alaska, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Nevada, District of Columbia, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Hawaii, Minnesota, New York (state), New Jersey, Michigan, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Louisiana, Ohio
Time period: 2013-11-01--2014-07-26
The Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement (CJRP), conducted every other year, asks juvenile residential custody facilities in the United States to describe all youth assigned a bed in the facility on a specified reference date. In 2013, the reference date was Wednesday, October 23 (the fourth Wednesday in October).
Each record in the data provides information on a juvenile in a residential facility on the reference date, including information on placement (e.g. placing agency), the judicial process (e.g. court adjudication status), and demographics (e.g. age). Each record that provides information about a juvenile also includes information about institutional characteristics (e.g. facility type, use of locked doors or gates), treatment services, and population of the facility in which the juvenile was held. Therefore, CJRP data can be analyzed at the individual or facility level.
The census was not sent to adult facilities or to facilities exclusively for drug or mental health treatment or for abused or neglected children. Some state and regional agencies provide CJRP data for more than one facility under their jurisdiction.
Curated
Restricted
Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement, 2015 [United States] (ICPSR 36871)
Released/updated on: 2018-01-25
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Indiana, Wyoming, Northern Mariana Islands, Utah, Virgin Islands of the United States, Arizona, Montana, Kentucky, California, Kansas, Florida, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Mississippi, Iowa, Illinois, Texas, Connecticut, Georgia, Virginia, Maryland, Idaho, Oregon, Vermont, Puerto Rico, United States, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Maine, Alabama, Arkansas, Washington, South Carolina, Nebraska, West Virginia, Massachusetts, Colorado, Missouri, Alaska, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Nevada, District of Columbia, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Hawaii, Minnesota, New York (state), New Jersey, Michigan, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Louisiana, Ohio
Time period: 2015-10-29--2016-05-19
The Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement (CJRP), conducted every other year, asks juvenile residential custody facilities in the United States to describe all youth assigned a bed in the facility on a specified reference date. In 2015, the reference date was Wednesday, October 28 (the fourth Wednesday in October).
Each record in the data provides information on a juvenile in a residential facility on the reference date, including information on placement (e.g. placing agency), the judicial process (e.g. court adjudication status), and demographics (e.g. age). Each record that provides information about a juvenile also includes information about institutional characteristics (e.g. facility type, use of locked doors or gates), treatment services, and population of the facility in which the juvenile was held. Therefore, CJRP data can be analyzed at the individual or facility level.
The census was not sent to adult facilities or to facilities exclusively for drug or mental health treatment or for abused or neglected children. Some state and regional agencies provide CJRP data for more than one facility under their jurisdiction.
Curated
Restricted
Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement, 2017 [United States] (ICPSR 37952)
Released/updated on: 2021-07-29
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Indiana, Wyoming, Northern Mariana Islands, Utah, Virgin Islands of the United States, Arizona, Montana, Kentucky, California, Kansas, Florida, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Mississippi, Iowa, Illinois, Texas, Connecticut, Georgia, Virginia, Maryland, Idaho, Oregon, Vermont, Puerto Rico, United States, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Maine, Alabama, Arkansas, Washington, South Carolina, Nebraska, West Virginia, Massachusetts, Colorado, Missouri, Alaska, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Nevada, District of Columbia, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Hawaii, Minnesota, New York (state), New Jersey, Michigan, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Louisiana, Ohio
Time period: 2017-01-01--2018-12-31
The Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement (CJRP), conducted every other year, asks juvenile residential custody facilities in the United States to describe all youth assigned a bed in the facility on a specified reference date. In 2017, the reference date was Wednesday, October 25 (the fourth Wednesday in October).
Each record in the data provides information on a juvenile in a residential facility on the reference date, including information on placement (e.g. placing agency), the judicial process (e.g. court adjudication status), and demographics (e.g. age). Each record that provides information about a juvenile also includes information about institutional characteristics (e.g. facility type, use of locked doors or gates), treatment services, and population of the facility in which the juvenile was held. Therefore, CJRP data can be analyzed at the individual or facility level.
The census was not sent to adult facilities or to facilities exclusively for drug or mental health treatment or for abused or neglected children. Some state and regional agencies provide CJRP data for more than one facility under their jurisdiction.
Curated
Restricted
Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement, 2019 [United States] (ICPSR 38915)
Released/updated on: 2024-06-04
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Indiana, Wyoming, Northern Mariana Islands, Utah, Guam, Virgin Islands of the United States, Arizona, Montana, Kentucky, California, Kansas, Florida, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Mississippi, Iowa, Illinois, Texas, Connecticut, Georgia, Virginia, Maryland, Idaho, Oregon, Vermont, Puerto Rico, United States, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Maine, American Samoa, Alabama, Arkansas, South Carolina, Nebraska, West Virginia, Massachusetts, Colorado, Missouri, Alaska, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Nevada, District of Columbia, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Hawaii, Minnesota, New York (state), New Jersey, Michigan, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Louisiana, Ohio
The Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement (CJRP), conducted every other year, asks juvenile residential custody facilities in the United States to describe all youth assigned to a bed in the facility on a specified reference date. In 2019, the reference date was Wednesday, October 23 (the fourth Wednesday in October).
Each record in the data provides information on a juvenile in a residential facility on the reference date, including information on placement (e.g., placing agency), the judicial process (e.g., court adjudication status), and demographics (e.g., age). Each record that provides information about a juvenile also includes information about institutional characteristics (e.g., facility type, use of locked doors or gates), treatment services, and population of the facility in which the juvenile was held. Therefore, CJRP data can be analyzed at the individual or facility level.
The census was not sent to adult facilities or to facilities exclusively for drug or mental health treatment or for abused or neglected children. Some state and regional agencies provide CJRP data for more than one facility under their jurisdiction.
Curated
Restricted
Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement, 2021 [United States] (ICPSR 38916)
Released/updated on: 2024-06-04
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Indiana, Wyoming, Northern Mariana Islands, Utah, Virgin Islands of the United States, Arizona, Montana, Kentucky, California, Kansas, Florida, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Mississippi, Iowa, Illinois, Texas, Connecticut, Georgia, Virginia, Maryland, Idaho, Oregon, Vermont, Puerto Rico, United States, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Maine, Alabama, Arkansas, Washington, South Carolina, Nebraska, West Virginia, Massachusetts, Colorado, Missouri, Alaska, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Nevada, District of Columbia, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Hawaii, Minnesota, New York (state), New Jersey, Michigan, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Louisiana, Ohio
The Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement (CJRP), conducted every other year, asks juvenile residential custody facilities in the United States to describe all youth assigned a bed in the facility on a specified reference date. In 2021, the reference date was Wednesday, October 27 (the fourth Wednesday in October).
Each record in the data provides information on a juvenile in a residential facility on the reference date, including information on placement (e.g. placing agency), the judicial process (e.g. court adjudication status), and demographics (e.g. age). Each record that provides information about a juvenile also includes information about institutional characteristics (e.g. facility type, use of locked doors or gates), treatment services, and population of the facility in which the juvenile was held. Therefore, CJRP data can be analyzed at the individual or facility level.
The census was not sent to adult facilities or to facilities exclusively for drug or mental health treatment or for abused or neglected children. Some state and regional agencies provide CJRP data for more than one facility under their jurisdiction.
Curated
Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement and Juvenile Residential Facility Census, 1997-2010 -- Concatenated Matched Data [United States] (ICPSR 27543)
Released/updated on: 2013-03-08
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Indiana, Wyoming, Utah, Arizona, Montana, Kentucky, California, Kansas, Florida, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Mississippi, Iowa, Illinois, Texas, Connecticut, Georgia, Virginia, Maryland, Idaho, Oregon, Vermont, United States, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Maine, Alabama, Arkansas, Washington, South Carolina, Nebraska, West Virginia, Massachusetts, Colorado, Missouri, Alaska, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Nevada, District of Columbia, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Hawaii, Minnesota, New York (state), New Jersey, Michigan, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Louisiana, Ohio
This collection includes data from the CENSUS OF JUVENILES IN RESIDENTIAL PLACEMENT (CJRP), 1997-2010 -- CONCATENATED DATA [UNITED STATES] (ICPSR 27541) and the JUVENILE RESIDENTIAL FACILITY CENSUS (JRFC), 2000-2010 -- CONCATENATED DATA [UNITED STATES] (ICPSR 27542) that were matched on the facility identifier to create one data file. The CJRP asked juvenile residential custody facilities in the United States to describe each youth assigned a bed in the facility on a specified reference date. For 1997, the reference date was the fifth Wednesday in October. For 1999-2003 and 2007, the reference date was the fourth Wednesday in October. For 2006 and 2010, the reference date was the fourth Wednesday in February. Characteristics of the facility, treatment services, and facility population were also collected in the CJRP. The JRFC collected information on facility characteristics, including size, structure, security arrangements, ownership, and use of bed space in the facility. The JRFC used four modules to collect information on the physical health services, educational services, substance abuse treatment, and mental health treatment provided to youth in these facilities. These four modules were not always collected each year. The JRFC also identified the type of facility, which was complemented with a series of questions about other residential services provided by the facility, such as independent living, foster care, or other arrangements. The JRFC has been administered biennially since 2000, in even-numbered years. The JRFC census reference date is the fourth Wednesday in October. Each record in the concatenated matched data file provides information about the juvenile and also includes the characteristics of the facility in which the juvenile was held from both the CJRP and JRFC collections. Therefore, these data can be analyzed at the juvenile or facility level. Only facilities that held at least one juvenile for an offense on the CJRP census reference date are included in this file, i.e., all facilities in the biennial JRFC data may not be included in this concatenated matched file. Data were harmonized so that variables present across years are identically named to facilitate analysis.
Curated
Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement and Juvenile Residential Facility Census, 1997-2010 -- Concatenated Matched Facility-Level Data [United States] (ICPSR 27544)
Released/updated on: 2013-03-08
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Indiana, Wyoming, Utah, Arizona, Montana, Kentucky, California, Kansas, Florida, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Mississippi, Iowa, Illinois, Texas, Connecticut, Georgia, Virginia, Maryland, Idaho, Oregon, Vermont, United States, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Maine, Alabama, Arkansas, Washington, South Carolina, Nebraska, West Virginia, Massachusetts, Colorado, Missouri, Alaska, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Nevada, District of Columbia, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Hawaii, Minnesota, New York (state), New Jersey, Michigan, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Louisiana, Ohio
This collection includes data from the CENSUS OF JUVENILES IN RESIDENTIAL PLACEMENT (CJRP) AND JUVENILE RESIDENTIAL FACILITY CENSUS (JRFC), 1997-2010 -- CONCATENATED MATCHED DATA [UNITED STATES] (ICPSR 27543) that were aggregated to the facility level. The CJRP asked juvenile residential custody facilities in the United States to describe each youth assigned a bed in the facility on a specified reference date. For 1997, the reference date was the fifth Wednesday in October. For 1999-2003 and 2007, the reference date was the fourth Wednesday in October. For 2006 and 2010, the reference date was the fourth Wednesday in February. Characteristics of the facility, treatment services, and facility population were also collected in the CJRP. The JRFC collected information on facility characteristics, including size, structure, security arrangements, ownership, and use of bed space in the facility. The JRFC used four modules to collect information on the physical health services, educational services, substance abuse treatment, and mental health treatment provided to youth in these facilities. These four modules were not always collected each year. The JRFC also identified the type of facility, which was complemented with a series of questions about other residential services provided by the facility, such as independent living, foster care, or other arrangements. The JRFC has been administered biennially since 2000, in even-numbered years. The JRFC census reference date is the fourth Wednesday in October. Records in the concatenated matched data file (ICPSR 27543) were aggregated to the facility level. Therefore, the CJRP/JRFC concatenated matched facility-level data provide information about the characteristics of the facility from both the CJRP and JRFC collections and the juvenile population held in that facility from the CJRP collection. Only facilities that held at least one juvenile for an offense on the CJRP census reference date are included in this file, i.e., all facilities in the biennial JRFC data may not be included in this concatenated matched facility-level file. Data were harmonized so that variables present across years are identically named to facilitate analysis.
Curated
Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement and Juvenile Residential Facility Census, 1997-2010 -- Concatenated Matched State-Level Data [United States] (ICPSR 27545)
Released/updated on: 2013-03-08
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Indiana, Wyoming, Utah, Arizona, Montana, Kentucky, California, Kansas, Florida, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Mississippi, Iowa, Illinois, Texas, Connecticut, Georgia, Virginia, Maryland, Idaho, Oregon, Vermont, United States, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Maine, Alabama, Arkansas, Washington, South Carolina, Nebraska, West Virginia, Massachusetts, Colorado, Missouri, Alaska, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Nevada, District of Columbia, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Hawaii, Minnesota, New York (state), New Jersey, Michigan, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Louisiana, Ohio
This collection includes data from the CENSUS OF JUVENILES IN RESIDENTIAL PLACEMENT (CJRP) AND JUVENILE RESIDENTIAL FACILITY CENSUS (JRFC), 1997-2010 -- CONCATENATED MATCHED DATA [UNITED STATES] (ICPSR 27543) that were aggregated to the state level. The CJRP asked juvenile residential custody facilities in the United States to describe each youth assigned a bed in the facility on a specified reference date. For 1997, the reference date was the fifth Wednesday in October. For 1999-2003 and 2007, the reference date was the fourth Wednesday in October. For 2006 and 2010, the reference date was the fourth Wednesday in February. Characteristics of the facility, treatment services, and facility population were also collected in the CJRP. The JRFC collected information on facility characteristics, including size, structure, security arrangements, ownership, and use of bed space in the facility. The JRFC used four modules to collect information on the physical health services, educational services, substance abuse treatment, and mental health treatment provided to youth in these facilities. These four modules were not always collected each year. The JRFC also identified the type of facility, which was complemented with a series of questions about other residential services provided by the facility, such as independent living, foster care, or other arrangements. The JRFC has been administered biennially since 2000, in even-numbered years. The JRFC census reference date is the fourth Wednesday in October. Records in the concatenated matched data file (ICPSR 27543) were aggregated to the state level. Therefore, the CJRP/JRFC concatenated matched state-level data provide information about the characteristics of juvenile residential facilities in the state from both the CJRP and JRFC collections and the juvenile population held in these facilities from the CJRP collection. Only facilities that held at least one juvenile for an offense on the CJRP census reference date were included in the concatenated matched file, i.e., all facilities in the biennial JRFC data may not have been included in the file used for the aggregation. Variables providing United States Census population data and upper age of juvenile court jurisdiction were also added. Data were harmonized so that variables present across years are identically named to facilitate analysis.
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
Crack, Powder Cocaine, and Heroin: Drug Purchase and Use Patterns in Six Cities in the United States, 1995-1996 (ICPSR 2564)
Released/updated on: 2012-08-22
Geographic coverage: New York City, Oregon, District of Columbia, San Diego, San Antonio, United States, Chicago, Illinois, Texas, Portland (Oregon), California, New York (state)
Time period: 1995-01-01--1996-01-01
This study was designed to address the practical and policy implications of various drug market participation patterns. In 1995, the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) and the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) collaborated on a project called the Procurement Study. This study was executed as an addendum to NIJ's Drug Use Forecasting (DUF) program (DRUG USE FORECASTING IN 24 CITIES IN THE UNITED STATES, 1987-1997 [ICPSR 9477]) with the goal of extending previous research in which heroin users were interviewed on various aspects of drug market activity. The present study sought to explore additional features of drug market participation and use, both within and across drug types and cities, and included two additional drugs -- powder cocaine and crack cocaine. Data were collected from recently arrested users of powder cocaine, crack cocaine, and heroin in six DUF cities (Chicago, New York, Portland, San Diego, San Antonio, and Washington, DC). Each of the three files in this collection, Crack Data (Part 1), Heroin Data (Part 2), and Powder Cocaine Data (Part 3), is comprised of data from a procurement interview, urine test variables, and a DUF interview. During the procurement interview, information was collected on purchase and use patterns for specific drugs. Variables from the procurement interview include the respondent's method of using the drug, the term used to refer to the drug, whether the respondent bought the drug in the neighborhood, the number of different dealers the respondent bought the drug from, how the respondent made the connection with the dealer (i.e., street, house, phone, beeper, business/store, or friends), their main drug source, whether the respondent went to someone else if the source was not available, how the respondent coped with not being able to find drugs to buy, whether the respondent got the drug for free, the means by which the respondent obtained money, the quantity and packaging of the drug, and the number of minutes spent searching for, traveling to, and waiting for their last purchase. Urine tests screened for the presence of ten drugs, including marijuana, opiates, cocaine, PCP, methadone, benzodiazepines (Valium), methaqualone, propoxyphene (Darvon), barbiturates, and amphetamines (positive test results for amphetamines were confirmed by gas chromatography). Data from the DUF interview provide detailed information about each arrestee's self-reported use of 15 drugs. For each drug type, arrestees were asked whether they had ever used the drug, the age at which they first used the drug, whether they had used the drug within the past three days, how many days they had used the drug within the past month, whether they had ever needed or felt dependent on the drug, and whether they were dependent on the drug at the time of the interview. Data from the DUF interview instrument also included alcohol/drug treatment history, information about whether arrestees had ever injected drugs, and whether they were influenced by drugs when the crime that they were charged with was committed. The data also include information about whether the arrestee had been to an emergency room for drug-related incidents and whether he or she had had prior arrests in the past 12 months. Demographic data include the age, race, sex, educational attainment, marital status, employment status, and living circumstances of each respondent.
Curated
Crime Incident Data for Selected HOPE VI Sites in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, 2002-2010, and Washington, DC, 2000-2009 (ICPSR 29981)
Released/updated on: 2011-07-06
Geographic coverage: Milwaukee, District of Columbia, United States, Wisconsin
Time period: 2002-01-01--2010-02-01, 2000-01-01--2009-09-01
The purpose of this project was to conduct an evaluation of the impact on crime of the closing, renovation, and subsequent reopening of selected public housing developments under the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) Housing Opportunities for People Everywhere (HOPE VI) initiative. The study examined crime displacement and potential diffusion of benefits in and around five public housing developments that, since 2000, had been redeveloped using funds from HUD's HOPE VI initiative and other sources. In Milwaukee, Wisconsin, three sites were selected for inclusion in the study. However, due to substantial overlap between the various target sites and displacement zones, the research team ultimately decided to aggregate the three sites into a single target area. A comparison area was then chosen based on recommendations from the Housing Authority of the City of Milwaukee (HACM). In Washington, DC, two HOPE VI sites were selected for inclusion in the study. Based on recommendations from the District of Columbia Housing Authority (DCHA), the research team selected a comparison site for each of the two target areas. Displacement areas were then drawn as concentric rings ("buffers") around the target areas in both Milwaukee, Wisconsin and Washington, DC. Address-level incident data were collected for the city of Milwaukee from the Milwaukee Police Department for the period January 2002 through February 2010. Incident data included all "Group A" offenses as classified under National Incident Based Reporting System (NIBRS). The research team classified the offenses into personal and property offenses. The offenses were aggregated into monthly counts, yielding 98 months of data (Part 1: Milwaukee, Wisconsin Data). Address-level data were also collected for Washington, DC from the Metropolitan Police Department for the time period January 2000 through September 2009. Incident data included all Part I offenses as classified under the Uniform Crime Report (UCR) system. The data were classified by researchers into personal and property offenses and aggregated by month, yielding 117 months of data (Part 2: Washington, DC Data). Part 1 contains 15 variables, while Part 2 contains a total of 27 variables. Both datasets include variables on the number of personal offenses reported per month, the number of property offenses reported per month, and the total number of incidents reported per month for each target site, buffer zone area (1000 feet or 2000 feet), and comparison site. Month and year indicators are also included in each dataset.
Curated
Criminal Justice Drug Abuse Treatment Studies (CJ-DATS): National Criminal Justice Treatment Program (NCJTP) Survey in the United States, 2002-2008 (ICPSR 27382)
Released/updated on: 2010-08-09
Geographic coverage: District of Columbia, United States
Time period: 2002-01-01--2008-01-01
The National Criminal Justice Treatment Practices (NCJTP) Survey provides a comprehensive inquiry into the nature of programs and services provided to adult and juvenile offenders involved in the justice system in the United States. Participants included key criminal justice administrators, operations managers, and staff. This survey was conducted in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. The survey involved a myriad of state, regional, and local organizations employing a mix of their own staff and contracted personnel, and services that might involve multiple levels of government. It was a self-administrated, paper-and-pencil questionnaire. The methodology included a multilevel approach that captured the perspective of executives, front-line administrators, and line staff about current practices in a range of institutional and community correctional settings for adults and juveniles. The goals for this survey were: to describe current drug treatment practices, policies, and delivery systems for offenders on probation or parole supervision, and in jails, prisons, and youth institutions; to examine agency structures, resources, and other organizational factors that may affect service delivery, including mission, leadership, climate, culture, and beliefs about rehabilitation versus punishment; and to assess coordination and integration across criminal justice agencies and between corrections and treatment systems. Items in the survey included: respondent characteristics, organizational characteristics, correctional programs characteristics (e.g., size, nature, etc.), substance abuse treatment programs characteristics, social networks/agencies collaboration, integration of services with other agencies, attitudes toward punishment and rehabilitation (personal values), organizational needs assessment, organizational culture and climate for treatment, cynicism toward change, organizational commitment to treatment, and perspectives on intradepartmental coordination.
Curated
Criminal Victimization and Perceptions of Community Safety in 12 United States Cities, 1998 (ICPSR 2743)
Released/updated on: 2006-01-18
Geographic coverage: Madison, District of Columbia, Savannah, United States, Chicago, Tennessee, Tucson, Kansas City (Missouri), California, New York (state), Spokane, Washington, New York City, Knoxville, San Diego, Illinois, Massachusetts, Missouri, Los Angeles, Georgia, Springfield (Massachusetts), Wisconsin, Arizona
This collection presents survey data from 12 cities in the United States regarding criminal victimization, perceptions of community safety, and satisfaction with local police. Participating cities included Chicago, IL, Kansas City, MO, Knoxville, TN, Los Angeles, CA, Madison, WI, New York, NY, San Diego, CA, Savannah, GA, Spokane, WA, Springfield, MA, Tucson, AZ, and Washington, DC. The survey used the current National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) questionnaire with a series of supplemental questions measuring the attitudes in each city. Respondents were asked about incidents that occurred within the past 12 months. Information on the following crimes was collected: violent crimes of rape, robbery, aggravated assault, and simple assault, personal crimes of theft, and household crimes of burglary, larceny, and motor vehicle theft. Part 1, Household-Level Data, covers the number of household respondents, their ages, type of housing, size of residence, number of telephone lines and numbers, and language spoken in the household. Part 2, Person-Level Data, includes information on respondents' sex, relationship to householder, age, marital status, education, race, time spent in the housing unit, personal crime and victimization experiences, perceptions of neighborhood crime, job and professional demographics, and experience and satisfaction with local police. Variables in Part 3, Incident-Level Data, concern the details of crimes in which the respondents were involved, and the police response to the crimes.
Curated
Criminal Victimization of District of Columbia Residents and Capitol Hill Employees, 1982-1983 (ICPSR 8228)
Released/updated on: 2006-01-18
Geographic coverage: District of Columbia, United States
Time period: 1982-01-01--1983-01-01
This data collection contains information about the victimization of District of Columbia residents. The primary objective was to measure the extent of crime in the District of Columbia and the impact of crime on the quality of life in the District. Researchers also studied the degree to which congressional employees working in the Capitol Hill area were subject to victimization and the extent to which fear of crime affected their productivity. However, to protect the confidentiality of the respondents, the data on Capitol Hill employees are not present in these files. The Capitol Hill employees data are archived at the Research Triangle Institute and, as of December 1984, a public-use data file did not exist. The three data files archived at the ICPSR contain information about District of Columbia residents only. The first data file includes person-level data including residential mobility, crime prevention measures, and sociodemographic characteristics such as race, age, income, and location and duration of current residence. Each record in Part 2, In Scope Crimes File, represents a reported criminal victimization. The third data file, Out of Scope File, contains data on crimes that were either outside the analysis time period of May 1, 1982, to April 30, 1983, or not crimes of interest for this study.
Curated
Restricted
Data on Crime, Supervision, and Economic Change in the Greater Washington, DC Area, 2000 - 2014 (ICPSR 36366)
Released/updated on: 2018-02-14
Geographic coverage: District of Columbia, United States, Virginia, Maryland
Time period: 2000-01-01--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 includes data collected with the purpose of creating an integrated dataset that would allow researchers to address significant, policy-relevant gaps in the literature--those that are best answered with cross-jurisdictional data representing a wide array of economic and social factors. The research addressed five research questions:
- What is the impact of gentrification and suburban diversification on crime within and across jurisdictional boundaries?
- How does crime cluster along and around transportation networks and hubs in relation to other characteristics of the social and physical environment?
- What is the distribution of criminal justice-supervised populations in relation to services they must access to fulfill their conditions of supervision?
- What are the relationships among offenders, victims, and crimes across jurisdictional boundaries?
- What is the increased predictive power of simulation models that employ cross-jurisdictional data?
Curated
Development and Validation of a Coercive Control Measure for Intimate Partner Violence in Boston, Massachusetts and Washington, DC, 2004 (ICPSR 4570)
Released/updated on: 2008-09-26
Geographic coverage: District of Columbia, United States, Massachusetts, Boston
Time period: 2004-02-01--2004-09-01
The overall goals of this project were to develop a clear theoretical understanding of coercive control and to develop a measure of "nonviolent coercive control" for use in the measurement of intimate partner violence (IPV). The psychometric properties of the newly developed coercive control measure were assessed between February and September 2004 in a total sample of 757 that included 302 males and 448 females from the metropolitan Washington, DC, and Boston areas. Of this sample, 139 reporting IPV victimization only, 39 reported IPV perpetration only, 245 reported both IPV victimization and perpetration, and 334 reported neither IPV victimization nor perpetration.
Respondents were recruited from community agencies involving identified IPV victims and perpetrators, agencies providing non-IPV services to demographically similar participants, community college settings, and general public community settings, e.g., fast food restaurants. The sample was a convenience, not a representative, sample. Selection criteria included the following: (1) involvement in an intimate partner relationship within the past 12 months, and (2) being 18 years of age or older. Respondents were excluded if they exhibited signs of intoxication or other indications of a lack of coherence sufficient to complete the survey.
Both data files contain demographic information. Respondents were asked several series of questions including those pertaining to demands received from their partner, whether their partner did anything to find out if the respondent had done what the partner had demanded, if their partner made them feel the partner might do something if the respondent did not do what the partner wanted, and whether they had done certain things when their partner demanded something. Respondents were then asked the same series of questions conversely. Respondents were read a statement and asked how often they felt this way in the past month, asked whether in the last 12 months they had experienced certain physical abuse or abused their partner physically, and they were asked whether in the last 12 months they had experienced certain types of emotional abuse or had abused their partner emotionally. Respondents were read a series of statements regarding their relationships with people in general and asked to tell whether the statement was true or false, asked how often they had experienced problems in response to a trauma, and asked how likely their partner might attempt to abuse the respondent in specific ways in the next year.
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 Crime in Public Housing, 1986-1989: Los Angeles, Phoenix, and Washington, DC (ICPSR 6235)
Released/updated on: 2006-01-12
Geographic coverage: District of Columbia, United States, Phoenix, Los Angeles, California, Arizona
Time period: 1986-01-01--1989-01-01
This study investigates rates of serious crime for selected public housing developments in Washington, DC, Phoenix, Arizona, and Los Angeles, California, for the years 1986 to 1989. Offense rates in housing developments were compared to rates in nearby areas of private housing as well as to city-wide rates. In addition, the extent of law enforcement activity in housing developments as represented by arrests was considered and compared to arrest levels in other areas. This process allowed both intra-city and inter-city comparisons to be made. Variables cover study site, origin of data, year of event, offense codes, and location of event. Los Angeles files also include police division.
Curated
Effectiveness of Client Specific Planning as an Alternative Sentence, 1981-1982: Washington, DC, and Fairfax, Montgomery, and Prince George Counties (ICPSR 8943)
Released/updated on: 1992-02-16
Geographic coverage: District of Columbia, United States
Time period: 1981-10-01--1982-09-30
This data collection was designed to evaluate the Client Specific Planning (CSP) program of the National Center on Institutions and Alternatives (NCIA). The CSP program offers non-incarcerative sentencing options and alternatives prepared for judges and presented by an NCIA caseworker. The study measures the impact of the program on sentence length, sentence severity, the effectiveness of the program at diverting serious felony offenders from incarceration, and the rate, type, seriousness, and timing of recidivism in a 24-month post-sentence risk period. Variables are provided for each defendant on demographic characteristics, criminal history, prior counseling experiences, prior incarceration, charges and dispositions of the recidivist arrests, and types of sentencing alternatives recommended in CSP.
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:
- Collecting official data on crime related to the underground weapons and drugs economies
- Conducting semi-structured interviews with convicted traffickers, pimps, child pornographers, and sex workers at the federal, state, and local levels
- 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
Evaluation of Adult Urine Testing/Drug Use Surveillance Project in Washington, DC, 1984-1986 (ICPSR 9947)
Released/updated on: 1993-05-13
Geographic coverage: District of Columbia, United States
Time period: 1984-06-01--1986-12-01
These data were gathered to assess whether drug users are greater risks than nonusers for rearrest or failure to appear for scheduled court appearances while on pretrial release. The data also evaluate the relative effectiveness of periodic surveillance through urinalysis, traditional narcotic treatment, or neither in reducing rearrest and failure to appear during the pretrial period. The collection provides information on arrestees who both tested positive for drugs and were released on recognizance as well as those arrestees who tested negative but were not released on recognizance. Drugs tested for include heroin, cocaine, PCP, methadone, and amphetamines. Arrestees who were released were randomly assigned to one of three groups: weekly urine testing, referral to drug treatment, or a control condition. The data offer information on the offender's background, family and employment status, probation and parole status, pending charges, and prior convictions. Other variables include date of arrest, charge, initial release, decision, date of disposition, type of final disposition, number of subsequent arrests before trial, and number of bench warrants issued. Results of urine tests at arrest are available for about 65 percent of the total sample. For those in the experimental surveillance group, summary urine test results from the periodic testing program are available. There is no measure of treatment for the drug treatment or control groups.
Curated
Simple Crosstabs
Evaluation of Camera Use to Prevent Crime in Commuter Parking Facilities within the Washington Metro Area Transit Authority (WMATA) Parking Facilities, 2004-2009 (ICPSR 32521)
Released/updated on: 2015-02-27
Geographic coverage: District of Columbia
Time period: 2004-01-01--2010-01-01
This study sought to identify what parking facility characteristics and management practices within the Washington Metro Transit Police (MTP) might create opportunities for crime, analyze those findings in relation to past crimes, and identify promising crime reduction strategies. The project consisted of three main research components: (1) identification of the magnitude of car crime in commuter parking facilities and possible strategies for prevention of such car crime; (2) identification and implementation of a crime prevention strategy; and (3) evaluation of the strategy's effectiveness.
In partnership with the MTP staff, the research team created a blocked randomized experimental design involving 50 matched pairs of commuter parking facilities in which a combination of live and dummy digital cameras were deployed, along with accompanying signage, at the exits of one randomly selected facility from each pairing. After a period of 12 months following camera implementation, the research team analyzed the impact of the cameras on crime occurring in and around Metro's parking facilities.
Curated
Evaluation of the Washington, DC, Superior Court Drug Intervention Program, 1994-1998 (ICPSR 2853)
Released/updated on: 2000-12-04
Geographic coverage: District of Columbia, United States
Time period: 1994-01-01--1998-01-01
This study was undertaken to measure the impact of the standard, treatment, and sanction dockets, which comprise the Superior Court Drug Intervention Program (SCDIP), on drug-involved defendants in Washington, DC, while examining defendants' continued drug use and substance abuse, criminal activity, and social and economic functioning. Features common to all three dockets of the SCDIP program included early intervention, frequent drug testing, and judicial involvement in monitoring drug test results, as well as the monitoring of each defendant's progress. Data for this study were collected from four sources for defendants arrested on drug felony charges between September 1, 1994, and January 31, 1996, who had been randomly assigned to one of three drug dockets (sanction, treatment, or standard) as part of the SCDIP program. First, data were collected from the Pretrial Services Agency, which provided monthly updated drug testing records, case records, and various other administrative records for all defendants assigned to any of the three dockets. Second, data regarding prior convictions and sentencing information were collected from computer files maintained by the Washington, DC, Superior Court. Third, arrest data were taken from the Uniform Crime Reporting Program. Lastly, data on self-reported drug use, criminal and personal activities, and opinions about the program were collected from interviews conducted with defendants one year after their sentencing. Variables collected from administrative records included drug test results, eligibility date for the defendant, date the defendant started treatment, number of compliance hearings, prior conviction, arrest, and sentencing information, and program entry date. Survey questions asked of each respondent fell into one of seven categories: (1) Individual characteristics, such as gender, age, and marital status. (2) Current offenses, including whether the respondent was sentenced to probation, prison, jail, or another correctional facility for any offense and the length of sentencing, special conditions or restrictions of that sentence (e.g., electronic monitoring, mandatory drug testing, educational programs, or psychological counseling), whether any of the sentence was reduced by credit, and whether the respondent was released on bail bond or to the custody of another person. (3) Current supervision, specifically, whether the respondent was currently on probation, the number and type of contacts made with probation officers, issues discussed during the meeting, any new offenses or convictions since being on probation, outcome of any hearings, and reasons for returning back to prison, jail, or another correctional facility. (4) Criminal history, such as the number of previous arrests, age at first arrest, sentencing type, whether the respondent was a juvenile, a youthful offender, or an adult when the crime was committed, and whether any time was served for each of the following crimes: drug trafficking, drug possession, driving while intoxicated, weapons violations, robbery, sexual assault/rape, murder, other violent offenses, burglary, larceny/auto theft, fraud, property offenses, public order offenses, and probation/parole violations. (5) Socioeconomic characteristics, such as whether the respondent had a job or business, worked part- or full-time, type of job or business, yearly income, whether the respondent was looking for work, the reasons why the respondent was not looking for work, whether the respondent was living in a house, apartment, trailer, hotel, shelter, or other type of housing, whether the respondent contributed money toward rent or mortgage, number of times moved, if anyone was living with the respondent, the number and ages of any children (including step or adopted), whether child support was being paid by the respondent, who the respondent lived with when growing up, the number of siblings the respondent had, whether any of the respondent's parents spent any time in jail or prison, and whether the respondent was ever physically or sexually abused. (6) Alcohol and drug use and treatment, specifically, the type of drug used (marijuana, crack cocaine, other cocaine, heroin, PCP, and LSD), whether alcohol was consumed, the amount of each that was typically used/consumed, and whether any rehabilitation programs were attended. (7) Other services, programs, and probation conditions, such as whether any services were received for emotional or mental health problems, if any medications were prescribed, and whether the respondent was required to participate in a mental health services program, vocational training program, educational program, or community service program.
Curated
Restricted
Foreclosure and Crime data for the District of Columbia and Miami-Dade County, Florida, 2003-2011 (ICPSR 35349)
Released/updated on: 2017-06-26
Geographic coverage: District of Columbia, United States, Florida, Miami
Time period: 2003-01-01--2010-12-01, 2003-08-01--2011-06-01
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 study was a systematic assessment of the impacts of foreclosures and crime levels on each other, using sophisticated spatial analysis methods, informed by qualitative research on the topic. Using data on foreclosures and crime in District of Columbia and Miami-Dade County, Florida from 2003 to 2011, this study considered the effects of the two phenomena on each other through a dynamic systems approach.
Curated
Partially restricted
Fraud in the Savings and Loan Industry in California, Florida, Texas, and Washington, DC: White-Collar Crime and Government Response, 1986-1993 (ICPSR 6790)
Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: District of Columbia, United States, Texas, California, Florida
Time period: 1986-01-01--1993-01-01
The purpose of this study was to gain an understanding of the factors that contributed to the epidemic of fraud in the savings and loan ("thrift") industry, the role that white-collar crime played, and the government response to this crisis. The researchers sought to describe the magnitude, role, and nature of thrift crime, analyze factors related to the effectiveness of law enforcement control of savings and loan fraud, and develop the broader implications, from both a theoretical and a policy perspective. Data consist of statistics from various government agencies and focus on all types of thrift, i.e., solvent and insolvent, that fell under the jurisdiction of the Office of Thrift Supervision in Florida, Texas, and California and all insolvent thrifts under the control of the Resolution Trust Corporation (RTC) in Washington, DC. The study focused on Texas, California, and Florida because of the high numbers of savings and loan failures, instances of fraud, and executives being indicted. However, as the study progressed, it became clear that the frauds and failures were nationwide, and while many of the crimes were located in these three states, the individuals involved may have been located elsewhere. Thus, the scope of the study was expanded to provide a national perspective. Parts 1 and 2, Case and Defendant Data, provide information from the Executive Office of United States Attorneys on referrals, investigations, and prosecutions of thrifts, banks, and other financial institutions. Part 1 consists of data about the cases that were prosecuted, the number of institutions victimized, the state in which these occurred, and the seriousness of the offense as indicated by the dollar loss and the number of victims. Part 2 provides information on the defendant's position in the institution (director, officer, employee, borrower, customer, developer, lawyer, or shareholder) and disposition (fines, restitution, prison, probation, or acquittal). The relevant variables associated with the Resolution Trust Corporation (Part 3, Institution Data) describe indictments, convictions, and sentences for all cases in the respective regions, organizational structure and behavior for a single institution, and the estimated loss to the institution. Variables coded are ownership type, charter, home loans, brokered deposits, net worth, number of referrals, number of individuals referred, assets and asset growth, ratio of direct investments to total assets, and total dollar losses due to fraud. For Parts 4 and 5, Texas and California Referral Data, the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) provided data for what are called Category I referrals for California and Texas. Part 4 covers Category I referrals for Texas. Variables include the individual's position in the institution, the number of referrals, and the sum of dollar losses from all referrals. Part 5 measures the total dollar losses due to fraud in California, the total number of criminal referrals, and the number of individuals indicted.
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
Improving School Safety in the District of Columbia: Evaluating the Safe School Certification Program, 2016-2020 (ICPSR 37892)
Released/updated on: 2022-06-29
Geographic coverage: District of Columbia, United States
Time period: 2016-01-01--2020-01-01
From 2016 through 2020, Child Trends, in partnership with the D.C. Office of Human Rights and the D.C. Office of the State Superintendent of Education, and with funding from the National Institute of Justice's Comprehensive School Safety Initiative, implemented and evaluated the Safe School Certification (SSC) Program, a three-year technical assistance model to support schools in strengthening organizational capacity across eight elements key to improving school climate: leadership, data, buy-in, policy and policy enforcement, student engagement, family and community engagement, training, and programs and practices. To help support schools' efforts, and to evaluate SSC's effectiveness, survey data were collected annually from students, parents, instructional staff, and non-instructional staff at participating schools using the U.S. Department of Education's School Climate Survey (EDSCLS), which was adapted to include measures of sexual orientation and gender identity, grit, and personal experiences of bullying and fights. Additionally, observations using the Classroom Assessment Scoring System - Secondary (CLASS-S) were conducted in a random sample of five classrooms in each participating school each year. Finally, as part of the implementation evaluation, interviews were conducted with the technical assistance providers, points of contact or leadership at participating schools, the SSC developer, and the manager of the Certification Advisory Board (CAB), which provided feedback to schools over the course of implementation through reviews of compiled workbooks.