Search results

Curated

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

Released/updated on: 2006-01-12

Geographic coverage: United States, Chicago, Tennessee, Tucson, California, Spokane, Washington, San Jose, Knoxville, Atlanta, Illinois, Colorado, Denver, Georgia, Arizona

Time period: 1970-01-01--1980-01-01

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

Curated

Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Program in the United States, 2002 (ICPSR 3815)

Released/updated on: 2006-03-30

Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Oklahoma City, Charlotte, Indiana, Tucson, Albuquerque, Spokane, Utah, San Jose, New York City, San Diego, Arizona, Las Vegas, Sacramento, Seattle, California, Washington, District of Columbia, Pennsylvania, Tulsa, Laredo, Iowa, Illinois, Texas, Portland (Oregon), Georgia, Indianapolis, Oregon, United States, Oklahoma, Rio Arriba, Alabama, Cleveland, Washington, Nebraska, Albany (New York), Omaha, Minneapolis, Woodbury, Atlanta, Colorado, Honolulu, New Orleans, Alaska, Phoenix, Denver, Salt Lake City, Dallas, Nevada, Des Moines, San Antonio, Chicago, Hawaii, Minnesota, New York (state), Birmingham, New Mexico, Louisiana, Anchorage, Ohio, Los Angeles, Philadelphia

Time period: 2002-01-01--2002-12-31

The goal of the Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Program is to determine the extent and correlates of illicit drug use in the population of booked arrestees in local areas. Data were collected in 2002 at four separate times (quarterly) during the year in 36 metropolitan areas in the United States. The ADAM program adopted a new instrument in 2000 in adult booking facilities for male (Part 1) and female (Part 2) arrestees. Data from arrestees in juvenile detention facilities (Part 3) continued to use the juvenile instrument from previous years, extending back through the DRUG USE FORECASTING series (ICPSR 9477). The ADAM program in 2002 also continued the use of probability-based sampling for male arrestees in adult facilities, which was initiated in 2000. Therefore, the male adult sample includes weights, generated through post-sampling stratification of the data. For the adult files, variables fell into one of eight categories: (1) demographic data on each arrestee, (2) ADAM facesheet (records-based) data, (3) data on disposition of the case, including accession to a verbal consent script, (4) calendar of admissions to substance abuse and mental health treatment programs, (5) data on alcohol and drug use, abuse, and dependence, (6) drug acquisition data covering the five most commonly used illicit drugs, (7) urine test results, and (8) weights. The juvenile file contains demographic variables and arrestee's self-reported past and continued use of 15 drugs, as well as other drug-related behaviors.

Curated

Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Program in the United States, 2003 (ICPSR 4020)

Released/updated on: 2006-03-30

Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Oklahoma City, Charlotte, Indiana, Tucson, Albuquerque, Spokane, Utah, San Jose, New York City, San Diego, Arizona, Las Vegas, Boston, Sacramento, Seattle, California, Florida, Pennsylvania, Tulsa, Iowa, Illinois, Texas, Portland (Oregon), Georgia, Tampa, Indianapolis, Oregon, United States, Oklahoma, Rio Arriba, Alabama, Cleveland, Washington, Nebraska, Albany (New York), Omaha, Minneapolis, Woodbury, Atlanta, Massachusetts, Colorado, Honolulu, New Orleans, Alaska, Phoenix, Denver, Salt Lake City, Dallas, Nevada, Des Moines, District of Columbia, San Antonio, Chicago, Hawaii, Minnesota, New York (state), Birmingham, Miami, New Mexico, Louisiana, Anchorage, Ohio, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Houston

Time period: 2003-01-01--2003-12-31

The goal of the Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Program is to determine the extent and correlates of illicit drug use in the population of booked arrestees in local areas. Data were collected in 2003 up to four separate times (quarterly) during the year in 39 metropolitan areas in the United States. The ADAM program adopted a new instrument in 2000 in adult booking facilities for male (Part 1) and female (Part 2) arrestees. The ADAM program in 2003 also continued the use of probability-based sampling for male arrestees in adult facilities, which was initiated in 2000. Therefore, the male adult sample includes weights, generated through post-sampling stratification of the data. For the adult male and female files, variables fell into one of eight categories: (1) demographic data on each arrestee, (2) ADAM facesheet (records-based) data, (3) data on disposition of the case, including accession to a verbal consent script, (4) calendar of admissions to substance abuse and mental health treatment programs, (5) data on alcohol and drug use, abuse, and dependence, (6) drug acquisition data covering the five most commonly used illicit drugs, (7) urine test results, and (8) for males, weights.

Curated

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

Released/updated on: 2010-01-28

Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Oregon, District of Columbia, Charlotte, Sacramento, Indiana, United States, Chicago, Minnesota, California, New York (state), New York City, Minneapolis, Atlanta, Illinois, Colorado, Portland (Oregon), Denver, Georgia, Indianapolis

Time period: 2007-04-01--2007-09-01

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

Curated

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

Released/updated on: 2010-03-31

Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Oregon, District of Columbia, Charlotte, Sacramento, Indiana, United States, Chicago, Minnesota, California, New York (state), New York City, Minneapolis, Atlanta, Illinois, Colorado, Portland (Oregon), Denver, Georgia, Indianapolis

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

Curated

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

Released/updated on: 2011-02-24

Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Oregon, District of Columbia, Charlotte, Sacramento, Indiana, United States, Chicago, Minnesota, California, New York (state), New York City, Minneapolis, Atlanta, Illinois, Colorado, Portland (Oregon), Denver, Georgia, Indianapolis

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

Curated

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

Released/updated on: 2011-11-04

Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Oregon, District of Columbia, Charlotte, Sacramento, Indiana, United States, Chicago, Minnesota, California, New York (state), New York City, Minneapolis, Atlanta, Illinois, Colorado, Portland (Oregon), Denver, Georgia, Indianapolis

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

Curated

Assessing for Impact: Key Elements to Successful Group Mentoring at the Boys and Girls Club of Metro Atlanta, Georgia, 2018-2019 (ICPSR 38272)

Released/updated on: 2023-10-11

Geographic coverage: United States, Atlanta, Georgia

Time period: 2018-01-01--2019-01-01

This project, a research partnership between Georgia Health Policy Center (GHPC) at Georgia State University and the Boys and Girls Club of Metro Atlanta (BGCMA), sought to advance understanding of the effectiveness of an enhanced youth mentoring program implemented by a network of Boys and Girls Clubs in the Atlanta area. This study aims to build evidence for group mentoring models for youth that may have a positive impact on delinquency, academics and social-emotional well-being. The study includes a retrospective analysis of secondary data from Boys and Girls Club of Metro Atlanta, as well as qualitative research components that involved individual interviews with staff and focus groups with youth.

Quantitative data sets include de-identified youth level data on club attendance, enhanced mentoring participation, and National Youth Outcomes Initiative (NYOI) survey responses.

Qualitative data includes key informant interviews with a selected group of club level staff to provide a deeper understanding of structure, programming and delivery of mentoring. Youth focus group interviews were also conducted to gather youth perspectives.

Curated

Assessing Police Officers' Decision Making and Discretion in Making Traffic Stops in Savannah, Georgia, 2002 (ICPSR 4340)

Released/updated on: 2006-01-16

Geographic coverage: Savannah, United States, Georgia

Time period: 2002-04-01--2002-11-01

This study aimed to fill a void in the research regarding police behavior by focusing on the formation and creation of cognitive suspicion by officers. The study also examined formal actions (stops) taken by the police pursuant to that suspicion. The study was conducted using observational research methods and collected quantitative and qualitative data on officer suspicion. Data were collected by observers who rode along with patrol officers from April 2002 to November 2002. Field observers used three major data collection instruments in order to gather as much relevant information as possible from a variety of sources and in diverse situations. The Officer Form was an overall evaluation of the officer's decision-making characteristics, Suspicion Forms captured information each time an incident occurred, and a Suspect Form was a compilation of data from the citizen who had the encounter with the officer. Additional documents included informed consent forms, a card detailing the language to be used for the initial contact with citizens, and hourly activity forms. Anytime a suspicion was formed or a formal action was taken after a suspicion was formed, the observer debriefed the officer as to his or her thoughts and elicited the officer's overall rating of the encounter. Data in this collection include general demographic characteristics of the officer and the suspect, as well as the area in which the suspicion was formed. Data was also gathered regarding what led the officer to form a suspicion, and why a person was or was not stopped.

Curated

Restricted

Assessing the Influence of Home Visit Themes and Temporal Ordering On High-Risk Parolee Outcomes, Georgia, 2011-2015 (ICPSR 36517)

Released/updated on: 2018-01-08

Geographic coverage: United States, Georgia

Time period: 2011-01-01--2013-01-01, 2014-09-01--2015-01-01

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 project explored the intensity of supervision conditions on parole failures by considering the role of home visits in five major events: general violations, drug test failures, technical violation arrests, new felony arrests, and revocations. Longitudinal data from the State of Georgia were pooled to examine 28,284 parolees who completed supervision in 2011 - 2013.

Qualitative data analyzing case notes on home visits obtained from an offender case management system on high risk parolees who entered supervision between 2008, 2010 and 2012 and exited between 2011 through 2013 are not archived with ICPSR.

The study collection includes 2 SPSS data files: Historical_Agency_Dataset.sav (n=28,284; 39 variables) and Observational_Dataset.sav (n=383; 122 variables).

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

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

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

Census of Juveniles on Probation, United States, 2012 (ICPSR 37438)

Released/updated on: 2020-01-30

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, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Hawaii, Minnesota, New York (state), New Jersey, Michigan, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Louisiana, Ohio

The purpose of the Census of Juveniles on Probation (CJP) was to collect individual-level data about youth on probation, including their numbers and characteristics. The CJP survey asked respondents to report the total number of juveniles on formal probation within their reporting jurisdiction on the reference date of October 24, 2012.

For each youth on probation, responding agencies were asked to provide the following information: sex, date of birth, race, most serious offense, state and county where most serious offense was committed, and the state and county where the juvenile resided on the census reference date.

This data collection contains the national data.

Curated

Characteristics of High and Low Crime Neighborhoods in Atlanta, 1980 (ICPSR 7951)

Released/updated on: 2005-11-04

Geographic coverage: United States, Atlanta, Georgia

Time period: 1980-08-01--1980-10-01

This study examines the question of how some urban neighborhoods maintain a low crime rate despite their proximity and similarity to relatively high crime areas. The purpose of the study is to investigate differences in various dimensions of the concept of territoriality (spatial identity, local ties, social cohesion, informal social control) and physical characteristics (land use, housing, street type, boundary characteristics) in three pairs of neighborhoods in Atlanta, Georgia. The study neighborhoods were selected by locating pairs of adjacent neighborhoods with distinctly different crime levels. The criteria for selection, other than the difference in crime rates and physical adjacency, were comparable racial composition and comparable economic status. This data collection is divided into two files. Part 1, Atlanta Plan File, contains information on every parcel of land within the six neighborhoods in the study. The variables include ownership, type of land use, physical characteristics, characteristics of structures, and assessed value of each parcel of land within the six neighborhoods. This file was used in the data analysis to measure a number of physical characteristics of parcels and blocks in the study neighborhoods, and as the sampling frame for the household survey. The original data were collected by the City of Atlanta Planning Bureau. Part 2, Atlanta Survey File, contains the results of a household survey administered to a stratified random sample of households within each of the study neighborhoods. Variables cover respondents' attitudes and behavior related to the neighborhood, fear of crime, avoidance and protective measures, and victimization experiences. Crime rates, land use, and housing characteristics of the block in which the respondent resided were coded onto each case record.

Curated

Charging and Sentencing of Murder and Voluntary Manslaughter Cases in Georgia, 1973-1979 (ICPSR 9264)

Released/updated on: 2001-12-14

Geographic coverage: United States, Georgia

Time period: 1973-03-01--1979-12-01

These data were collected to assess the levels of racial discrimination and arbitrariness occurring at different levels within Georgia's capital charging and sentencing system. Data cover approximately 1,000 murder and voluntary manslaughter cases. Information was obtained for all known penalty trial cases and for certain cases stratified by case type (voluntary manslaughter conviction, nonpenalty trial life sentence, and penalty trial) and by state judicial circuit. Numerous measures of defendant blameworthiness were developed as a basis for assessing levels of arbitrariness and discrimination in the capital charging and sentencing system. Variables include race, sex, and socioeconomic class, as well as crime codes, jury/bench decisions, final plea, term, and number of counts convicted.

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

Simple Crosstabs

Comprehensive School Safety in Atlanta Public Schools, Georgia, 2015-2021 (ICPSR 38459)

Released/updated on: 2026-04-16

Geographic coverage: United States, Atlanta, Georgia

Time period: 2015-01-01--2021-12-31

The Comprehensive School Safety Initiative (CSSI) is a research-focused initiative that was launched by the National Institute of Justice in response to high-profile incidents of school violence. The CSSI grant program aimed to identify and understand the root causes of school violence and identify effective strategies for responding to and resolving safety and security issues. The Atlanta Comprehensive School Safety Initiative (Atlanta CSSI) project, funded in 2016 under the National Institute of Justice's CSSI grant program, and as a partnership between researchers and practitioners, centered around the fundamental question of how to design and implement safe and supportive learning environments for students in Atlanta Public Schools (APS).

Since 2014, district leadership from APS and researchers from WestEd and Georgia State University (GSU) developed a blended research and technical assistance approach to make progress towards improving school safety. The findings are based on data gathered through:

focus groups with school-and district-based staff;
observational protocols and meeting notes; and
school-level student climate and discipline data gathered by the state.

Curated

Convenience Store Crime in Georgia, Massachusetts, Maryland, Michigan, and South Carolina, 1991-1995 (ICPSR 2699)

Released/updated on: 2006-03-30

Geographic coverage: United States, Massachusetts, Georgia, Maryland, South Carolina, Michigan

Time period: 1991-01-01--1995-01-01

For this study, convenience store robbery victims and offenders in five states (Georgia, Massachusetts, Maryland, Michigan, and South Carolina) were interviewed. Robbery victims were identified by canvassing convenience stores in high-crime areas, while a sample of unrelated offenders was obtained from state prison rolls. The aims of the survey were to address questions of injury, to examine store characteristics that might influence the rate of robbery and injury, to compare how both victims and offenders perceived the robbery event (including their assessment of what could be done to prevent convenience store robberies in the future), and to identify ways in which the number of convenience store robberies might be reduced. Variables unique to Part 1, the Victim Data file, provide information on how the victim was injured, whether hospitalization was required for the injury, if the victim used any type of self-protection, and whether the victim had been trained to handle a robbery. Part 2, the Offender Data file, presents variables describing offenders' history of prior convenience store robberies, whether there had been an accomplice, motive for robbing the store, and whether various factors mattered in choosing the store to rob (e.g., cashier location, exit locations, lighting conditions, parking lot size, the number of clerks working, weather conditions, the time of day, and the number of customers in the store). Found in both files are variables detailing whether a victim injury occurred, use of a weapon, how each participant behaved, perceptions of why the store was targeted, what could have been done to prevent the robbery, and ratings by the researchers on the completeness, honesty, and cooperativeness of each participant during the interview. Demographic variables found in both the victim and offender files include age, gender, race, and ethnicity.

Curated

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

Released/updated on: 2011-08-10

Geographic coverage: San Bernardino, United States, St. Petersburg, California, Florida, Miami, Santa Clara, San Diego, Atlanta, Orlando, Texas, Colorado, Phoenix, Denver, Georgia, Tampa, Dallas, Arizona, Las Vegas, Nevada, Houston, Riverside

Time period: 1970-01-01--2004-01-01

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

Curated

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

Data-Driven Supervision Protocols for Positive Parole Outcomes in Georgia, 2007-2008 (ICPSR 26441)

Released/updated on: 2010-04-08

Geographic coverage: United States, Georgia

Time period: 2007-03-01--2008-12-31

The goal of this study was to identify and evaluate case management and supervision strategies most effective in achieving successful parole outcomes. As part of an evaluation of 3 new supervision practice protocols on a cohort of parolees, a total of 1,964 parolees who began supervision in Georgia between March 1, 2007, and December 31, 2007, were assigned to experimental and control groups. Parolees in the experimental group were subjected to the new practice protocols: positive drug test resulting in a referral to treatment, job loss followed by referral to an employment program and increased contact, and chronic technical violations responded to with an administrative hearing and enrollment in a cognitive skills program. In the control sites, the parole officer's response to a parolee's violation or success was still defined by the Board's Behavior Response and Adjustment Guide (BRAG). Each parolee was tracked for a 12-month follow-up period. The research team collected data on the parolees using two Georgia Department of Corrections and Board of Pardons and Paroles agency databases: the Offender Tracking Information System (OTIS) and the Parole Field Log of Interaction Data (FLOID) database. Outcomes during a 12-month follow-up period were defined as employment, general violations of the conditions of supervision, positive drug tests, arrests for technical violations, misdemeanor and felony arrests, and revocation of parole. The dataset includes a total of 218 variables including supervision protocol variables, demographic and other parolee characteristics variables, offense and parole supervision variables, drug test results, employment activity, as well as arrests, violations, sanctions, programs, and referrals information.

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

Estimating the Prevalence of Trafficking Among Homeless and Runaway Youth, Georgia, 2017-2018 (ICPSR 37628)

Released/updated on: 2024-02-13

Geographic coverage: United States, Atlanta, Georgia

Time period: 2017-01-01--2018-01-01

The 2018 Atlanta Youth Count (AYC18), a follow-up to the 2015 Atlanta Youth Count and Needs Assessment (AYCNA), was expanded in 2018 to specifically address sex and labor trafficking among youth experiencing homelessness in metro Atlanta. This project was designed to provide impact on court, law enforcement, and victim service practices at the jurisdictional level in Georgia, and beyond.

Homeless youth in metro Atlanta and surrounding counties were contacted through outreach efforts at youth shelters, motels, and street locations where homeless youth tend to congregate. Data collection focused on basic demographic information, history of homelessness, health, sexual experiences, and social supports.

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 the Children at Risk Program in Austin, Texas, Bridgeport, Connecticut, Memphis, Tennessee, Savannah, Georgia, and Seattle, Washington, 1993-1997 (ICPSR 2686)

Released/updated on: 2006-03-30

Geographic coverage: Bridgeport, Seattle, Savannah, United States, Texas, Tennessee, Connecticut, Memphis, Georgia, Austin, Washington

Time period: 1993-01-01--1997-01-01

The Children at Risk (CAR) Program was a comprehensive, neighborhood-based strategy for preventing drug use, delinquency, and other problem behaviors among high-risk youth living in severely distressed neighborhoods. The goal of this research project was to evaluate the long-term impact of the CAR program using experimental and quasi-experimental group comparisons. Experimental comparisons of the treatment and control groups selected within target neighborhoods examined the impact of CAR services on individual youths and their families. These services included intensive case management, family services, mentoring, and incentives. Quasi-experimental comparisons were needed in each city because control group youths in the CAR sites were exposed to the effects of neighborhood interventions, such as enhanced community policing and enforcement activities and some expanded court services, and may have taken part in some of the recreational activities after school. CAR programs in five cities -- Austin, TX, Bridgeport, CT, Memphis, TN, Seattle, WA, and Savannah, GA -- took part in this evaluation. In the CAR target areas, juveniles were identified by case managers who contacted schools and the courts to identify youths known to be at risk. Random assignment to the treatment or control group was made at the level of the family so that siblings would be assigned to the same group. A quasi-experimental group of juveniles who met the CAR eligibility risk requirements, but lived in other severely distressed neighborhoods, was selected during the second year of the evaluation in cities that continued intake of new CAR participants into the second year. In these comparison neighborhoods, youths eligible for the quasi-experimental sample were identified either by CAR staff, cooperating agencies, or the staff of the middle schools they attended. Baseline interviews with youths and caretakers were conducted between January 1993 and May 1994, during the month following recruitment. The end-of-program interviews were conducted approximately two years later, between December 1994 and May 1996. The follow-up interviews with youths were conducted one year after the program period ended, between December 1995 and May 1997. Once each year, records were collected from the police, courts, and schools. Part 1 provides demographic data on each youth, including age at intake, gender, ethnicity, relationship of caretaker to youth, and youth's risk factors for poor school performance, poor school behavior, family problems, or personal problems. Additional variables provide information on household size, including number and type of children in the household, and number and type of adults in the household. Part 2 provides data from all three youth interviews (baseline, end-of-program, and follow-up). Questions were asked about the youth's attitudes toward school and amount of homework, participation in various activities (school activities, team sports, clubs or groups, other organized activities, religious services, odd jobs or household chores), curfews and bedtimes, who assisted the youth with various tasks, attitudes about the future, seriousness of various problems the youth might have had over the past year and who he or she turned to for help, number of times the youth's household had moved, how long the youth had lived with the caretaker, various criminal activities in the neighborhood and the youth's concerns about victimization, opinions on various statements about the police, occasions of skipping school and why, if the youth thought he or she would be promoted to the next grade, would graduate from high school, or would go to college, knowledge of children engaging in various problem activities and if the youth was pressured to join them, and experiences with and attitudes toward consumption of cigarettes, alcohol, and various drugs. Three sections of the questionnaire were completed by the youths. Section A asked questions about the youth's attitudes toward various statements about self, life, the home environment, rules, and norms. Section B asked questions about the number of times that various crimes had been committed against the youth, his or her sexual activity, number of times the youth ran away from home, number of times he or she had committed various criminal acts, and what weapons he or she had carried. Items in Section C covered the youth's alcohol and drug use, and participation in drug sales. Part 3 provides data from both caretaker interviews (baseline and end-of-program). Questions elicited the caretaker's assessments of the presence of various positive and negative neighborhood characteristics, safety of the child in the neighborhood, attitudes toward and interactions with the police, if the caretaker had been arrested, had been on probation, or in jail, whether various crimes had been committed against the caretaker or others in the household in the past year, activities that the youth currently participated in, curfews set by the caretaker, if the caretaker had visited the school for various reasons, school performance or problems by the youth and the youth's siblings, amount of the caretaker's involvement with activities, clubs, and groups, the caretaker's financial, medical, and personal problems and assistance received in the past year, if he or she was not able to obtain help, why not, and information on the caretaker's education, employment, income level, income sources, and where he or she sought medical treatment for themselves or for the youth. Two sections of the data collection instruments were completed by the caretaker. Section A dealt with the youth's personal problems or problems with others, and the youth's friends. Additional questions focused on the family's interactions, rules, and norms. Section B items asked about the caretaker's alcohol and drug use, and any alcohol and drug use or criminal justice involvement by others in the household older than the youth. Part 4 consists of data from schools, police, and courts. School data include the youth's grades, grade-point average (GPA), absentee rate, reasons for absences, and whether the youth was promoted each school year. Data from police records include police contacts, detentions, violent offenses, drug-related offenses, and arrests prior to recruitment in the CAR program and in Years 1-4 after recruitment, court contacts and charges prior to recruitment and in Years 1-4 after recruitment, and how the charges were disposed.

Curated

Restricted

Impact of Foreclosures on Neighborhood Crime in Five Cities in the United States, 2002-2011 (ICPSR 34978)

Released/updated on: 2016-10-31

Geographic coverage: New York City, United States, Chicago, Atlanta, Illinois, Georgia, Florida, New York (state), Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Miami

Time period: 2002-01-01--2011-01-01

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

The purpose of the study was to examine whether and how foreclosures affect neighborhood crime in five cities in the United States. Point-specific crime data was provide by the New York (New York) Police Department, the Chicago (Illinois) Police Department, the Miami (Florida) Police Department, the Philadelphia (Pennsylvania) Police Department, and the Atlanta (Georgia) Police Department. Researchers also created measures of violent and property crimes based on Uniform Crime Report (UCR) categories, and a measure of public order crime, which includes less serious offenses including loitering, prostitution, drug crimes, graffiti, and weapons offenses. Researchers obtained data on the number of foreclosure notices (Lis Pendens) filed, the number of Lis Pendens filed that do not become real estate owned (REO), and number of REO properties from court fillings, mortgage deeds and tax assessor's offices.

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

Impacts of Specific Incivilities on Responses to Crime and Local Commitment, 1979-1994: [Atlanta, Baltimore, Chicago, Minneapolis-St. Paul, and Seattle] (ICPSR 2520)

Released/updated on: 2008-04-23

Geographic coverage: Baltimore, Seattle, Minneapolis, United States, Chicago, Atlanta, Illinois, St. Paul, Minnesota, Georgia, Maryland, Washington

Time period: 1979-01-01--1994-01-01

This data collection was designed to test the "incivilities thesis": that incivilities such as extant neighborhood physical conditions of disrepair or abandonment and troubling street behaviors contribute to residents' concerns for personal safety and their desire to leave their neighborhood. The collection examines between-individual versus between-neighborhood and between-city differences with respect to fear of crime and neighborhood commitment and also explores whether some perceived incivilities are more relevant to these outcomes than others. The data represent a secondary analysis of five ICPSR collections: (1) CHARACTERISTICS OF HIGH AND LOW CRIME NEIGHBORHOODS IN ATLANTA, 1980 (ICPSR 7951), (2) CRIME CHANGES IN BALTIMORE, 1970-1994 (ICPSR 2352), (3) CITIZEN PARTICIPATION AND COMMUNITY CRIME PREVENTION, 1979: CHICAGO METROPOLITAN AREA SURVEY (ICPSR 8086), (4) CRIME, FEAR, AND CONTROL IN NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL CENTERS: MINNEAPOLIS AND ST. PAUL, 1970-1982 (ICPSR 8167), and (5) TESTING THEORIES OF CRIMINALITY AND VICTIMIZATION IN SEATTLE, 1960-1990 (ICPSR 9741). Part 1, Survey Data, is an individual-level file that contains measures of residents' fear of victimization, avoidance of dangerous places, self-protection, neighborhood satisfaction, perceived incivilities (presence of litter, abandoned buildings, vandalism, and teens congregating), and demographic variables such as sex, age, and education. Part 2, Neighborhood Data, contains crime data and demographic variables from Part 1 aggregated to the neighborhood level, including percentage of the neighborhood that was African-American, gender percentages, average age and educational attainment of residents, average household size and length of residence, and information on home ownership.

Curated

Implementation and Evaluation of an Emerging Adult Curriculum in Rockdale County, Georgia, 2023-2024 (ICPSR 39682)

Released/updated on: 2026-01-28

Geographic coverage: United States, Georgia

Time period: 2023-01-01--2024-12-31

Emerging adults (EAs) are the future of America, even with an increasing number of individuals confined by the criminal legal system on any given day. To address the needs of the justice-involved youthful adults population, this project aimed to implement and test the effectiveness of a developmentally appropriate jail-based program for improving youths' lives post-release. The Developmental Reentry for Emerging Adult Management (DREAM) program follows cognitive-behavioral approaches tailored to 17- to 24-year-olds using group-based learning sessions, individualized counseling sessions with clinical staff, and case management and comprehensive reentry services. The goals of the 90-day program are to reduce institutional misconducts within the jail and improve EAs' reentry success. This study tested the effectiveness of the DREAM program in one county jail among a developmentally unique population -- young adults (n = 132) -- to address their high rates of recidivism.

Curated

Indicators of Sex Trafficking in Online Escort Ads, 7 U.S. states, 2013-2020 (ICPSR 38328)

Released/updated on: 2024-01-30

Geographic coverage: Oregon, United States, New Mexico, Texas, California, Georgia, New York (state), Nebraska

Time period: 2013-01-01--2020-01-01

With the aim of improving precision in sex trafficking victim identification and investigations, this exploratory, mixed-methods study had two objectives: 1) To investigate whether there are indicators that differentiate online escort ads related to sex trafficking from ads for non-trafficked sex work, and 2) if so, to determine which indicators are most likely to predict whether the ad represents a case of sex trafficking.

Research activities took place over a three-year period (2018-2021). First, the research team developed the set of indicators to test based on previous literature and insight from three sets of focus groups: law enforcement and victim advocates, trafficking survivors, and non-trafficked sex workers. Focus groups also provided insight into indicators that may be misinterpreted and into how advertising practices have changed, especially since the passage of FOSTA (Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act) and SESTA (Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act), and the shutdown of Backpage.com by the FBI.

Second, the researchers collected investigative file information on closed cases involving escort ads from several locations in the United States, using phone numbers identified in each case to pull associated ads missing from case files from one of three web scraper databases (the MEMEX archive and the active TellFinder and HTI Labs' Law Enforcement Assistant for Dismantling Sex Trafficking Networks (LEADS) web scrapers). The final dataset includes 318 closed commercial sex and massage cases investigated in seven states, with 1,586 unique associated ads covering 35 U.S. states and Ontario, Canada. Researchers also pulled additional ads not present in the case files from the scraper archives to conduct three case studies of trafficking movement patterns, network management, and advertising structures to provide context for the hypothesis test results.

Finally, after analysis of the ad- and case-level data, a second round of focus groups was conducted to obtain each group's responses to the results, advice on interpretation, and input on recommendations.

The case-level (DS1) and ad-level (DS2) quantitative data are currently available in this collection. The qualitative data will be released at a future date. Please refer to the ICPSR README and the study documentation for more information about the files.

Curated

Investigating the Role of Context, Meaning, and Method in Violence Against Women in Atlanta, Georgia, 2000-2002 (ICPSR 25945)

Released/updated on: 2013-12-20

Geographic coverage: United States, Atlanta, Georgia

Time period: 2000-01-01--2002-01-01

The study was conducted to determine the prevalance of physical and sexual victimization, and to develop a new model of victimization. A total of 600 women participated in the study, consisting of two samples: a sample of 403 incarcerated women at the Metro State Women's Prison in Atlanta, Georgia, and a sample of 197 poor urban women in nonemergency health care clinics. Participants were interviewed once for approximately 1 1/2 to 2 hours, and answered questions about intimate partner violence (with their most recent partner and/or with a previous partner), physical health, emotional well-being, experiences of traumatic life events, strategic responses to abuse, experiences of child abuse, and other related experiences/knowledge. In addition to self-reports, data was gathered from prison records for the incarcerated sample.

Curated

Juvenile Residential Facility Census, 2000-2010 -- Concatenated Data [United States] (ICPSR 27542)

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

The Juvenile Residential Facility Census (JRFC) collected basic information on facility characteristics, including size, structure, security arrangements, and ownership. It also collected information on the use of bedspace in the facility to indicate whether the facility was experiencing crowding. The JRFC included questions about the type of facility, such as detention center, training school, ranch, or group home. This information was complemented by a series of questions about other residential services provided by the facility, such as independent living, foster care, or other arrangements. 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. While not evaluating the effectiveness or quality of these services, the JRFC gathered important information about the youth the services were directed toward and how the services were provided. The census indicated the use of screenings or tests conducted to determine counseling, education, health, or substance abuse needs, and also examined prominent issues about conditions of confinement, including the restraint of youth and improper absences from the facility. The JRFC has been administered biennially since 2000, in even-numbered years. The census reference date is the fourth Wednesday in October.

Curated

Juvenile Residential Facility Census, 2000-2010 -- Concatenated State-Level Data [United States] (ICPSR 27546)

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 JUVENILE RESIDENTIAL FACILITY CENSUS (JRFC), 2000-2010 -- CONCATENATED DATA [UNITED STATES] (ICPSR 27542) that were aggregated to the state level. The JRFC collected basic information on facility characteristics, including size, structure, security arrangements, and ownership. It also collected information on the use of bed space in the facility to indicate whether the facility is experiencing crowding. The JRFC included questions about the type of facility, such as detention center, training school, ranch, or group home. This information was complemented by a series of questions about other residential services provided by the facility, such as independent living, foster care, or other arrangements. 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. While not evaluating the effectiveness or quality of these services, the JRFC gathered important information about the youth the services were directed toward and how the services were provided. The census indicated the use of screenings or tests conducted to determine counseling, education, health, or substance abuse needs, and also examined prominent issues about conditions of confinement, including the restraint of youth and improper absences from the facility. The JRFC has been administered biennially since 2000, in even-numbered years. The census reference date is the fourth Wednesday in October. Records in the JRFC concatenated data file (ICPSR 27542) were aggregated to the state level and variables providing United States Census population data and upper age of juvenile court jurisdiction were added. Data were harmonized so that variables present across years are identically named to facilitate analysis.