Showing 1 – 6 of 6 results.
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
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
Nature and Patterns of Homicide in Eight American Cities, 1978 (ICPSR 8936)
Released/updated on: 2005-11-04
Geographic coverage: United States, Chicago, Tennessee, California, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Texas, Missouri, Newark, Memphis, Dallas, St. Louis, Philadelphia
This dataset contains detailed information on homicides in eight United States cities: Philadelphia, Newark, Chicago, St. Louis, Memphis, Dallas, Oakland, and "Ashton" (a representative large western city). Detailed characteristics for each homicide victim include time and date of homicide, age, gender, race, place of birth, marital status, living arrangement, occupation, socioeconomic status (SES), employment status, method of assault, location where homicide occurred, relationship of victim to offender, circumstances surrounding death, precipitation or resistance of victim, physical evidence collected, victim's drug history, victim's prior criminal record, and number of offenders identified. Data on up to two offenders and three witnesses are also available and include the criminal history, justice system disposition, and age, sex, and race of each offender. Information on the age, sex, and race of each witness also was collected, as were data on witness type (police informant, child, eyewitness, etc.). Finally, information from the medical examiner's records including results of narcotics and blood alcohol tests of the victim are provided.
Curated
Restricted
Official Crime Rates of Participants in Trials of the Nurse-Family Partnership, Denver, Elmira, New York, and Memphis, 1977-2005 (ICPSR 36580)
Released/updated on: 2020-05-14
Geographic coverage: Elmira, United States, Tennessee, Colorado, Denver, Memphis, New York (state)
Time period: 1994-01-01--1995-01-01, 2000-01-01--2001-01-01, 1977-01-01--1980-01-01, 1992-01-01--1995-01-01, 1996-01-01--1999-01-01
These data are part of NACJD's Fast Track Release and are distributed as they were received from the data depositor. The files have been zipped by NACJD for release, but not checked or processed except for the removal of direct identifiers. Users should refer to the accompanying readme file for a brief description of the files available with this collection and consult the investigator(s) if further information is needed.
This study examined maternal and youth self-reports of arrests and convictions with official records of crime among participants in three randomized controlled trials of the Nurse-Family Partnership (NFP) in Denver, Colorado, Elmira, New York, and Memphis, Tennessee.
Official records were obtained from third-party sources as well as directly from New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services.
The collection contains 10 SAS data files:
- dmom_all.sas7bdat (n=735; 3 variables)
- dmom_control.sas7bdat (n=247; 26 variables)
- echild_all.sas7bdat (n=374; 4 variables)
- echild_control.sas7bdat (n=173; 22 variables)
- emom_all.sas7bdat (n=399; 4 variables)
- emom_control.sas7bdat (n=184; 17 variables)
- mchild_all.sas7bdat (n=708; 5 variables)
- mchild_control.sas7bdat (n=482; 46 variables)
- mmom_all.sas7bdat (n=742; 5 variables)
- mmom_control.sas7bdat (n=514; 25 variables)
Demographic variables include race, ethnicity, highest grade completed, household income, marital status, housing density, maternal age, maternal education, husband/boyfriend education, and head of household employment status.
Curated
Simple Crosstabs
Process Evaluation of the Bureau of Justice Assistance's Firearm Lock Distribution and Safe Storage Program, United States, 2016-2018 (ICPSR 37367)
Released/updated on: 2025-08-28
Geographic coverage: Oklahoma City, United States, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Ohio, Memphis, Cleveland
Time period: 2016-01-01--2018-01-01
In 2015, the Bureau of Justice Assistance's (BJA) selected the team of National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) and APCO Worldwide to distribute firearm locks and conduct safety education activities under its Firearm Locks Distribution and Safe Storage Program (FLD/SSP). The National Institute of Justice funded the RAND Corporation to conduct an process and implementation evaluation of the FLD/SSP. NSSF titled their effort Project ChildSafe (PCS) Communities, a community-focused effort that was developed using the framework of their national Project ChildSafe initiative. The main research objectives were to monitor and document the PCS Communities program's design; assess areas of success and strengths in the implementation process, including the effectiveness of partnerships; identify challenges to implementation of the program with fidelity to the planned design.
Curated
Restricted
Shelby County School District Comprehensive School Safety Initiative, Tennessee, 2017-2020 (ICPSR 39092)
Released/updated on: 2025-07-10
Geographic coverage: United States, Tennessee, Memphis
Time period: 2017-01-01--2020-01-01
This study used a school-randomized design to evaluate the implementation, outcomes, and cost-effectiveness of two school safety strategies in Shelby County Middle Schools (SCMS). The school safety strategies were evaluated in terms of cost, cost-effectiveness, reduction in student violence and misbehavior, and the minimization of the severity of negative outcomes. Schools were randomly assigned into three groups. One group received Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) representing the treatment as usual (TAU) control group. The second group received student-focused school safety (SFSS) interventions. The third group received comprehensive school safety (CHSS) strategies.