Showing 1 – 18 of 18 results.
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
Consequences of a Criminal Record for Employment Opportunity in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, 2002 (ICPSR 3599)
Released/updated on: 2005-11-04
Geographic coverage: Milwaukee, United States, Wisconsin
This study examined employers' policies and practices for hiring entry-level workers in the Milwaukee metropolitan area. The study consisted of telephone interviews conducted in the spring of 2002 with 177 employers who had advertised entry-level openings in the prior six months. The survey included questions about the company, such as size, industry, employee turnover, and racial composition, questions about hiring procedures, questions about the last worker hired for a position not requiring a college degree, and questions about the employer's attitude toward various kinds of marginalized workers. An emphasis in the survey was placed on assessing employers' attitudes about and experience with applicants with criminal histories.
Curated
Crime Incident Data for Selected HOPE VI Sites in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, 2002-2010, and Washington, DC, 2000-2009 (ICPSR 29981)
Released/updated on: 2011-07-06
Geographic coverage: Milwaukee, District of Columbia, United States, Wisconsin
Time period: 2002-01-01--2010-02-01, 2000-01-01--2009-09-01
The purpose of this project was to conduct an evaluation of the impact on crime of the closing, renovation, and subsequent reopening of selected public housing developments under the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) Housing Opportunities for People Everywhere (HOPE VI) initiative. The study examined crime displacement and potential diffusion of benefits in and around five public housing developments that, since 2000, had been redeveloped using funds from HUD's HOPE VI initiative and other sources. In Milwaukee, Wisconsin, three sites were selected for inclusion in the study. However, due to substantial overlap between the various target sites and displacement zones, the research team ultimately decided to aggregate the three sites into a single target area. A comparison area was then chosen based on recommendations from the Housing Authority of the City of Milwaukee (HACM). In Washington, DC, two HOPE VI sites were selected for inclusion in the study. Based on recommendations from the District of Columbia Housing Authority (DCHA), the research team selected a comparison site for each of the two target areas. Displacement areas were then drawn as concentric rings ("buffers") around the target areas in both Milwaukee, Wisconsin and Washington, DC. Address-level incident data were collected for the city of Milwaukee from the Milwaukee Police Department for the period January 2002 through February 2010. Incident data included all "Group A" offenses as classified under National Incident Based Reporting System (NIBRS). The research team classified the offenses into personal and property offenses. The offenses were aggregated into monthly counts, yielding 98 months of data (Part 1: Milwaukee, Wisconsin Data). Address-level data were also collected for Washington, DC from the Metropolitan Police Department for the time period January 2000 through September 2009. Incident data included all Part I offenses as classified under the Uniform Crime Report (UCR) system. The data were classified by researchers into personal and property offenses and aggregated by month, yielding 117 months of data (Part 2: Washington, DC Data). Part 1 contains 15 variables, while Part 2 contains a total of 27 variables. Both datasets include variables on the number of personal offenses reported per month, the number of property offenses reported per month, and the total number of incidents reported per month for each target site, buffer zone area (1000 feet or 2000 feet), and comparison site. Month and year indicators are also included in each dataset.
Curated
Effect of Procedural Justice in Spouse Assault in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, 1987-1989 (ICPSR 20343)
Released/updated on: 2008-04-17
Geographic coverage: Milwaukee, United States, Wisconsin
Time period: 1987-01-01--1989-01-01
The purpose of the research project was to examine the extent to which the perception of procedural fairness by suspects arrested for spouse assault effectively inhibited their subsequent violence. The data for this study were collected for the MILWAUKEE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE EXPERIMENT, 1987-1989 (ICPSR 9966), which was conducted from April 1987 to August 1988. In this experiment, all cases of misdemeanor domestic battery where probable cause to arrest existed were randomly assigned to one of three conditions: (1) warning with no arrest, (2) arrest with a brief detention period (average of 3 hours), and (3) arrest with a longer detention period (average of 11 hours). Variables include demographic and background information, as well as descriptive variables pertaining to the domestic violence incident.
Curated
Evaluating Gunshot Detection Technology (GDT) to Aid in the Reduction of Firearms Violence, United States, 2006-2016 (ICPSR 37448)
Released/updated on: 2023-05-30
Geographic coverage: Milwaukee, United States, Colorado, Denver, California, Wisconsin
Time period: 2008-01-01--2016-04-30, 2008-01-01--2016-12-31, 2006-01-01--2015-12-31, 2015-01-08--2016-05-28, 2011-02-25--2016-05-31, 2009-06-01--2015-10-31, 2015-01-08--2016-06-15, 2011-02-25--2016-12-31, 2009-06-01--2015-10-31
In 2015, the National Institute of Justice funded the Urban Institute's Evaluation of Gunshot Detection Technology to Aid in the Reduction of Firearms Violence. This project was designed to investigate the degree to which gunshot detection technology (GDT) aids in the response, investigation, and prevention of firearms violence and related crimes. The goal of this study was to conduct a rigorous process and impact evaluation of GDT to inform policing researchers and practitioners about the impact GDT may have. To achieve this goal, the research team implemented a mixed-methods research design with police departments in Denver, Colorado; Milwaukee, Wisconsin; and Richmond, California.
Quantitative data collection included administrative data on calls for service (CFS), crime, and GDT alerts, as well as comprehensive case file reviews of 174 crimes involving a firearm. Quantitative analyses examined the impact of GDT by (1) comparing counts of gunshot notifications for GDT alerts to shooting-related CFS, (2) comparing response times of GDT alerts to shooting-related CFS, (3) examining the impact GDT has had on CFS and crimes, and (4) conducting a cost-benefit analysis of the GDT. Qualitative data collection included 46 interviews with criminal justice stakeholders to learn implementation processes and challenges associated with its GDT, and 6 focus groups with 49 community members to learn how residents feel about policing efforts to reduce firearm violence and its use of GDT.
Three types of files were uploaded for each site. They include quantitative data on crimes and CFS (DS1-DS3), gunshot notifications (DS4-DS6), and response times (DS7-DS9). The qualitative data are not currently available as part of this collection.
Curated
Evaluation of a Demonstration for Enhanced Judicial Oversight of Domestic Violence Cases in Milwaukee, Wisconsin; Washtenaw County, Michigan; and Dorchester, Massachusetts; 1997-2004 (ICPSR 25924)
Released/updated on: 2011-04-29
Geographic coverage: Milwaukee, United States, Lowell, Massachusetts, Dorchester, Wisconsin, Michigan
Time period: 1997-01-01--2004-01-01
The Judicial Oversight Demonstration (JOD) was designed to test the feasibility and impact of a coordinated response to intimate partner violence (IPV) that involved the courts and justice agencies in a central role. The primary goals were to protect victim safety, hold offenders accountable, and reduce repeat offending. The two primary evaluation objectives were: (1) to test the impact of JOD interventions on victim safety, offender accountability, and recidivism, and (2) to learn from the experiences of well-qualified sites who were given resources and challenged to build a collaboration between the courts and community agencies to respond to intimate partner violence. Dorchester, Massachusetts, and Washtenaw County, Michigan, participated in a quasi-experimental evaluation of the impact of the program. IPV cases reaching disposition during the JOD were compared to similar cases reaching disposition in Lowell, Massachusetts, and Ingham County, Michigan. All IPV cases reaching disposition from approximately January 2003 to November 2004 (see Study Time Periods and Time Frames) were reviewed and included in the sample if appropriate. To be eligible for the sample, cases had to involve: (1) criminal IPV charges; (2) victims and offenders age 18 or older; and (3) victims and offenders who lived in the target jurisdiction at the time of case disposition. Cases that reached disposition more than a year after the incident were excluded to limit loss of data due to poor recall of the facts of the incident and police response. The evaluation design of JOD in Milwaukee differed from that of the other two sites. The evaluation in Milwaukee was based on a quasi-experimental comparison of offenders convicted of IPV and ordered to probation during JOD (January 1, 2001, to May 21, 2002) and before JOD (October 8, 1997, to December 21, 1999). This design was selected when early plans for an experimental design had to be abandoned and no comparable contemporaneous comparison group could be identified. Data for this evaluation were collected from court and prosecutors' records of case and defendant characteristics, probation files on offender supervision practices, and official records of rearrest, but do not include interviews with victims or offenders. This data collection has 20 data files containing 3,578 cases and 4,092 variables. The data files contain information related to each site's Batterer Intervention Programs (Parts 1, 8, and 15), court data (Parts 2, 12, 13, 14, 16, and 18), law enforcement (Parts 3, 11, and 17), and victim data (Parts 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, and 19). The Dorchester, Massachusetts, and Washtenaw County, Michigan, Impact Evaluation Data (Part 7) include baseline and follow-up information for the offender and the victim. The data file also contains Probation Supervision Performance Reports, Victim Services Logs, and Case Incident Fact Sheet information. The Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Impact Evaluation Data (Part 20) include information related to the offender and the victim such as age, race, and sex, as well as arrest records including charges filed.
Curated
Evaluation of Intensive Probation in Milwaukee, 1980-1981 (ICPSR 8276)
Released/updated on: 2006-01-18
Geographic coverage: Milwaukee, United States, Wisconsin
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the results and impact of a two-year experiment in innovative probation practices in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. After being classified according to the Wisconsin risk and needs assessment scale, individuals who had been sentenced to probation between January 2, 1980 and June 30, 1981 and had reported to the probation department for intake were randomly assigned to one of eight experimental and control groups. The experiment was limited to adult residents of Milwaukee County who were not already on probation, were not judged to be severe psychotic or severe sex-deviant cases, and were not assigned to jail work-release sentences of more than ten days followed by probation (Huber cases). There are three files in this data collection: the Reassessment file, the Admissions/Terminations file, and the Chronological file. Each case in the Reassessment and Admissions/Terminations files represents data on an individual probationer. There are 84 variables for 1343 cases in the Reassessment file and 218 variables for 1922 cases in the Admissions/Terminations file, both files have logical record lengths of 100 characters. Of the 1922 cases for which admissions data were collected (about 133 variables), 397 cases also have termination data available (an additional 85 variables). Cases in the Chronological file are records of probation agent contacts with probationers over the course of the study. There are 17 variables for 47,169 cases (contacts) in this file which includes information on 1781 probationers. As many as 270 contacts with a single probationer are recorded. This file has a logical record length of 80.
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
Restricted
Integrating Data to Reduce Violence, Milwaukee, WI, 2015-2016 (ICPSR 36591)
Released/updated on: 2018-03-16
Geographic coverage: Milwaukee, United States, Wisconsin
Time period: 2015-01-01--2016-07-01
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 investigated the feasibility of implementing the Cardiff Model. The Cardiff Model is a unique violence surveillance system and intervention that involves data sharing and violence prevention planning between law enforcement and the medical field. Anonymized data on assaults from emergency and police departments (EDs; PDs) are combined to detail assault incidents and "hotspots." Data are discussed by a multidisciplinary consortium, which develops and implements a data-informed violence prevention action plan that includes behavioral, environmental, and policy changes to impact violence. Model actions led to decreases in injurious assaults and this model is now statutory in the United Kingdom.
The Cardiff Model has never been translated to the U.S. and would require an investigation within our health care system and in different geographical and population contexts. This study investigated the feasibility of essential Cardiff Model Components in order to refine study procedures and situate this community to request further funds for full model implementation.
As part of this study, researchers collected a number of feasibility measures from ED and study staff to evaluate the feasibility of translating included model components. Geospatial and statistical analyses investigated the added benefit of the combined ED, PD and Emergency Medical Services (EMS) data.
The study contains 1 SPSS data files (CHW Data_1.1.15 to 7.31.16.sav (n=748; 14 variables)), 1 STATA data file (nurse survey data.dta (n=43; 26 variables)), a text document (Nurse Survey_Qualitative data.txt), and 1 excel file (CHW Incidents_Block level data only.xlsx).
Curated
Milwaukee Domestic Violence Experiment, 1987-1989 (ICPSR 9966)
Released/updated on: 2006-01-12
Geographic coverage: Milwaukee, United States
Time period: 1987-01-01--1989-01-01
This study represents a modified replication of the Minneapolis Domestic Violence Experiment (SPECIFIC DETERRENT EFFECTS OF ARREST FOR DOMESTIC ASSAULT: MINNEAPOLIS, 1981-1982 [ICPSR 8250]). The Minneapolis study found arrest to be an effective deterrent against repeat domestic violence. The two key purposes of the current study were (1) to examine the possible differences in reactions to arrest, and (2) to compare the effects of short and long incarceration associated with arrest. Research protocol involved 35 patrol officers in four Milwaukee police districts screening domestic violence cases for eligibility, then calling police headquarters to request a randomly-assigned disposition. The three possible randomly assigned dispositions were (1) Code 1, which consisted of arrest and at least one night in jail, unless the suspect posted bond, (2) Code 2, which consisted of arrest and immediate release on recognizance from the booking area at police headquarters, or as soon as possible, and (3) Code 3, which consisted of a standard Miranda-style script warning read by police to both suspect and victim. A battered women's shelter hotline system provided the primary measurement of the frequency of violence by the same suspects both before and after each case leading to a randomized police action. Other forms of measurement included arrests of the suspect both before and after the offense, as well as offenses against the same victim. Initial victim interviews were attempted within one month after the first 900 incidents were compiled. A second victim interview was attempted six months after the incident for all 1,200 cases. Data collected for this study included detailed data on each of the 1,200 randomized events, less detailed data on an additional 854 cases found ineligible, "pipeline" data on the frequency of domestic violence in the four Milwaukee police districts, official measures of prior and subsequent domestic violence for both suspects and victims, interviews of arrested suspects for eligible and ineligible cases, criminal justice system dispositions of the randomized arrests, results of urinalysis tests of drug and alcohol use for some arrestees, and log attempts to obtain interviews from suspects and victims. Demographic variables include victim and suspect age, race, education, employment status, and marital status. Additional information obtained includes victim-offender relationships, alcohol and drug use during incident, substance of conflict, nature of victim injury and medical treatment as reported by police and victims, characteristics of suspects in the Code 1 and 2 arrest groups, victim and suspect reports of who called police, and victim and suspect versions of speed of police response.
Curated
National Crime Surveys: Cities, 1972-1975 (ICPSR 7658)
Released/updated on: 2006-01-12
Geographic coverage: Oregon, Milwaukee, Detroit, United States, Cincinnati, Oakland, Cleveland, New York City, San Diego, Minneapolis, Atlanta, Massachusetts, Colorado, Missouri, New Orleans, Denver, Dallas, St. Louis, Wisconsin, Buffalo, Boston, Pittsburgh, District of Columbia, Chicago, Minnesota, California, Florida, New York (state), New Jersey, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Miami, San Francisco, Baltimore, Illinois, Texas, Portland (Oregon), Louisiana, Ohio, Los Angeles, Newark, Georgia, Maryland, Philadelphia, Houston
Time period: 1972-01-01--1975-01-01
This sample of the National Crime Survey contains information about victimization in 26 central cities in the United States. The data are designed to achieve three primary objectives: 1) to develop detailed information about the victims and consequences of crime, 2) to estimate the numbers and types of crimes not reported to police, and 3) to provide uniform measures of selected types of crimes and permit reliable comparisons over time and between areas of the country. Information about each household or personal victimization was recorded. The data include type of crime (attempts are covered as well), description of offender, severity of crime, injuries or losses, time and place of occurrence, age, race and sex of offender(s), relationship of offenders to victims, education, migration, labor force status, occupation, and income of persons involved.
Curated
Offender Characteristics, Offense Mix, and Escalation in Domestic Violence in Colorado Springs, Colorado, Miami-Dade, Florida, Omaha, Nebraska, Charlotte, North Carolina, and Milwaukee, Wisconsin, 1987-1989 (ICPSR 4454)
Released/updated on: 2007-02-06
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Milwaukee, Omaha, Charlotte, United States, Colorado, Florida, Colorado Springs, Wisconsin, Nebraska
Time period: 1987-01-01--1989-01-01
Using data from five Spouse Assault Replication Program (SARP) sites, this study examined the extent to which domestic violence offenders exhibit a specialized proclivity toward violence and the extent to which attack severity escalates, de-escalates, or stays about the same over time. The specialization question was examined using official arrest records from the Charlotte, North Carolina, Colorado Springs, Colorado, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and Omaha, Nebraska sites. Escalation was examined using victim interview data from the Charlotte, Milwaukee, Omaha, and Miami-Dada, Florida sites. This collection consists of 18 SAS setup files used to recode the variables from the original datasets, organized in five groups, by city of each data collection site. This collection does not contain the original data files, themselves.
Curated
Optimizing the Use of Video Technology to Improve Criminal Justice Outcomes, Milwaukee, WI, 2017-2018 (ICPSR 37683)
Released/updated on: 2022-02-28
Geographic coverage: Milwaukee, United States, Wisconsin
Time period: 2017-01-01--2018-10-01
The goal of this project was to analyze the collaboration between the Urban Institute and Milwaukee Police Department (MPD) to develop a plan to optimize MPD's public surveillance system. This was done through a process and impact evaluation of the MPD's strategy to improve operations, install new cameras, and integrate video analytic (VA) technologies centered around automatic license plate recognition (ALPR) and high-definition cameras connected to gunshot detection technology. The unit of analysis was two neighborhoods in Milwaukee, identified as "focus areas" by the researchers, where VA efforts were intensified. Additionally, all block groups within Milwaukee were included to measure crime before and after intervention, along with all intersections and block groups that received VA technologies against control groups. Variables include crimes based on date and location, along with whether or not locations had VA technologies. The following neighborhood demographic variables were included from the United States Census Bureau: resided in a different home, renters, under age eighteen, black residents, female headed households, public assistance recipients, below poverty line, unemployment, Hispanic residents, and foreign born.
Curated
Prosecuting Domestic Violence Cases with Reluctant Victims in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, 1994-1995 (ICPSR 4409)
Released/updated on: 2006-06-08
Geographic coverage: Milwaukee, United States, Wisconsin
Time period: 1994-06-01--1995-04-01
Officials in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, introduced two experiments designed to provide answers to questions of how to deal with victim reluctance in domestic violence cases. Two projects funded by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) evaluated these Milwaukee domestic violence experiments. The first project examined the effectiveness of a specialized domestic violence court that opened in September 1994. The primary intent of the specialized domestic violence court was to speed up the disposition of cases. The second project examined the impact of a change in the district attorney's (DA's) screening policy that admitted more cases into the special court, which became effective January 1, 1995. The liberalized prosecutorial policy was intended to determine whether arrests that the DA normally rejected for prosecution because victims failed to attend the prosecutor's charging conference could be prosecuted successfully none the less. The researchers collected data from three time periods: (1) prior to September 1994, (2) between September 1994 and January 1995, and (3) post-Janurary 1995. For the first experiment, several samples were selected from court and DA records to assess the impact of the introduction of the special domestic violence court and its impact after the change in the DA's charging policy. These samples of domestic violence cases (court samples) filed by the prosecutor included: (1) 237 cases from Summer 1994, (2) 190 cases from Fall 1994, and (3) 242 cases from Spring 1995. For the second experiment, three additional samples (complaint room samples) were collected of domestic cases declined by the prosecutor to determine how victim attendance at the charging conference and other factors affected the decision to prosecute: (1) 152 cases from Summer 1994, (2) 155 cases from Fall 1994, and (3) 152 cases from Spring 1995. Variables in this dataset include if the case was filed, type of charges, number of prior misdemeanors, number of prior felonies, number of misdemeanors after, number of felonies after, number of felony convictions, number of misdemeanor convictions, number of subpoenas, number of judicial body attachment orders, whether the victim was cooperative, if the victim testified, method of disposition, type of disposition, time to disposition, time to sentencing, sentencing conditions, if the defendant received jail or prison time, if the defendant received probation time, number of months incarcerated, number of months on probation, and several date variables. Additional variables provide the sex of the defendant, the relationship between the defendant and the victim, if the victim was injured, if the victim was intoxicated, and use of a weapon.
Curated
Reentry Mapping Network Project in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Washington, DC, and Winston-Salem, North Carolina, 2003-2004 (ICPSR 20560)
Released/updated on: 2010-07-30
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Milwaukee, District of Columbia, United States, Winston-Salem, Wisconsin
Time period: 2003-01-01--2003-12-31, 2004-01-01--2004-12-31, 2003-01-01--2003-12-31
The Urban Institute established the Reentry Mapping Network (RMN), a group of jurisdictions applying a data-driven, spatial approach to prisoner reentry. The purpose of the study was to examine three National Institute of Justice-funded RMN sites: Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Washington, DC, and Winston-Salem, North Carolina. As members of the Reentry Mapping Network, the three sites collected local data related to incarceration, reentry, and community well-being. The Nonprofit Center of Milwaukee's Neighborhood Data Center was the lead Reentry Mapping Network partner in Milwaukee. Data on a total of 168 census tracts in Milwaukee (Part 1) during the calendar year 2003 were obtained from the Wisconsin Department of Corrections. NeighborhoodInfo DC was the lead reentry mapping network partner in Washington, DC. Data on a total of 7,286 ex-offenders in Washington, DC (Part 2) during the calendar year 2004 were obtained from the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency (CSOSA) for the District of Columbia. The Winston-Salem Reentry Mapping Network project was managed by the Center for Community Safety (CCS), a public service and research center of Winston-Salem State University. Data on a total of 2,896 ex-offenders in Forsyth County (Part 3) during the calendar year 2003 were obtained from the North Carolina Department of Corrections (DOC), the Forsyth County Sheriff's Department (Forsyth County Detention Center [FCDC]), and the North Carolina Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (DJJDP). The Milwaukee, Wisconsin Data (Part 1) contain a total of 95 variables including race, ethnicity, gender, marital status, education, job status, dependents, general risk assessment, alcohol risk, drug risk, need for alcohol treatment, and need for drug treatment. Also included are four geographic variables. The Washington, DC Data (Part 2) contain a total of 13 variables including supervision type, whether supervision began in calendar year 2004, date supervision period began, date supervision period ended, sex, marital status, ethnicity, age, education, unemployment status, state, and Census tract. The Winston-Salem, North Carolina Data (Part 3) contain a total of 14 variables including race, sex, primary offense, admittance date, date pardoned, street, city, state, status, jurisdiction, and age at admission.
Curated
Research on District Attorneys' Pretrial Diversion Programs: A Proposal for a Comprehensive Multi-Method Study, Vermont, Illinois, and Wisconsin, 2012-2016 (ICPSR 37084)
Released/updated on: 2023-01-30
Geographic coverage: Vermont, Milwaukee, United States, Chittenden County, Illinois, Cook County, Wisconsin
Time period: 2012-01-01--2016-01-01
With state courts facing record-breaking caseloads and tightening budgets, jurisdictions around the country have begun to seek alternatives to traditional case processing as early as possible in the criminal justice process. One existing alternative is prosecutor-led diversion, a model which allows jurisdictions to reroute low-level offenders from traditional case-processing at the front-end of the justice process, in many cases prior to formal charge or arraignment. Although prosecutor-led diversion programs (PDPs) have been a part of the American legal landscape for several decades, there is little to no descriptive literature of the model and only sporadic impact evaluations of specific programs. In response, the Center for Court Innovation, the RAND Corporation, and the Association of Prosecuting Attorneys conducted a national, multi-method study with the following goals: (1) to synthesize existing knowledge of PDPs, (2) to produce a rich understanding of existing programs through in-depth case studies of programs in 11 sites nationwide, including program goals, target populations, and policies, and (3) to test PDP effectiveness in reducing recidivism, incarceration, psychosocial problems, and costs to the society and the economy through a prospective impact evaluation of 5 programs at 3 sites. Phase 1 consisted of in-depth interviews with key stakeholders at the 11 sites. Phase 2 consisted of focus groups with program participants, and an impact study of the effects of PDPs on case disposition, use of jail, re-arrest, and cost effectiveness.
This collection includes data from the Phase 2 impact study. Five programs from 3 of the 11 sites (Cook County, Illinois, Chittenden County, Vermont, and Milwaukee County, Wisconsin) were selected for quasi-experimental impact evaluations. For each program, the research team obtained a de-identified dataset containing demographics, criminal histories, and instant case outcomes.
Curated
Supervised Pretrial Release Programs, 1979-1982: Miami, Milwaukee, and Portland (ICPSR 8919)
Released/updated on: 2006-01-12
Geographic coverage: Oregon, Milwaukee, United States, Portland (Oregon), Florida, Wisconsin, Miami
Time period: 1979-01-01--1982-01-01
This data collection effort was designed to assess the effects of different types of supervised pretrial release (SPR). Four major types of effects were examined: (1) defendants' behaviors while awaiting trial (failure to appear and arrests for new offenses), (2) the costs of SPR to victims and the criminal justice system, (3) pretrial release practices, and (4) jail populations. This study provides detailed information for a selected group of defendants awaiting trial on criminal histories and arrests while awaiting trial. Data are also available on services provided between arrest and disposition. The study produced four different data sets. The first, Supervised Release Information System (SRIS), contains intake information on current arrest, criminal record, socio-economic status, ties with the community, contact with mental health and substance abuse facilities, and pretrial release decisions. The release section of this data base contains information on services provided, intensity of supervision, termination from program, personal characteristics at termination, criminal charges at disposition, and new charges resulting from arrests while under pretrial status. The Arrest Data Set includes variables on type and number of crimes committed by SPR defendants, property costs to victims, personal injury costs, and court disposition for each offense. The Retrospective Data Set supplies variables on charges filed and method of release, personal characteristics, length of pretrial incarceration, bail, whether the defendant was rebooked during the pretrial period, charge at disposition, sentence, total court appearances, and total failures to appear in court (FTAs). The Jail Population Data Set contains monthly counts of jail population and average daily population.