Search results

Showing 1 – 26 of 26 results.
Curated

Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Program in the United States, 2001 (ICPSR 3688)

Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Oklahoma City, Detroit, Charlotte, Indiana, Tucson, Albuquerque, Spokane, Utah, San Jose, New York City, San Diego, Arizona, Las Vegas, Sacramento, Seattle, California, Pennsylvania, Tulsa, Laredo, Iowa, Illinois, Texas, Portland (Oregon), Indianapolis, Oregon, United States, Oklahoma, Alabama, Cleveland, Washington, Nebraska, Albany (New York), Omaha, Minneapolis, Colorado, Honolulu, Missouri, New Orleans, Alaska, Phoenix, Denver, Salt Lake City, Dallas, Nevada, Des Moines, San Antonio, Chicago, Hawaii, Minnesota, Kansas City (Missouri), New York (state), Birmingham, Michigan, New Mexico, Louisiana, Anchorage, Ohio, Philadelphia
Time period: 2001-01-01--2001-12-31
The goal of the Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Program is to determine the extent and correlates of illicit drug use in the population of booked arrestees in local areas. Data were collected in 2001 at four separate times (quarterly) during the year in 33 metropolitan areas in the United States. The ADAM program adopted a new instrument in 2000 in adult booking facilities for male (Part 1) and female (Part 2) arrestees. Data from arrestees in juvenile detention facilities (Part 3) continued to use the juvenile instrument from previous years, extending back through the DRUG USE FORECASTING series (ICPSR 9477). The ADAM program in 2001 also continued the use of probability-based sampling for male arrestees in adult facilities, which was initiated in 2000. Therefore, the male adult sample includes weights, generated through post-sampling stratification of the data. For the adult files, variables fell into one of eight categories: (1) demographic data on each arrestee, (2) ADAM facesheet (records-based) data, (3) data on disposition of the case, including accession to a verbal consent script, (4) calendar of admissions to substance abuse and mental health treatment programs, (5) data on alcohol and drug use, abuse, and dependence (6) drug acquisition data covering the five most commonly used illicit drugs, (7) urine test results, and (8) weights. The juvenile file contains demographic variables and arrestee's self-reported past and continued use of 15 drugs, as well as other drug-related behaviors.
Curated

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

Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Oklahoma City, Charlotte, Indiana, Tucson, Albuquerque, Spokane, Utah, San Jose, New York City, San Diego, Arizona, Las Vegas, Sacramento, Seattle, California, Washington, District of Columbia, Pennsylvania, Tulsa, Laredo, Iowa, Illinois, Texas, Portland (Oregon), Georgia, Indianapolis, Oregon, United States, Oklahoma, Rio Arriba, Alabama, Cleveland, Washington, Nebraska, Albany (New York), Omaha, Minneapolis, Woodbury, Atlanta, Colorado, Honolulu, New Orleans, Alaska, Phoenix, Denver, Salt Lake City, Dallas, Nevada, Des Moines, San Antonio, Chicago, Hawaii, Minnesota, New York (state), Birmingham, New Mexico, Louisiana, Anchorage, Ohio, Los Angeles, Philadelphia
Time period: 2002-01-01--2002-12-31
The goal of the Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Program is to determine the extent and correlates of illicit drug use in the population of booked arrestees in local areas. Data were collected in 2002 at four separate times (quarterly) during the year in 36 metropolitan areas in the United States. The ADAM program adopted a new instrument in 2000 in adult booking facilities for male (Part 1) and female (Part 2) arrestees. Data from arrestees in juvenile detention facilities (Part 3) continued to use the juvenile instrument from previous years, extending back through the DRUG USE FORECASTING series (ICPSR 9477). The ADAM program in 2002 also continued the use of probability-based sampling for male arrestees in adult facilities, which was initiated in 2000. Therefore, the male adult sample includes weights, generated through post-sampling stratification of the data. For the adult files, variables fell into one of eight categories: (1) demographic data on each arrestee, (2) ADAM facesheet (records-based) data, (3) data on disposition of the case, including accession to a verbal consent script, (4) calendar of admissions to substance abuse and mental health treatment programs, (5) data on alcohol and drug use, abuse, and dependence, (6) drug acquisition data covering the five most commonly used illicit drugs, (7) urine test results, and (8) weights. The juvenile file contains demographic variables and arrestee's self-reported past and continued use of 15 drugs, as well as other drug-related behaviors.
Curated

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

Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Oklahoma City, Charlotte, Indiana, Tucson, Albuquerque, Spokane, Utah, San Jose, New York City, San Diego, Arizona, Las Vegas, Boston, Sacramento, Seattle, California, Florida, Pennsylvania, Tulsa, Iowa, Illinois, Texas, Portland (Oregon), Georgia, Tampa, Indianapolis, Oregon, United States, Oklahoma, Rio Arriba, Alabama, Cleveland, Washington, Nebraska, Albany (New York), Omaha, Minneapolis, Woodbury, Atlanta, Massachusetts, Colorado, Honolulu, New Orleans, Alaska, Phoenix, Denver, Salt Lake City, Dallas, Nevada, Des Moines, District of Columbia, San Antonio, Chicago, Hawaii, Minnesota, New York (state), Birmingham, Miami, New Mexico, Louisiana, Anchorage, Ohio, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Houston
Time period: 2003-01-01--2003-12-31
The goal of the Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Program is to determine the extent and correlates of illicit drug use in the population of booked arrestees in local areas. Data were collected in 2003 up to four separate times (quarterly) during the year in 39 metropolitan areas in the United States. The ADAM program adopted a new instrument in 2000 in adult booking facilities for male (Part 1) and female (Part 2) arrestees. The ADAM program in 2003 also continued the use of probability-based sampling for male arrestees in adult facilities, which was initiated in 2000. Therefore, the male adult sample includes weights, generated through post-sampling stratification of the data. For the adult male and female files, variables fell into one of eight categories: (1) demographic data on each arrestee, (2) ADAM facesheet (records-based) data, (3) data on disposition of the case, including accession to a verbal consent script, (4) calendar of admissions to substance abuse and mental health treatment programs, (5) data on alcohol and drug use, abuse, and dependence, (6) drug acquisition data covering the five most commonly used illicit drugs, (7) urine test results, and (8) for males, weights.
Curated

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Compstat and Organizational Change in the United States, 1999-2001 (ICPSR 25481)

Released/updated on: 2009-10-30
Geographic coverage: Minneapolis, United States, Lowell, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Newark, New Jersey
Time period: 1999-01-01--2001-01-01
The purpose of the study was to determine how Compstat programs were being implemented across the United States by examining the diffusion of Compstat and factors associated with its implementation. Another goal of the study was to assess the impact of Compstat on line or patrol officers at the bottom of the police organization. The researchers administered a national survey on Compstat and problem solving in police agencies (Part 1) by mail to all 515 American police agencies with over 100 sworn police officers, and to a random sample of 100 agencies with between 50 and 100 sworn officers. The researchers received a total of 530 completed surveys (Part 1) between June 1999 and April 2000. The researchers distributed an anonymous, voluntary, and self-administered survey (Part 2) between December 2000 and May 2001 to a total of 450 patrol officers at three police departments -- Lowell, Massachusetts (LPD), Minneapolis, Minnesota (MPD), and Newark, New Jersey (NPD). The Compstat Survey (Part 1) contains a total of 321 variables pertaining to executive views and departmental policy, organizational features and technology, and comments about problem solving in police agencies. The Line Officer Survey (Part 2) contains a total of 85 variables pertaining to the patrol officers' involvement in Compstat-generated activities, their motivation to participate in them, and their views on these activities.
Curated

Crime, Fear, and Control in Neighborhood Commercial Centers: Minneapolis and St. Paul, 1970-1982 (ICPSR 8167)

Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: Minneapolis, United States, St. Paul, Minnesota
Time period: 1970-01-01--1982-01-01
The major objective of this study was to examine how physical characteristics of commercial centers and demographic characteristics of residential areas contribute to crime and how these characteristics affect reactions to crime in mixed commercial-residential settings. Information on physical characteristics includes type of business, store hours, arrangement of buildings, and defensive modifications in the area. Demographic variables cover racial composition, average household size and income, and percent change of occupancy. The crime data describe six types of crime: robbery, burglary, assault, rape, personal theft, and shoplifting.
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

Evaluability Assessment and Baseline Study of the Supporting Collective Healing in the Wake of Harm Program, 5 U.S. cities, 2018-2019 (ICPSR 37624)

Released/updated on: 2024-01-16
Geographic coverage: Rapid City, Minneapolis, Baton Rouge, United States, Texas, Louisiana, South Dakota, Minnesota, California, Oakland, Houston
Time period: 2018-01-01--2019-12-31
The Collective Healing Initiative (CHI) is a demonstration project supporting five law enforcement agencies from Baton Rouge, Louisiana, Houston, Texas, Minneapolis, Minnesota, Rapid City, South Dakota, and Oakland, California. The purpose was to work with their communities to promote collective healing in the wake of traumatic events. The law enforcement agencies worked collaboratively with various community partners and service providers to implement trauma-informed strategies to improve police-community relations, enhance victim services, and promote officer wellness. Researchers conducted an evaluability assessment and baseline study of the CHI using a mixed methods study design including a comprehensive document review, site visits, a capacity and network survey, and a stakeholder survey. Data analyses included a rigorous qualitative analysis of interview data, a social network analysis of grantee and partner collaboration, and a descriptive analysis of stakeholder perceptions of the CHI and the training and technical assistance provided. Findings from each data source were triangulated to develop site descriptions and logic models, assess collaboration and partnerships, conduct evaluability assessments to inform future research and evaluation plans, and assess the training and technical assistance delivered to the sites.
Curated

Gang Affiliation and Radicalization to Violent Extremism within Somali-American Communities, 5 North American Cities, 2013-2019 (ICPSR 37466)

Released/updated on: 2020-10-29
Geographic coverage: Canada, Minneapolis, United States, Massachusetts, Maine, Lewiston, Auburn, Minnesota, Portland (Maine), Ontario, Toronto, Boston
Time period: 2013-01-01--2019-01-01

How is the process of radicalization understood over time? Do current radicalization to violence differ from earlier waves? How can these understandings be utilized to prevent radicalization to violence and--equally important--understand the reach and impact of programs designed to do so? The overall goal of this project was to pursue the following aims:

  • Aim 1: To understand how adversity and social bonds relate to changes in openness to violent extremism over time.
  • Aim 2: To evaluate experience and perception of, and the effectiveness of, Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) activities.
  • Aim 3: To evaluate mechanisms of change in violent extremism.
  • Aim 4: To understand similarities/ differences in experiences and/or histories of Somali youth who joined Al-Shabab vs. those known to have been killed in Syria, fighting with ISIS and other terrorist groups.

The above aims were accomplished through extending an ongoing longitudinal research program to span 5 years, and expanding a psychological autopsy sample to include Somali youth who have left Minneapolis and been killed fighting with ISIS and other terrorist groups in Syria. Data collection for the longitudinal study consisted of conducting an additional wave of structured interviews with Somali youth (between the ages of 21-33); interviews included assessments of structural adversity (resettlement hardships, trauma exposure, and discrimination), social factors (connection to the resettlement community and/or Somali diaspora community, internet use, and level of acculturation) delinquency, gang involvement, civic engagement, and support for legal and illegal (violent) actions in support of political change. The researchers used latent transition analysis (LTA), generalized estimating equation modeling, and linear regression modeling to accomplish Aims 1-3. Aim 4 was accomplished by using a combination of open source data analysis, psychological autopsy and case analysis methodology. The researchers expanded our current in-depth case studies of Somali youth who left Minneapolis to join al-Shabaab (N = 23, males aged 22-30) to include those who joined ISIS or Al-Nusra (N=4, males aged 18-29). Research questions associated with Aim 4 were analyzed using a psychological autopsy method of developing case histories. Case histories were coded for themes and analyzed for convergence or divergence with case histories of youth who joined Al-Shabab. Scholarly products include manuscripts in journals relevant to criminal justice, policy briefs, and interim and final reports. This project builds on partnerships between Boston Children's Hospital, Somali communities, and Georgia State University.

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

Impact of Neighborhood Structure, Crime, and Physical Deterioration on Residents and Business Personnel in Minneapolis-St.Paul, 1970-1982 (ICPSR 2371)

Released/updated on: 2006-01-18
Geographic coverage: Minneapolis, United States, St. Paul, Minnesota
Time period: 1970-01-01--1982-01-01
This study is a secondary analysis of CRIME, FEAR, AND CONTROL IN NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL CENTERS: MINNEAPOLIS AND ST. PAUL, 1970-1982 (ICPSR 8167), which was designed to explore the relationship between small commercial centers and their surrounding neighborhoods. Some variables from the original study were recoded and new variables were created in order to examine the impact of community structure, crime, physical deterioration, and other signs of incivility on residents' and merchants' cognitive and emotional responses to disorder. This revised collection sought to measure separately the contextual and individual determinants of commitment to locale, informal social control, responses to crime, and fear of crime. Contextual determinants included housing, business, and neighborhood characteristics, as well as crime data on robbery, burglary, assault, rape, personal theft, and shoplifting and measures of pedestrian activity in the commercial centers. Individual variables were constructed from interviews with business leaders and surveys of residents to measure victimization, fear of crime, and attitudes toward businesses and neighborhoods. Part 1, Area Data, contains housing, neighborhood, and resident characteristics. Variables include the age and value of homes, types of businesses, amount of litter and graffiti, traffic patterns, demographics of residents such as race and marital status from the 1970 and 1980 Censuses, and crime data. Many of the variables are Z-scores. Part 2, Pedestrian Activity Data, describes pedestrians in the small commercial centers and their activities on the day of observation. Variables include primary activity, business establishment visited, and demographics such as age, sex, and race of the pedestrians. Part 3, Business Interview Data, includes employment, business, neighborhood, and attitudinal information. Variables include type of business, length of employment, number of employees, location, hours, operating costs, quality of neighborhood, transportation, crime, labor supply, views about police, experiences with victimization, fear of strangers, and security measures. Part 4, Resident Survey Data, includes measures of commitment to the neighborhood, fear of crime, attitudes toward local businesses, perceived neighborhood incivilities, and police contact. There are also demographic variables, such as sex, ethnicity, age, employment, education, and income.
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

Minneapolis Intervention Project, 1986-1987 (ICPSR 9808)

Released/updated on: 2005-11-04
Geographic coverage: Minneapolis, United States, Minnesota
Time period: 1986-01-01--1987-01-01
This collection investigates the impact of increased activity of community intervention projects on the incidence of domestic abuse. In particular, the data provide an opportunity to evaluate the impact of police actions and court-ordered abuser treatment on the continued abuse of victims. The data file includes demographic information such as victim's age, race, and sex, and perpetrator's age, birthdate, relationship to the victim, sex, and physical or mental disabilities. Other variables describe the location and description of the incident, the number and gender of victims and perpetrators, and the outcome of the police intervention, i.e., arrest or nonarrest. Interviews with victims provided information regarding previous history of police intervention for domestic abuse, specific information about the violence suffered and resulting injuries, the frequency and type of abuse suffered in the six months prior to the violent incident in question, the type of police intervention used, and the victim's satisfaction with the responses of police. In addition, the 6- and 12-month interviews contain data regarding the change in the victim's relationship status since the last interview, satisfaction with the relationship, continued abuse and criminal justice involvement, use of support services by the victim or members of the victim's family, and satisfaction with these services.
Curated

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

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

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

National Initiative for Building Community Trust and Justice, 6 United States cities, 2011-2018 (ICPSR 37492)

Released/updated on: 2021-08-16
Geographic coverage: Gary, Indiana, United States, Minnesota, Fort Worth, California, Alabama, Birmingham, Pennsylvania, Minneapolis, Texas, Stockton, Pittsburgh
Time period: 2015-01-01--2017-01-01, 2015-01-01--2017-01-01, 2011-01-01--2018-01-01

The National Initiative for Building Community Trust and Justice (the National Initiative) is a joint project of the National Network for Safe Communities, the Center for Policing Equity, the Justice Collaboratory at Yale Law School, and the Urban Institute, designed to improve relationships and increase trust between communities and law enforcement.

Funded by the Department of Justice, this mixed-methods evaluation aimed to assess outcomes and impacts in six cities that participated in the National Initiative, which include Birmingham, AL; Fort Worth, TX; Gary, IN; Minneapolis, MN; Pittsburgh, PA; and Stockton, CA. The data described herein represent two waves of surveys of residents living in the highest-crime, lowest-income residential street segments in the six National Initiative cities.

The first wave was conducted between September 2015 and January 2016, and the second wave was conducted between July and October 2017. Survey items were designed to measure neighborhood residents' perceptions of their neighborhood conditions--with particular emphases on neighborhood safety, disorder, and victimization--and perceptions of the police as it relates to procedural justice, police legitimacy, officer trust, community-focused policing, police bias, willingness to partner with the police on solving crime, and the law.

The data described herein are from pre- and post-training assessment surveys of officers who participated in three trainings: 1) procedural justice (PJ) conceptual training, which is the application of PJ in the context of law enforcement-civilian interactions, as well as its role in mitigating historical tensions between law enforcement and communities of color; 2) procedural justice tactical, which provided simulation and scenario-based exercises and techniques to operationalize PJ principles in officers' daily activities; and 3) implicit bias, which engaged officers in critical thought about racial bias, and prepared them to better identify and handle identity traps that enable implicit biases. Surveys for the procedural justice conceptual training were fielded between December 2015 and July 2016; procedural justice tactical between February 2016 and June 2017; and implicit bias between September 2016 and April 2018. Survey items were designed to measure officers' understanding of procedural justice and implicit bias concepts, as well as officers' levels of satisfaction with the trainings.

Curated
Partially restricted
Simple Crosstabs

Reducing Violence in Communities: An In-Depth Study of Efforts in Durham, NC and Minneapolis, MN, 2010-2022 (ICPSR 38691)

Released/updated on: 2024-10-30
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Minneapolis, United States, Minnesota, Durham
Time period: 2010-01-01--2022-01-01

Recognizing that violence can be an intractable problem in many communities and that there are numerous approaches to both an immediate violence problem and the range of root causes behind violence, the National Institute of Justice funded an investigation into what factors underlie violence and efforts being implemented to address those factors and potentially reduce violence at the community level. In this mixed methods study, the RAND Corporation drew on data from key informant interviews, community surveys, administrative data, and geographic data to examine specific factors that contribute to violence, as well as a range of anti-violence efforts that have been used to address violence levels in two U.S. communities: the Bullseye area of Durham, North Carolina, and the Northside (North Minneapolis) neighborhood of Minneapolis, Minnesota. Specifically, the research project aimed to answer the following questions:

  1. What are community level factors that can contribute to persistent violence?
  2. What are the key factors in both cities that distinguish high violent crime areas compared to low violent crime areas?

This collection contains final analytic datasets for Durham (DS1) and Minneapolis (DS2), violent crime rate data (DS3), community survey data for Durham (DS4) and Minneapolis (DS5), and multiple datasets containing community-level contextual factors from the American Community Survey (ACS) and geographical data from the U.S. Census Bureau (2009-2018) that were used to build the final analytic datasets (DS6-DS11). Qualitative data from key informant interviews and GIS data are not available for download at this time. Access to Durham and Minneapolis community survey data is restricted.

Curated

Reexamining the Minneapolis Repeat Complaint Address Policing (RECAP) Experiment, 1986-1987 (ICPSR 6172)

Released/updated on: 2006-01-12
Geographic coverage: Minneapolis, United States, Minnesota
Time period: 1986-01-01--1987-01-01
This study reexamines REPEAT COMPLAINT ADDRESS POLICING: TWO FIELD EXPERIMENTS IN MINNEAPOLIS, 1985-1987 (ICPSR 9788). The original Repeat Complaint Address Policing (RECAP) experiment was a field study of the strategy of problem-oriented policing, which used control and treatment groups consisting of specific addresses in the city of Minneapolis. The impact of problem-oriented policing was measured by comparing the number of 911 calls received for each address during a baseline period to the number received during a period when experimental treatments were in effect. Several features of the original data distort the one-to-one correspondence between a 911 call and an event, such as the occurrence of multiple versions of the same call in the databases. The current study identifies and attempts to correct these occurrences by applying multiple levels of data cleaning procedures to the original data to establish a better one-to-one call-to-event correspondence.
Curated

Repeat Complaint Address Policing: Two Field Experiments in Minneapolis, 1985-1987 (ICPSR 9788)

Released/updated on: 2006-01-18
Geographic coverage: Minneapolis, United States, Minnesota
Time period: 1985-01-01--1987-01-01
A leading sociological theory of crime is the "routine activities" approach (Cohen and Felson, 1979). The premise of this theory is that the rate of occurrence of crime is affected by the convergence in time and space of three elements: motivated offenders, suitable targets, and the absence of guardianship against crime. The purpose of this study was to provide empirical evidence for the routine activities theory by investigating criminal data on places. This study deviates from traditional criminology research by analyzing places instead of collectivities as units of spatial analysis. There are two phases to this study. The purpose of the first phase was to test whether crime occurs randomly in space or is concentrated in "hot spots". Telephone calls for police service made in 1985 and 1986 to the Minneapolis Police Department were analyzed for patterns and concentration of repeat calls and were statistically tested for randomness. For the second phase of the study, two field experiments were designed to test the effectiveness of a proactive police strategy called Repeat Complaint Address Policing (RECAP). Samples of residential and commercial addresses that generated the most concentrated and most frequent repeat calls were divided into groups of experimental and control addresses, resulting in matched pairs. The experimental addresses were then subjected to a more focused proactive policing. The purposes of the RECAP experimentation were to test the effectiveness of proactive police strategy, as measured through the reduction in the incidence of calls to the police and, in so doing, to provide empirical evidence on the routine activities theory. Variables in this collection include the number of calls for police service in both 1986 and 1987 to the control addresses for each experimental pair, the number of calls for police service in both 1986 and 1987 to the experimental addresses for each experimental pair, numerical differences between calls in 1987 and 1986 for both the control addresses and experimental addresses in each experimental pair, percentage difference between calls in 1987 and 1986 for both the control addresses and the experimental addresses in each experimental pair, and a variable that indicates whether the experimental pair was used in the experimental analysis. The unit of observation for the first phase of the study is the recorded telephone call to the Minneapolis Police Department for police service and assistance. The unit of analysis for the second phase is the matched pair of control and experimental addresses for both the residential and commercial address samples of the RECAP experiments.
Curated

Specific Deterrent Effects of Arrest for Domestic Assault: Minneapolis, 1981-1982 (ICPSR 8250)

Released/updated on: 2006-01-12
Geographic coverage: Minneapolis, United States, Minnesota
Time period: 1981-01-01--1982-01-01
This data collection contains information on 330 incidents of domestic violence in Minneapolis. Part 1, Police Data, contains data from the initial police reports filled out after each incident. Parts 2-5 are based on interviews that were conducted with all parties to the domestic assaults. Information for Part 2, Initial Data, was gathered from the victims after the incidents. Part 3, Follow-Up Data, consists of data from follow-up interviews with the victims and with relatives and acquaintances of both victims and suspects. There could be up to 12 contacts per case. Suspect interviews are the source for Part 4, Suspect Data. An experimental section, Part 5, Repeat Data, contains information on repeat incidents of domestic assault from interviews with victims. Parts 2-5 include items such as socioeconomic and demographic data describing the suspect and the victim, relationship (husband, wife, boyfriend, girlfriend, lover, divorced, separated), nature of the argument that spurred the assault, presence or absence of physical violence, and the nature and extent of police contact in the incident. The collection also includes police records, which are the basis for Parts 6-9. These files record the date of the crime, ethnicity of the participants, presence or absence of alcohol or drugs and weapons, and whether a police assault occurred.
Curated

Understanding Pathways To and Away From Violent Radicalization Among Resettled Somali Refugees, 4 North American cities, 2013-2015 (ICPSR 37449)

Released/updated on: 2020-09-30
Geographic coverage: Canada, Minneapolis, United States, Massachusetts, Maine, Lewiston, Minnesota, Portland (Maine), North America, Toronto, Boston
Time period: 2013-01-01--2015-01-01

Somalis in North America offer a window into the remarkable potential that can be realized by refugees/immigrants despite experiences of severe adversity as well as the challenges some subgroups encounter when adjusting to life in a new country. Somalia has endured one of the longest and most brutal wars of the past 30 years. This enduring conflict has led to millions of Somalis being dispersed as refugees across the globe. As refugees with limited resources, many Somalis in North America are resettled in poor urban neighborhoods where they are visibly different, not only because of race or ethnicity but also because of dress, especially for women who wear a Muslim head covering.

In addition, the community has been plagued by violence. While the number of Somali American youth joining these groups are small and while the majority of Somali Americans are law-abiding citizens, the terrorist groups' ability to recruit these youth and to convince some of them to engage in violent acts is concerning, not only to policymakers and law enforcement, but also to the Somali community, which fears losing more youth to violence or having the community's reputation sullied by being associated with terrorism.

While some of the social and cultural factors affecting Somalis are unique to that ethnic group, they also share experiences common to many immigrants, navigating identity development and duality as they move between home and host cultures, contending with discrimination as religious, racial and ethnic minorities, and striving to achieve their dreams while struggling to gain socioeconomic stability. Thus, understanding their developmental trajectories may inform the understanding of other immigrant and refugee groups as well.

No valid and reliable measurement for risk for violent extremism exists; there is no single profile or set of risk factors that can accurately determine who is most at risk for engaging in violent extremist acts. The study did not attempt to determine who is most at risk. Rather, the researchers sought to identify broad attitudes that would indicate a general openness to, or rejection of, the use of violence or illegal actions in support of a political cause.

The qualitative interviews feature experiences of formal (e.g. police) and informal (e.g. community) institutions over the past year. Examples of interview prompts include questions related to social bonds with family and community, and interactions with police.