Showing 1 – 14 of 14 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
Commercial Victimization Surveys, 1972-1975 [United States]: Cities Sample (ICPSR 8002)
Released/updated on: 2006-01-12
Geographic coverage: Oregon, Milwaukee, Detroit, United States, Cincinnati, Oakland, Cleveland, New York City, San Diego, Minneapolis, Atlanta, Massachusetts, Colorado, Missouri, New Orleans, Denver, Dallas, St. Louis, Wisconsin, Buffalo, Boston, Pittsburgh, District of Columbia, Chicago, Minnesota, California, Florida, New York (state), New Jersey, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Miami, San Francisco, Baltimore, Illinois, Texas, Portland (Oregon), Louisiana, Ohio, Los Angeles, Newark, Georgia, Maryland, Philadelphia, Houston
Time period: 1972-01-01--1975-01-01
The National Crime Surveys, of which these Commercial Victimization Surveys are a part, were conducted to obtain current and reliable measures of serious crime in the United States. The Commercial Victimization Surveys are restricted to coverage of burglary and robbery incidents. They include all types of commercial establishments as well as political, cultural, and religious organizations. The survey includes a series of questions about the business, e.g., type and size, form of ownership, insurance, security, and break-in and robbery characteristics. Time and place, weapon, injury, entry evidence, offender characteristics, and stolen property data were collected for each of the incidents. Data on both victimized and nonvictimized establishments in 26 different cities were collected during 1972, 1973, and 1974. In the 1975 survey, data from the 13 cities surveyed during 1972 and 1973 were collected again.
Curated
Commercial Victimization Surveys, 1973-1977 [United States]: National Sample (ICPSR 8003)
Released/updated on: 2006-01-12
Geographic coverage: Oregon, Milwaukee, Detroit, United States, Cincinnati, Oakland, Cleveland, New York City, San Diego, Minneapolis, Atlanta, Massachusetts, Colorado, Missouri, New Orleans, Denver, Dallas, St. Louis, Wisconsin, Buffalo, Boston, Pittsburgh, District of Columbia, Chicago, Minnesota, California, Florida, New York (state), New Jersey, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Miami, Baltimore, Illinois, Texas, Portland (Oregon), Louisiana, Ohio, Los Angeles, Newark, Georgia, Maryland, Philadelphia, Houston
Time period: 1973-01-01--1977-01-01
These Commercial Victimization Surveys were collected as part of the National Crime Surveys. They document burglary and robbery incidents for all types of commercial establishments, as well as political, cultural, and religious organizations. Business characteristics gathered include form of ownership and operation, size and type of business, and security measures. Information regarding the reported incidents includes time and place, weapon involvement, offender and entry characteristics, injuries and deaths, and type and value of stolen property. Data were collected by calendar quarter for four quarters in 1973-1976 and for two quarters in 1977, while the actual incidents reported in the files reflect those occurring six months prior to the interview date.
Curated
Simple Crosstabs
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
The Epidemiology of Crime Guns: From Legal Sale to Use in Crime, Louisiana and Maryland, 2010-2016 (ICPSR 38191)
Released/updated on: 2023-01-31
Geographic coverage: Chicago, Illinois, Louisiana, New Orleans, Maryland
Time period: 2010-01-01--2016-01-01
The International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), collaborating with research partners, conducted a 48-month, two-phase research initiative to enhance their understanding of how firearms move from legal purchase to involvement with a crime. Phase 1 used trace data from Chicago, New Orleans, and Prince Georges County, MD to establish the path of firearms from purchase to usage in a crime. Interviews of the first legal purchaser and incarcerated inmates who committed a crime of violence in New Orleans and Prince Georges County were conducted to seek an understanding of how firearms enter the unregulated market. Phase 2 examined the use of the Group Violence Reduction Strategy (GVRS) in New Orleans as a strategy to reduce gang and gun-related homicides. Overall violence patterns in New Orleans were examined from 2010-2016.
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
Integrating the Ion Mobility Spectrometer Into Drug Monitoring at the New Orleans Pretrial Diversion Program, 1996 (ICPSR 3213)
Released/updated on: 2005-11-04
Geographic coverage: United States, Louisiana, New Orleans
This project was designed to evaluate the use of a drug detection instrument, the ion mobility spectrometer (IMS), and to integrate its use into an ongoing pretrial diversion program for nonviolent, first-time, drug-abusing offenders. The Pretrial Diversion Program in Orleans Parish, Louisiana, targeted offenders with limited arrest histories of nonviolent felony or misdemeanor violations. The majority of eligible participants were violators of simple drug possession statutes, primarily crack/cocaine or marijuana. Persons charged with drug distribution offenses were not eligible. In order to qualify for diversion, persons had to admit guilt regarding the acts for which they were arrested. The program was entirely voluntary. One of the unique aspects of this program was its aggressive use of drug testing, including urinalysis and hair analysis. This project evaluated the ability of the IMS to provide complete drug profile information to supervising agencies and assessed its usefulness to field staff engaged in drug monitoring duties. The project was based on the premise that enhanced information on offenders diverted into this program could create or improve several key aspects of program operation, such as client assessment, monitoring of compliance and progress, dispositional decision-making, client motivation, and staff morale. The study was designed to integrate the IMS into the normal operation of the New Orleans Pretrial Diversion Program with as little modification of existing treatment and supervision protocols as possible. Each client in the diversion program underwent an intensive intake assessment including an intake radioimmunoassay (RIA) hair assay and an additional RIA hair assay every 60 days. Each client was urine-tested at intake and assigned to a random test pool. The modified protocol for the project added an IMS-based scan or a hair specimen, skin wipe, and ten-second vacuum scan of clothing, hands, and axillae at intake. At each subsequent visit each client had a repeat IMS scan utilizing a skin swab and a scan of clothing or body area. Variables include self-reported cocaine use, self-reported marijuana use, IMS date, urinalysis date, hair assay results, urinalysis results, IMS detection, nicotine use, maximum amplitude, delta, cumulative amplitude, number of detections, whether the IMS showed a positive result, and the age, sex, and race of the client.
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
New Orleans Offender Study, 1973-1986 (ICPSR 6005)
Released/updated on: 2006-01-12
Geographic coverage: United States, Louisiana, New Orleans
Time period: 1973-01-01--1986-01-01
These data focus on persons arrested for burglary or armed robbery in New Orleans during 1973-1986. Local, state, and federal arrest records were combined with local and state custody records to provide a more complete criminal history database for researchers than previously available. The five files in this collection supply information on arrests, periods of criminal justice supervision and custody, employment, and basic demographics (sex, race, birth year, and state of birth). For a majority of the juvenile offenders, results of aptitude and diagnostic tests obtained from the Louisiana Department of Corrections, Juvenile Division, are available as well. The unit of analysis is the offender.
Curated
Prosecution of Felony Arrests, 1986: Indianapolis, Los Angeles, New Orleans, Portland, St. Louis, and Washington, DC (ICPSR 9094)
Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: Oregon, District of Columbia, Indiana, United States, Missouri, Portland (Oregon), Louisiana, New Orleans, Los Angeles, California, St. Louis, Indianapolis
This data collection represents the sixth in a series of statistical reports sponsored by the Bureau of Justice Statistics. The purpose of the series is to provide statistical information on how prosecutors and the courts dispose of criminal cases involving adults arrested for felony crimes. With this purpose in mind, information was collected on items such as an individual's arrest date, sentencing date, court charge, and case disposition.
Curated
Prosecutor's Management and Information System (PROMIS), New Orleans, 1979 (ICPSR 8219)
Released/updated on: 1992-02-16
Geographic coverage: United States, Louisiana, New Orleans
The Prosecutor's Management and Information System (PROMIS) is a computer-based management information system for public prosecution agencies. PROMIS was initially developed with funds from the United States Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA) to cope with the problems of a large, urban prosecution agency where mass production operations had superseded the traditional practice of a single attorney preparing and prosecuting a given case from inception to final disposition. The combination of massive volumes of cases and the assembly-line fragmentation of responsibility and control had created a situation in which one case was indistinguishable from another and the effects of problems at various stages in the assembly line on ultimate case disposition went undetected and uncorrected. One unique feature of PROMIS that addresses these problems is the automated evaluation of cases. Through the application of a uniform set of criteria, PROMIS assigns two numerical ratings to each case: one signifying the gravity of the crime through a measurement of the amount of harm done to society, and the other signifying the gravity of the prior criminal record of the accused. These ratings make it possible to select the more important cases for intensive, pre-trial preparation and to assure even-handed treatment of cases of like gravity. A complementary feature of PROMIS is the automation of reasons for decisions made or actions taken along the assembly line. Reasons for dismissing cases prior to trial on their merits can be related to earlier cycles of postponements for various reasons and to the reasoning behind intake and screening decisions. The PROMIS data include information about the defendant, case characteristics and processes, charge, sentencing and continuance processes, and the witnesses/victims involved with a case. PROMIS was first used in 1971 in the United States Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia. To enhance the ability to transfer the PROMIS concepts and software to other communities, LEAA awarded a grant to the Institute for Law and Social Research (INSLAW) in Washington, DC. The New Orleans PROMIS data collection is a product of this grant.
Curated
Trauma-Informed Approaches to Improve School Safety, New Orleans, Louisiana, 2016-2020 (ICPSR 38505)
Released/updated on: 2025-07-28
Geographic coverage: United States, Louisiana, New Orleans
Time period: 2016-01-01--2020-01-01
The current project examined the effectiveness of a multi-component intervention for the installation of trauma-informed approaches in schools. The intervention was set within the installation stage of program implementation and focused on developing and evaluating tools, trainings, and systems of support necessary to build individual and organizational competencies and support infrastructure in K-8 schools to integrate trauma-informed approaches into their multitiered systems of student support. Specific installation strategies included foundational professional development in trauma-informed care, teacher skill-development and on-site coaching in the use of trauma-informed approaches, and technical assistance to school leaderships teams to support organizational change.