Search results

These data were collected as part of a mixed-methods study to develop a comprehensive youth bias crime violence exposure instrument, the Youth Bias Victimization Questionnaire (YBVQ). With input from a panel of violence and delinquency experts, the research team produced initial drafts of the questionnaire, then conducted focus groups and cognitive interviews with youth and young adults to inform development and item comprehension. To pilot test the YBVQ, a sample of 854 youth aged 11-21 were surveyed across three research sites: 1) Boston (n=262); 2) Philadelphia (n=318); and 3) Appalachian areas of Tennessee (n=274). This convenience sample was recruited using an intercept strategy, with a combination of recruitment occurring at youth-serving organizations, community festivals or events, and schools. Participants completed the YBVQ through a computer-assisted self-interview (CASI) on a tablet or through an online link to a web-based survey.

Only the pilot survey data are available in this collection. Measures include demographic variables (gender, race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion, age, grade level), bias victimization based on six potential target characteristics, incident specifics, witnessing bias victimization, school and neighborhood climate, alcohol use, resiliency, emotional distress, and other experiences of bias, microaggressions, and victimization.

Schools are a primary referral source to the juvenile justice system, helping create and perpetuate the school-to-prison pipeline. Seeking to dismantle this pipeline in the city, the Philadelphia Police Department (PPD) partnered with the School District of Philadelphia (SDP) and the Philadelphia Department of Human Services (DHS) to develop and operate the Philadelphia Police School Diversion Program. Implemented in May 2014, all first-time offending youth aged 10 years or older who commit specified school-based minor misdemeanor or summary offenses on school property are diverted from arrest, referred to a Department of Human Services (DHS) social worker and community-based services, and face no consequences even if they decline services.

This evaluation examined long-term outcomes for diverted youth and sustained program impacts over five years. From a full sample of 3,616 diverted and arrested students, this study used a quasi-experimental design to compare data for diverted youth (quasi-experimental group; n = 1,281) and similar youth arrested in schools in the year before the program's implementation (quasi-control group; n = 531). PPD school police officers completed surveys regarding their knowledge and perceptions of the Diversion Program immediately before and after a training session held prior to its implementation, then on an annual basis through year five. A cost-benefit analysis of the program was conducted in partnership with the Vera Institute of Justice.

The data have been organized by analysis. Short-term analysis refers to two-year recidivism analyses and one-year child welfare involvement, and covers the full and quasi-control arrested samples and youth diverted in school years 2014-2015, 2015-2016, and 2016-2017. Long-term analyses include four-year graduation/drop-out, five-year recidivism analyses, and five-year child welfare involvement, and covers the full and quasi-control arrested samples and youth diverted in school year 2014-2015.

Short- and long-term recidivism outcome data (DS1 and DS2), police survey data before and after program implementation (DS3), and cost-benefit analysis tables (DS9) are included in this collection. Please refer to the User Guide for details on how to acquire additional data from SDP and DHS and steps to create the full analytic files for academic-related and child welfare involvement outcomes.

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

This study examines municipal crime levels and changes over a nine year time frame, from 2000-2008, in the fifth largest primary Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) in the United States, the Philadelphia metropolitan region. Crime levels and crime changes are linked to demographic features of jurisdictions, policing arrangements and coverage levels, and street and public transit network features.

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

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

In January 2016, the Quattrone Center for the Fair Administration of Justice at the University of Pennsylvania Law School was awarded grant 2015-R2-CX-K040 for a proposal entitled "Instilling a Culture of Continuous Learning from Criminal Justice System Errors: A Multi-Stakeholder Sentinel Events Review of Process in Philadelphia." The work performed under the grant built upon a successful pilot program supported by NIJ, in which a group of criminal justice professionals in Philadelphia, PA conducted a multi-stakeholder sentinel event review (SER) of a criminal case in the United States. The Quattrone Center proposed to build upon the pilot project by implementing the Philadelphia Event Review Team (PERT) as a more permanent working group to identify cases of error in the Philadelphia criminal justice system and conduct sentinel event reviews of those cases over the three-year period of performance for the grant.

The PERT formed a group of dedicated criminal justice professionals across multiple agencies - the Philadelphia District Attorney's Office, the Philadelphia Police Department, the Defender Association of Philadelphia, the 1st Circuit Court of Common Pleas of Pennsylvania, and others - who agreed to meet regularly and review cases where all of the participants felt an undesired outcome had occurred.

The process for conducting the second SER was lengthy and circuitous, and was slowed by a number of factors: the churn of elected and appointed personnel in the participating agencies, the overhang of potential impending litigation on cases being reviewed for possible selection, and in one instance, the inability to waive attorney/client privilege for a defendant whose treatment by the system was viewed as suboptimal by the PERT. Both the successes and the challenges of SERs in criminal justice as experienced by the PERT are set forth below.

The SERs conducted as part of this project followed the definition of SER set forth in the NIJ publication Mending Justice: Sentinel Event Reviews. Sentinel events, which have a history of successful application in fields as diverse as aviation, healthcare, and military operations, are multi-stakeholder reviews of instances of error in complex human systems that seek to reveal and understand the root cause(s) of such "never events" as plane crashes, surgical errors, and other accidents. They involve a formal procedure to review errors in a non-blaming atmosphere and determine ways to avoid such errors in the future.

Applying the methodology of Sentinel Event Reviews (SER) to the criminal justice system involves reviewing a criminal investigation and prosecution that demonstrated some "error," as defined by the participants of the SER. The PERT took the position that any wrongful conviction, cold case, officer-involved shooting, or death of an individual in the custody of the state was by definition a case of error; this definition is completely separate from an assessment of blame and simply held that any instance of these outcomes was per se unwanted, even if such an outcome may have resulted by good faith professionals acting within established training and protocols. The PERT attempted to conduct SERs of selected cases in the criminal justice system using principles of "just culture review," defined as "a culture that recognizes that competent professionals make mistakes and acknowledges that even competent professionals will develop unhealthy norms (shortcuts, "routine rule violations"), but has zero tolerance for reckless behavior." (Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Glossary)

A substantial question regarding the application of SERs to criminal justice was whether the adversarial nature of the criminal justice system, which is different than the structure of the systems in which SERs were originally developed, would be a barrier to their successful application in criminal justice. The adversarial culture unique to the criminal justice process creates additional challenges, including the complexity of gaining consensus from cross-agency participants on the definition or occurrence of errors, the ability to define shared goals within a system, and the ability to implement reforms that require changes in agencies other than one's own. Within that context, the work performed under this grant provides additional information to help answer the questions posed by, and the methodology outlined in, Mending Justice--namely, (1) how might SERs be applied to the criminal justice system; (2) can they effectively reduce future errors; and (3) is this approach sustainable?

The datasets are the result of two data requests. The first data request asked for appeals court cases for the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas involving criminal cases with an appeal filed from 1/1/2011 through 12/31/2015 as recorded in the Pennsylvania Appellate Court Management System (PACMS). The second data request asked for data on case level data related to the criminal cases disposed in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas from 11/17/2006 through 11/17/2016 with one of the following final case dispositions: dismissed, judgement of acquittal, mistrial, nolle prossed, nolle prossed (case dismissed), quashed, demurrer sustained, or withdrawn. For each kind of data (cases, case dispositions, offenses, offense dispositions, docket entries) there are two files, one for each of the data requests. The two files for each type of data share the same structure and fields.

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 investigators if further information is needed.

This study is a secondary analysis (syntax only, no data) of Research on Pathways to Desistance [Maricopa County, AZ and Philadelphia County, PA]: Subject Measures, 2000-2010 (ICPSR 29961) and Research on Pathways to Desistance [Maricopa County, AZ and Philadelphia County, PA]: Calendar Data, 2000-2010 [Restricted] (ICPSR 32282).

The purpose of this study was to further existing knowledge of juvenile justice intervention and how juvenile justice intervention is related to positive outcomes during the transition to adulthood. This study examines three main aims using data from the Pathways to Desistance study, which followed a sample of serious adolescent offenders for seven years to examine the desistance process. First, trajectories of secure institutional placement for serious offenders during the study period were identified. Second, trajectories of gainful activities for serious adolescent offenders during the study period were identified. Gainful activities were defined as working or attending school. Third, factors associated with turning points in the gainful activities trajectories were explored. In the course of estimating the gainful activities trajectories, there appeared to be a key moment, around year 3, where multiple trajectories with moderate levels of engagement in gainful activities diverged. Together, these three aims will inform how juvenile justice intervention is related to positive outcomes during the transition to adulthood and identify factors that may be related to positive outcomes and critical turning points in the trajectories of serious adolescent offenders.

Group differences were examined by testing bivariate differences in a broad range of variables: demographic variables (gender, age, and race/ethnicity); study site and year of interview; characteristics of prior service receipt at baseline (location and orientation); school, family and neighborhood characteristics; characteristics of the offense and offense history; individual factors (mental health and substance use symptoms); and risk scores.

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.

These data were collected as part of an effort to gain a more in depth understanding of the processes surrounding disengagement from a youth gang, and come from structured interviews with their parent or guardian. The interview included such topics as parental monitoring practices, attitudes about the youth's peer group, and perceptions about the neighborhood. Study participants lived in seven geographically diverse cities in the United States, making it one of few multi-site studies of gangs or gang members.

This study was an evaluation of multiple imputation strategies to address missing data using the New Approach to Evaluating Supplementary Homicide Report (SHR) Data Imputation, 1990-1995 (ICPSR 20060) dataset.

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 Safe Start Promising Approaches for Children Exposed to Violence Initiative funded 10 sites to implement and evaluate programs to improve outcomes for children exposed to violence. RAND conducted the national evaluation of these programs, in collaboration with the sites and a national evaluation team, to focus on child-level outcomes. The dataset includes data gathered at the individual family-level at baseline, 6-, 12-months. All families were engaged in experimental or quasi-experimental studies comparing the Safe Start intervention to enhanced services-as-usual, alternative services, a wait-list control group, or a comparable comparison group of families that did not receive Safe Start services. Data sources for the outcome evaluation were primary caregiver interviews, child interviews (for ages 8 and over), and family/child-level service utilization data provided by the Safe Start program staff.

The Philadelphia Predictive Policing Experiment was a place-based, randomized control trial to study the impact of different patrol strategies on violent and property crime in predicted crime areas. The experiment's goal was to learn whether different operationally-realistic police responses to crime forecasts, estimated by a predictive policing software program, would reduce crime. Specifically, the study tested whether greater awareness among general duties patrol officers of the predicted crime areas would be sufficient to deter crime, whether a dedicated uniform patrol attendance in predictive areas would increase visible police presence sufficiently in the local area to deter crime, or if dedicated plain-clothes units performing surveillance and unmarked patrol would increase interdiction and offender incapacitation sufficiently to reduce crime. With support of the Philadelphia Police Department, the study took place over two, three-month periods between 2015 and 2016.

This study aimed to validate an approach to implementing Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports (PBIS), a school-climate improvement program, in a partnering school district in an attempt to address pressing issues impacting students' success. The study was a collaboration between the Consortium for Policy Research in Education (CPRE), the partnering school district, and several additional partners, who collaboratively designed and supported the PBIS implementation approach funded from National Institute of Justice (NIJ) and supplemental funds from the participating school district.

The impacts of trauma training for school officers were assessed via an PBIS of all eligible district K-8 schools, including schools that did and did not use school-wide PBIS. The random controlled trial (RCT) used a blocked design to assign schools to treatment and control conditions within PBIS status (i.e., PBIS school, non-PBIS school).

Impacts of the implementation model were assessed via a cluster randomized experiment. To select schools to receive the expanded supports being provided through this project, the research team collaborated with the partnering school district's school climate administrators and project partners who had been supporting PBIS implementation in the district for several years prior to the start of the project. Criteria were established to determine eligibility for the implementation model, including that eligible schools must have: 1) strong PBIS implementation at Tier 1, 2) attempted implementing some form of Tier 2 supports, and 3) leadership buy-in. Applying these criteria, nine potential schools were identified as eligible. From this list, four schools were randomly selected to receive the implementation model and the remaining five schools served as Comparison schools and conducted business-as-usual PBIS.

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 goal of the study was to determine what effect, if any, the Gang Resistance Education and Training (G.R.E.A.T.) program had on students. The G.R.E.A.T., a 13-lesson general prevention program taught by uniformed law enforcement officers to middle school students, had three stated goals: 1) to reduce gang membership, 2) to reduce delinquency, especially violent offending, and 3) to improve students' attitudes toward the police.

To assess program effectiveness, researchers conducted a randomized control trial involving 3,820 students nested in 195 classrooms in 31 schools in 7 cities. A process evaluation consisted of multiple methods to assess program fidelity: 1) observations of G.R.E.A.T. Officer Trainings, 2) surveys and interviews of G.R.E.A.T.-trained officers and supervisors, 3) surveys of school personnel, and 4) "on-site," direct observations of officers delivering the G.R.E.A.T. program in the study sites. Only the data from the student surveys, law enforcement officer surveys, and school personnel surveys are available.

Data file 1 (Student Survey Data) has 3,820 cases and 1,926 variables. Data file 2 (Law Enforcement Survey Data) has 137 cases and 140 variables. Data file 3 (School Personnel Survey Data) has 230 cases and 148 variables.

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

This study was designed to investigate whether the presence of CCTV cameras can reduce crime by studying the cameras and crime statistics of a controlled area. The viewsheds of over 100 CCTV cameras within the city of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania were defined and grouped into 13 clusters, and camera locations were digitally mapped. Crime data from 2003-2013 was collected from areas that were visible to the selected cameras, as well as data from control and displacement areas using an incident reporting database that records the location of crime events. Demographic information was also collected from the mapped areas, such as population density, household information, and data on the specific camera(s) in the area. This study also investigated the perception of CCTV cameras, and interviewed members of the public regarding topics such as what they thought the camera could see, who was watching the camera feed, and if they were concerned about being filmed.

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 purpose of this study was to produce knowledge about how to prevent at-risk youth from joining gangs and reduce delinquency among active gang members. The study evaluated a modification of Functional Family Therapy, a model program from the Blueprints for Healthy Youth Development initiative, to assess its effectiveness for reducing gang membership and delinquency in a gang-involved population.

The collection contains 5 SPSS data files and 4 SPSS syntax files:

• adolpre_archive.sav (129 cases, 190 variables),
• adolpost_archive.sav (119 cases, 301 variables),
• Fidelity.archive.sav (66 cases, 25 variables),
• parentpre_archive.sav (129 cases, 157 variables), and
• parentpost_archive.sav {116 cases, 220 variables).

The Calendar data files are comprised of 47 total parts spread across 13 distinct topical domains.

• Academic Achievement
• Antisocial Activity
• Community-Based Services
• Contact With the Justice System
• Court Monitoring
• Gainful Activity
• Head Injury
• Living Situation
• Making and Spending Money
• Medication
• Out of Community Placement
• Romance
• School

Each topical domain contains multiple reference periods for looking at the topic across the entire data collection period of the study.

Users who request these restricted data should first review the documentation available from NAHDAP (user guide and frequency codebooks) and from the Pathways Website (domain content codebooks). This review will help determine which specific datasets will be needed for your project. The "Research Description" in ICPSR's Data Access Request System (IDARS) must include a specific explanation of why you need each topic domain selected on the "Data Selection" page in IDARS. Most projects should only require one reference period per topic domain being requested. Data requests for all reference periods within a given domain will not be approved without a satisfactory explanation of why all of the reference periods are required for your project. Since the Calendar data collection is very extensive and Restricted Data Use Agreements are only for 2 years, data requests are not expected to need the entire Calendar data collection.

The Pathways to Desistance study was a multi-site study that followed 1,354 serious juvenile offenders from adolescence to young adulthood in two locales between the years 2000 and 2010. Enrolled into the study were adjudicated youths from the juvenile and adult court systems in Maricopa County (Phoenix), Arizona (N=654) and Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania (N=700).

Respondents were enrolled and baseline interviews conducted from November 2000 to January 2003. Follow-up interviews were then scheduled with the respondents at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 48, 60, 72 and 84 months past their baseline interview.

The enrolled youth were at least 14 years old and under 18 years old at the time of their committing offense and were found guilty of a serious offense (predominantly felonies, with a few exceptions for some misdemeanor property offenses, sexual assault, or weapons offenses).

The Pathways to Desistance study was a multi-site study that followed 1,354 serious juvenile offenders from adolescence to young adulthood in two locales. Enrolled into the study were adjudicated youths from the juvenile and adult court systems in Maricopa County (Phoenix), Arizona (N=654) and Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania (N=700) from 2000 through 2010.

This study looks at interviews conducted with the collateral informants who participated in the study. The collateral informants were nominated by the main study participant and represented individuals who "knew the study participant well". At the interview baseline the collateral informant was usually a biological parent. During the three follow-up interviews the majority of collaterals were a friend. Collateral informants could also be a sibling, significant other, or relative. Collaterals were asked questions in regards to the main study participant's life, allowing for comparison between responses provided by two sources. A baseline interview was conducted with the collateral after the baseline interview took place with the main participant. Additional waves of follow-up with collaterals took place at 12, 24, and 36 months. A collateral report is not present for all of the main study participant interviews across waves (see response rate below).

The Pathways to Desistance study was a multi-site study that followed 1,354 serious juvenile offenders from adolescence to young adulthood in two locales between the years 2000 and 2010. Enrolled into the study were adjudicated youths from the juvenile and adult court systems in Maricopa County (Phoenix), Arizona (N=654) and Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania (N=700).

This study looks at interviews conducted with the collateral informants who participated in the study. The collateral informants were nominated by the main study participant and represented individuals who "knew the study participant well". At the interview baseline the collateral informant was usually a biological parent. During the three follow-up interviews the majority of collaterals were a friend. Collateral informants could also be a sibling, significant other, or relative. Collaterals were asked questions in regards to the main study participant's life, allowing for comparison between responses provided by two sources. A baseline interview was conducted with the collateral after the baseline interview took place with the main participant. Additional waves of follow-up with collaterals took place at 12, 24, and 36 months. A collateral report is not present for all of the main study participant interviews across waves (see response rate below).

The current Collateral Measures study primarily consists of the calculated scores from constructs asked about during the interview, but the individual scale items were withheld at that time. These additional datasets contain those individual items plus the calculated scores. These variables are typically consistent across the waves that the scale was asked about during the course of the entire project. Most of the files contain variables from all four waves of data collection. The table in the front of the User Guide will list which waves are present in each data file.

The Pathways to Desistance study was a multi-site study that followed 1,354 serious juvenile offenders from adolescence to young adulthood in two locales between the years 2000 and 2010. Enrolled into the study were adjudicated youths from the juvenile and adult court systems in Maricopa County (Phoenix), Arizona (N=654), and Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania (N=700).

The official arrests records of all 1,354 youth were obtained from multiple sources. For arrest/petitions under the age of 18, this information is based on petitions appearing in the juvenile and adult court records in each site. In Philadelphia, this information was gathered based on a hand review of juvenile and adult court documents; in Phoenix, the information is based on reports from two computerized court tracking systems (JOLTS--Juvenile On-Line Tracking System for juvenile court information, ICIS--Maricopa County Superior Court database for adult court information). For arrests/petitions over 18, FBI arrest records are the source of information. There is no self-reported information contained in this set of data.

Information from these different data sources is consolidated into the following categories:

1. Information regarding petitions with a date that falls prior to the baseline interview date ("prior petitions").
2. Information regarding the study index petition (also called the "initial referring petition"; this is the adjudication that prompted study enrollment). Information regarding the study index petition can be found by accessing the "type" variable associated with the prior petitions (specific variable name: Official Record Prior PetitionXX: Petition type). Depending on the investigator's needs, this petition can remain combined with the "priors" or be used as a stand-alone petition.
3. Information regarding arrests and court petitions with a date which falls after the baseline interview date in the Pathways study ("rearrests").

The Pathways to Desistance study was a multi-site study that followed 1,354 serious juvenile offenders from adolescence to young adulthood in two locales between the years 2000 and 2010. Enrolled into the study were adjudicated youths from the juvenile and adult court systems in Maricopa County (Phoenix), Arizona (N=654) and Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania (N=700).

The Release data portion of the Pathways study contains information from 1,130 interviews ("release interviews") reflecting the youths' perceptions regarding various aspects of the residential experience and institutional environment (e.g., accounts of program operations and services provided, ratings regarding the participant's feelings of his or her safety in the facility). The release interview was conducted within 30 days prior to or after release from a facility and in a separate session apart from the time point interview. This was done to minimize the burden on the research participant and to ensure adequate attention to institutional ratings. The restricted time period within which to conduct the release interview reduced the likelihood that intervening events and experiences would skew the participant's recall of the stay.

Study participants could contribute more than one release interview, depending upon the number of institutional placements he/she had over the seven-year follow-up period. The current release data reflects ratings from 686 unique individuals. It should be recognized that not every institutional stay for every youth produced a release interview. On the basis of the number of reported institutional stays in the sample, it is estimated that a release interview was obtained for approximately 54 percent of the total number of residential stays experienced by study participants. Release interviews were missed if the research interviewer was not aware of the institutional stay (e.g. it occurred between time point interviews) or if the interviewer only became aware of the institutional stay at a point that was too late to schedule a release interview within the required window surrounding the release date.

The 686 individuals reflected in the release data represent 51 percent of the Pathway study participants (n=1,354) and 56 percent of Pathways participants who had a least one institutional stay (n=1,234; 120 Pathways youths had no institutional stays). On average, these 686 youths had 1.6 interviews. The number of interviews per unique person ranges from one to eight.

The current Release Measures study primarily consists of the calculated scores from constructs asked about during the interviews, but the individual scale items were withheld at that time. This study contains those individual items plus the calculated scores.

The Pathways to Desistance study was a multi-site study that followed 1,354 serious juvenile offenders from adolescence to young adulthood in two locales between the years 2000 and 2010. Enrolled into the study were adjudicated youths from the juvenile and adult court systems in Maricopa County (Phoenix), Arizona (N=654) and Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania (N=700).

Respondents were enrolled and baseline interviews conducted from November 2000 to January 2003. Follow-up interviews were then scheduled with the respondents at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 48, 60, 72 and 84 months past their baseline interview.

The enrolled youth were at least 14 years old and under 18 years old at the time of their committing offense and were found guilty of a serious offense (predominantly felonies, with a few exceptions for some misdemeanor property offenses, sexual assault, or weapons offenses).

The baseline interview was conducted within 75 days of the youth's adjudication hearing. For youths in the adult system, the baseline interview was conducted within 90 days of either (a) the decertification hearing in Philadelphia, a hearing at which it is determined if the case will remain in adult court or if it will be sent back to juvenile court; or (b) the adult arraignment hearing in Phoenix, the point in the Arizona adult system at which charges have been formally presented.

The aims of the investigation were to identify initial patterns of how serious adolescent offenders stop antisocial activity, to describe the role of social context and developmental changes in promoting these positive changes, and to compare the effects of sanctions and interventions in promoting these changes. The larger goals of the Pathways to Desistance study were to improve decision-making by court and social service personnel and to clarify policy debates about alternatives for serious adolescent offenders. The study relied primarily on self-report information from study participants.

Each wave of data collection covered six domains: (1) background characteristics (e.g., demographics, academic achievement, psychiatric diagnoses, offense history, neurological functioning, psychopathy, personality), (2) indicators of individual functioning (e.g., work and school status and performance, substance abuse, mental disorder, antisocial behavior), (3) psychosocial development and attitudes (e.g., impulse control, susceptibility to peer influence, perceptions of opportunity, perceptions of procedural justice, moral disengagement), (4) family context (e.g., household composition, quality of family relationships), (5) personal relationships (e.g., quality of romantic relationships and friendships, peer delinquency, contacts with caring adults), and (6) community context (e.g., neighborhood conditions, personal capital, and community involvement). Information about the measures used to capture this information can be found on the Pathways to Desistance website.

The Pathways to Desistance study was a multi-site study that followed 1,354 serious juvenile offenders from adolescence to young adulthood in two locales between the years 2000 and 2010. Enrolled into the study were adjudicated youths from the juvenile and adult court systems in Maricopa County (Phoenix), Arizona (N=654) and Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania (N=700).

Respondents were enrolled and baseline interviews conducted from November 2000 to January 2003. Follow-up interviews were then scheduled with the respondents at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 48, 60, 72 and 84 months past their baseline interview.

The enrolled youth were at least 14 years old and under 18 years old at the time of their committing offense and were found guilty of a serious offense (predominantly felonies, with a few exceptions for some misdemeanor property offenses, sexual assault, or weapons offenses).

Each wave of data collection covered six domains: (1) background characteristics (e.g., demographics, academic achievement, psychiatric diagnoses, offense history, neurological functioning, psychopathy, personality), (2) indicators of individual functioning (e.g., work and school status and performance, substance abuse, mental disorder, antisocial behavior), (3) psychosocial development and attitudes (e.g., impulse control, susceptibility to peer influence, perceptions of opportunity, perceptions of procedural justice, moral disengagement), (4) family context (e.g., household composition, quality of family relationships), (5) personal relationships (e.g., quality of romantic relationships and friendships, peer delinquency, contacts with caring adults), and (6) community context (e.g., neighborhood conditions, personal capital, and community involvement). Information about the measures used to capture this information can be found on the Pathways to Desistance website.

The current Subject Measures study primarily consists of the calculated scores from constructs asked about during the interview, but the individual scale items were withheld at that time. These variables are typically consistent across the waves that the scale was asked about during the course of the entire study. Most of the files contain variables from all 11 waves of data collection. The table in the front of the User Guide will list which waves are present in each data file.

School violence, including violence en route to and from school, can make students afraid to go to school and frequently results in serious injury. These assaults occur in a context where the landscape that students navigate each day often includes bullying, substance use, and weapon carrying. Understanding the locations and times when students are vulnerable to assault as they proceed through their school-day routine could identify opportunities for more targeted, evidence-based prevention strategies.

The research team employed a mixed-methods, case-time-control design with GIS-assisted activity path mapping to understand risk factors and protective factors for school assault in the United States. Children aged 12-18 years requiring treatment at the emergency department of The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania) for an assault-related injury, or who attended Philadelphia schools serving as recruitment sites during the study period, were recruited for the study (n=63). Participants were interviewed using a survey questionnaire and GIS technology to recreate details of the path of their activities, indoors during school and outdoors before and after, from the time they awoke in the morning up until the time they were assaulted. In addition, participants were asked to describe their activities sequentially during that period, including companions and weapon carrying, and site-line features of each location (prospect, refuge, and escape). To include individual- and environmental-level context, participants' paths were appended with data characterizing streets, buildings, neighborhood populations, and the weather that day.

This collection contains data from the quantitative survey measures (DS1) and qualitative interview transcripts (DS2) from the path mapping section of the interview. While GIS data were collected, they were not deposited to ICPSR. Qualitative data will be released at a future date.