Showing 1 – 6 of 6 results.
Curated
Crime in Boomburb Cities: 1970-2004 [United States] (ICPSR 29202)
Released/updated on: 2011-08-10
Geographic coverage: San Bernardino, United States, St. Petersburg, California, Florida, Miami, Santa Clara, San Diego, Atlanta, Orlando, Texas, Colorado, Phoenix, Denver, Georgia, Tampa, Dallas, Arizona, Las Vegas, Nevada, Houston, Riverside
Time period: 1970-01-01--2004-01-01
This study focused on the effect of economic resources and racial/ethnic composition on the change in crime rates from 1970-2004 in United States cities in metropolitan areas that experienced a large growth in population after World War II. A total of 352 cities in the following United States metropolitan areas were selected for this study: Atlanta, Dallas, Denver, Houston, Las Vegas, Miami, Orange County, Orlando, Phoenix, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, Silicon Valley (Santa Clara), and Tampa/St. Petersburg. Selection was based on the fact that these areas developed during a similar time period and followed comparable development trajectories. In particular, these 14 areas, known as the "boomburbs" for their dramatic, post-World War II population growth, all faced issues relating to the rapid growth of tract-style housing and the subsequent development of low density, urban sprawls. The study combined place-level data obtained from the United States Census with crime data from the Uniform Crime Reports for five categories of Type I crimes: aggravated assaults, robberies, murders, burglaries, and motor vehicle thefts. The dataset contains a total of 247 variables pertaining to crime, economic resources, and race/ethnic composition.
Curated
Restricted
Florida Elder Abuse Survey in Seven Sites, 2007-2008 [United States] (ICPSR 25941)
Released/updated on: 2010-10-27
Geographic coverage: Gainesville, United States, Orlando, Fort Lauderdale, St. Petersburg, Florida, Tampa, Jacksonville, Miami
Time period: 2007-01-01--2008-01-01
The purpose of this project was to develop and pilot test an interviewer-administered self-report questionnaire that might be used in a subsequent national survey to scientifically establish the prevalence of second-party elder abuse or neglect. The project focused only on those living in the communities who were capable of accurately self-reporting their knowledge, attitudes, and practices. Through focus groups of adult protective services and abuse hot-line staff, questionnaire items were generated and later tested through interviews of clients of aging services in Florida. Aging services case managers screened and recruited 95 clients, aged 65 and older, with 25 clients who had reports of mistreatment within the hotline database, and 70 comparison clients (no reports of mistreatment). Groups were matched by gender and age within 10 years. The interviews were conducted over an 18-month period, of which 3 interviews were conducted in-person and 92 interviews were conducted by telephone. All interviews were conducted by trained interviewers of the research team. Twenty-six interviews were conducted in Spanish. Interviews focused on demographics; activities of daily living; 19 possible types of elder abuse or neglect within the previous year, and, for each positive response, questions about the perpetrators and their relationship to the older adult; a description of when the mistreatment happened, how often, what the respondent did, and whether it was related to the perpetrator's anger, neglect, or carelessness.
Curated
Restricted
Non-Medical use of Prescription Drugs: Policy Change, Law Enforcement Activity, and Diversion Tactics, Florida, 2010-2014 (ICPSR 36609)
Released/updated on: 2018-03-21
Geographic coverage: United States, Orlando, St. Petersburg, Florida, Miami
Time period: 2010-01-01--2014-01-01
These data are part of NACJD's Fast Track Release and are distributed as they were received from the data depositor. The files have been zipped by NACJD for release, but not checked or processed except for the removal of direct identifiers. Users should refer to the accompanying readme file for a brief description of the files available with this collection and consult the investigator(s) if further information is needed.
This study contains Uniform Crime Report geocoded data obtained from St. Petersburg Police Department, Orlando Police Department, and Miami-Dade Police Department for the years between 2010 and 2014. The three primary goals of this study were:
- to determine whether Florida law HB 7095 (signed into law on June 3, 2011) and related legislation reduced the number of pain clinics abusively dispensing opioid prescriptions in the State
- to examine the spatial overlap between pain clinic locations and crime incidents
- to assess the logistics of administering the law
The study includes:
- 3 Excel files: MDPD_Data.xlsx (336,672 cases; 6 variables), OPD_Data.xlsx (160,947 cases; 11 variables), SPPD_Data.xlsx (211,544 cases; 14 variables)
- 15 GIS Shape files (95 files total)
Data related to respondents' qualitative interviews and the Florida Department of Health are not available as part of this collection. For access to data from the Florida Department of Health, interested researchers should apply directory to the FDOH.
Curated
Police Referral Practices and Social Service Agency Practices in Three Metropolitan Areas, 1977 (ICPSR 7791)
Released/updated on: 2006-01-18
Geographic coverage: United States, Missouri, St. Petersburg, Rochester (New York), Florida, New York (state), Tampa, St. Louis
The dataset contains two related studies conducted in the metropolitan areas of St. Louis, Missouri, Tampa - St. Petersburg, Florida, and Rochester, New York. The study of police referral practices provies information on the types of calls made to police departments, the referrals made to social service agencies from these calls, and the pattern of citizen demands. Data for this study were collected from 26,465 calls for police service at 21 police departments. The 36 variables include the nature of the call, characteristics of the caller, and the type of agency receiving the referral.
Curated
Restricted
Project on Policing Neighborhoods in Indianapolis, Indiana, and St. Petersburg, Florida, 1996-1997 (ICPSR 3160)
Released/updated on: 2007-06-01
Geographic coverage: Indiana, United States, St. Petersburg, Florida, Indianapolis
Time period: 1996-01-01--1997-01-01
The purpose of the Project on Policing Neighborhoods (POPN) was to provide an in-depth description of how the police and the community interact with each other in a community policing (CP) environment. Research was conducted in Indianapolis, Indiana, in 1996 and in St. Petersburg, Florida, in 1997. Several research methods were employed: systematic observation of patrol officers (Parts 1-4) and patrol supervisors (Parts 5-14), in-person interviews with patrol officers (Part 15) and supervisors (Parts 16-17), and telephone surveys of residents in selected neighborhoods (Part 18). Field researchers accompanied their assigned patrol or supervising officer during all activities and encounters with the public during the shift. Field researchers noted when various activities and encounters with the public occurred during these "ride-alongs," who was involved, and what happened. In the resulting data files coded observation data are provided at the ride level, the activity level (actions that did not involve interactions with citizens), the encounter level (events in which officers interacted with citizens), and the citizen level. In addition to encounters with citizens, supervisors also engaged in encounters with patrol officers. Patrol officers and patrol supervisors in both Indianapolis and St. Petersburg were interviewed one-on-one in a private interviewing room during their regular work shifts. Citizens in the POPN study beats were randomly selected for telephone surveys to determine their views about problems in their neighborhoods and other community issues. Administrative records were used to create site identification data (Part 19) and data on staffing (Part 20). This data collection also includes data compiled from census records, aggregated to the beat level for each site (Part 21). Census data were also used to produce district populations for both sites (Part 22). Citizen data were aggregated to the encounter level to produce counts of various citizen role categories and characteristics and characteristics of the encounter between the patrol officer and citizens in the various encounters (Part 23). Ride-level data (Parts 1, 5, and 10) contain information about characteristics of the ride, including start and end times, officer identification, type of unit, and beat assignment. Activity data (Parts 2, 6, and 11) include type of activity, where and when the activity took place, who was present, and how the officer was notified. Encounter data (Parts 3, 7, and 12) contain descriptive information on encounters similar to the activity data (i.e., location, initiation of encounter). Citizen data (Parts 4, 8, and 13) provide citizen characteristics, citizen behavior, and police behavior toward citizens. Similarly, officer data from the supervisor observations (Parts 9 and 14) include characteristics of the supervising officer and the nature of the interaction between the officers. Both the patrol officer and supervisor interview data (Parts 15-17) include the officers' demographics, training and knowledge, experience, perceptions of their beats and organizational environment, and beliefs about the police role. The patrol officer data also provide the officers' perceptions of their supervisors while the supervisor data describe supervisors' perceptions of their subordinates, as well as their views about their roles, power, and priorities as supervisors. Data from surveyed citizens (Part 18) provide information about their neighborhoods, including years in the neighborhood, distance to various places in the neighborhood, neighborhood problems and effectiveness of police response to those problems, citizen knowledge of, or interactions with, the police, satisfaction with police services, and friends and relatives in the neighborhood. Citizen demographics and geographic and weight variables are also included. Site identification variables (Part 19) include ride and encounter numbers, site beat (site, district, and beat or community policing areas [CPA]), and sector. Staffing variables (Part 20) include district, shift, and staffing levels for various shifts. Census data (Part 21) include neighborhood, index of socioeconomic distress, total population, and total white population. District population variables (Part 22) include district and population of district. The aggregated citizen data (Part 23) provide the ride and encounter numbers, number of citizens in the encounter, counts of citizens by their various roles, and by sex, age, race, wealth, if known by the police, under the influence of alcohol or drugs, physically injured, had a weapon, or assaulted the police, counts by type of encounter, and counts of police and citizen actions during the encounter.
Curated
Restricted
Understanding the Use of Force By and Against the Police in Six Jurisdictions in the United States, 1996-1997 (ICPSR 3172)
Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, San Diego, Charlotte, Mecklenburg, United States, Texas, Colorado, St. Petersburg, California, Florida, Dallas, Colorado Springs
Time period: 1996-08-01--1997-02-01
This study examined the amount of force used by and against law enforcement officers and more than 50 characteristics of officers, civilians, and arrest situations associated with the use of different levels of force. An important component of this multijurisdiction project was to employ a common measurement of elements of force and predictors of force. Data were gathered about suspects' and police officers' behaviors from adult custody arrests in six urban law enforcement agencies. The participating agencies were the Charlotte-Mecklenburg (North Carolina) Police Department, Colorado Springs (Colorado) Police Department, Dallas (Texas) Police Department, St. Petersburg (Florida) Police Department, San Diego (California) Police Department, and San Diego County (California) Sheriff's Department. Data collection began at different times in the participating departments, so the total sample included arrests during the summer, fall, and winter of 1996-1997. Forms were completed and coded for 7,512 adult custody arrests (Part 1). This form was used to record officer self-reports on the characteristics of the arrest situation, the suspects, and the officers, and the specific behavioral acts of officers, suspects, and bystanders in a particular arrest. Similar items were asked of 1,156 suspects interviewed in local jails at the time they were booked following arrest to obtain an independent assessment of officer and suspect use of force (Part 2). Officers were informed that some suspects would be interviewed, but they did not know which would be interviewed or when. Using the items included on the police survey, the research team constructed four measures of force used by police officers -- physical force, physical force plus threats, continuum of force, and maximum force. Four comparable measures of force used by arrested suspects were also developed. These measures are included in the data for Part 1. Each measure was derived by combining specific actions by law enforcement officers or by suspects in various ways. The first measure was a traditional conceptual dichotomy of arrests in which physical force was or was not used. For both the police and for suspects, the definition of physical force included any arrest in which a weapon or weaponless tactic was used. In addition, police arrests in which officers used a severe restraint were included. The second measure, physical force plus threats, was similar to physical force but added the use of threats and displays of weapons. To address the potential limitations of these two dichotomous measures, two other measures were developed. The continuum-of-force measure captured the levels of force commonly used in official policies by the participating law enforcement agencies. To construct the fourth measure, maximum force, 503 experienced officers in five of the six jurisdictions ranked a variety of hypothetical types of force by officers and by suspects on a scale from 1 (least forceful) to 100 (most forceful). Officers were asked to rank these items based on their own personal experience, not official policy. These rankings of police and suspect use of force, which appear in Part 3, were averaged for each jurisdiction and used in Part 1 to weight the behaviors that occurred in the sampled arrests. Variables for Parts 1 and 2 include nature of the arrest, features of the arrest location, mobilization of the police, and officer and suspect characteristics. Part 3 provides officer rankings on 54 items that suspects might do or say during an arrest. Separately, officers ranked a series of 44 items that a police officer might do or say during an arrest. These items include spitting, shouting or cursing, hitting, wrestling, pushing, resisting, fleeing, commanding, using conversational voice, and using pressure point holds, as well as possession, display, threat of use, or use of several weapons (e.g., knife, chemical agent, dog, blunt object, handgun, motor vehicle).