Search results

Curated

Restricted

Assessing the Link Between Foreclosure and Crime Rates: A Multi-level Analysis of Neighborhoods Across 29 Large United States Cities, 2007-2009 (ICPSR 34570)

Released/updated on: 2016-09-29

Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Oregon, Indiana, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Arkansas, Washington, Nebraska, Colorado, Missouri, Wisconsin, Arizona, Nevada, District of Columbia, Kentucky, Minnesota, California, Kansas, Florida, New York (state), Michigan, Pennsylvania, New Mexico, Illinois, Texas, Ohio, Georgia, Virginia, Maryland

Time period: 2007-01-01--2009-12-31

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

The study integrated neighborhood-level data on robbery and burglary gathered from local police agencies across the United States, foreclosure data from RealtyTrac (a real estate information company), and a wide variety of social, economic, and demographic control variables from multiple sources. Using census tracts to approximate neighborhoods, the study regressed 2009 neighborhood robbery and burglary rates on foreclosure rates measured for 2007-2008 (a period during which foreclosure spiked dramatically in the nation), while accounting for 2007 robbery and burglary rates and other control variables that captured differences in social, economic, and demographic context across American neighborhoods and cities for this period. The analysis was based on more than 7,200 census tracts in over 60 large cities spread across 29 states. Core research questions were addressed with a series of multivariate multilevel and single-level regression models that accounted for the skewed nature of neighborhood crime patterns and the well-documented spatial dependence of crime.

The study contains one data file with 8,198 cases and 99 variables.

Curated

Restricted

Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement, 1997-2010 -- Concatenated Data [United States] (ICPSR 27541)

Released/updated on: 2013-02-28

Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Indiana, Wyoming, Utah, Arizona, Montana, Kentucky, California, Kansas, Florida, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Mississippi, Iowa, Illinois, Texas, Connecticut, Georgia, Virginia, Maryland, Idaho, Oregon, Vermont, United States, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Maine, Alabama, Arkansas, Washington, South Carolina, Nebraska, West Virginia, Massachusetts, Colorado, Missouri, Alaska, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Nevada, District of Columbia, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Hawaii, Minnesota, New York (state), New Jersey, Michigan, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Louisiana, Ohio

Time period: 1997-01-01--1997-12-31, 1999-01-01--1999-12-31, 2001-01-01--2001-12-31, 2003-01-01--2003-12-31, 2006-01-01--2006-12-31, 2007-01-01--2007-12-31, 2010-01-01--2010-12-31

The Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement (CJRP) was administered for the first time in 1997 by the United States Bureau of the Census, for the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP). CJRP replaced the Census of Public and Private Juvenile Detention, Correctional, and Shelter Facilities, also known as the Children in Custody (CIC) census, which had been conducted since the early 1970s. The CJRP differs fundamentally from CIC in that the CIC collected aggregate data on juveniles held in each facility (e.g., number of juveniles in the facility) and the CJRP collects an individual record on each juvenile held in the residential facility to provide a detailed picture of juveniles in custody. The CJRP, which is conducted biennially, asked juvenile residential custody facilities in the United States to describe each youth assigned a bed in the facility on a specified reference date. For 1997, the reference date was the fifth Wednesday in October. For 1999-2003 and 2007, the reference date was the fourth Wednesday in October. For 2006 and 2010, the reference date was the fourth Wednesday in February. Characteristics of the facility, treatment services, and facility population were also collected. Each record in the data that provides information about a juvenile also includes the characteristics of the facility in which the juvenile was held. Therefore, the CJRP data can be analyzed at the juvenile or facility level. Some state and regional agencies provide CJRP data for more than one facility under their jurisdiction. The census was not sent to adult facilities or to facilities exclusively for drug or mental health treatment or for abused or neglected children. The concatenated data include the seven years of CJRP data in one file. Data were harmonized so that variables present across years are identically named to facilitate analysis.

Curated

Restricted

Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement, 1997 [United States] (ICPSR 4673)

Released/updated on: 2016-08-10

Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Indiana, Wyoming, Utah, Arizona, Montana, Kentucky, California, Kansas, Florida, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Mississippi, Iowa, Illinois, Texas, Connecticut, Georgia, Virginia, Maryland, Idaho, Oregon, Vermont, United States, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Maine, Alabama, Arkansas, Washington, South Carolina, Nebraska, West Virginia, Massachusetts, Colorado, Missouri, Alaska, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Nevada, District of Columbia, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Hawaii, Minnesota, New York (state), New Jersey, Michigan, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Louisiana, Ohio

Time period: 1997-10-29--1997-10-29

The Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement (CJRP) was administered for the first time in 1997 by the United States Bureau of the Census, for the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP). CJRP replaced the Census of Public and Private Juvenile Detention, Correctional, and Shelter Facilities, also known as the Children in Custody (CIC) census, which had been conducted since the early 1970s. The CJRP differs fundamentally from CIC in that the CIC collected aggregate data on juveniles held in each facility (e.g., number of juveniles in the facility) and the CJRP, which is conducted biennially, collects an individual record on each juvenile held in the residential facility to provide a detailed picture of juveniles in custody. The CJRP asked juvenile residential custody facilities in the United States to describe each youth assigned a bed in the facility on a specified reference date. In 1997, the reference date was the fifth Wednesday in October. Characteristics of the facility, treatment services, and facility population were also collected. Each record in the data that provides information about a juvenile also includes the characteristics of the facility in which the juvenile was held. Therefore, the CJRP data can be analyzed at the juvenile or facility level. Some state and regional agencies provide CJRP data for more than one facility under their jurisdiction. The census was not sent to adult facilities or to facilities exclusively for drug or mental health treatment or for abused or neglected children.

Curated

Restricted

Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement, 1999 [United States] (ICPSR 4674)

Released/updated on: 2016-08-10

Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Indiana, Wyoming, Utah, Arizona, Montana, Kentucky, California, Kansas, Florida, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Mississippi, Iowa, Illinois, Texas, Connecticut, Georgia, Virginia, Maryland, Idaho, Oregon, Vermont, United States, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Maine, Alabama, Arkansas, Washington, South Carolina, Nebraska, West Virginia, Massachusetts, Colorado, Missouri, Alaska, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Nevada, District of Columbia, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Hawaii, Minnesota, New York (state), New Jersey, Michigan, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Louisiana, Ohio

Time period: 1999-10-27--1999-10-27

The Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement (CJRP) was administered for the first time in 1997 by the United States Bureau of the Census, for the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP). CJRP replaced the Census of Public and Private Juvenile Detention, Correctional, and Shelter Facilities, also known as the Children in Custody (CIC) census, which had been conducted since the early 1970s. The CJRP differs fundamentally from CIC in that the CIC collected aggregate data on juveniles held in each facility (e.g., number of juveniles in the facility) and the CJRP, which is conducted biennially, collects an individual record on each juvenile held in the residential facility to provide a detailed picture of juveniles in custody. The CJRP asked juvenile residential custody facilities in the United States to describe each youth assigned a bed in the facility on a specified reference date. In 1999, the reference date was the fourth Wednesday in October. Characteristics of the facility, treatment services, and facility population were also collected. Each record in the data that provides information about a juvenile also includes the characteristics of the facility in which the juvenile was held. Therefore, the CJRP data can be analyzed at the juvenile or facility level. Some state and regional agencies provide CJRP data for more than one facility under their jurisdiction. The census was not sent to adult facilities or to facilities exclusively for drug or mental health treatment or for abused or neglected children.

Curated

Restricted

Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement, 2001 [United States] (ICPSR 4670)

Released/updated on: 2016-08-10

Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Indiana, Wyoming, Utah, Arizona, Montana, Kentucky, California, Kansas, Florida, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Mississippi, Iowa, Illinois, Texas, Connecticut, Georgia, Virginia, Maryland, Idaho, Oregon, Vermont, United States, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Maine, Alabama, Arkansas, Washington, South Carolina, Nebraska, West Virginia, Massachusetts, Colorado, Missouri, Alaska, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Nevada, District of Columbia, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Hawaii, Minnesota, New York (state), New Jersey, Michigan, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Louisiana, Ohio

Time period: 2001-10-24--2001-10-24, 2001-10-12--2002-06-26

The Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement (CJRP) was administered for the first time in 1997 by the United States Bureau of the Census, for the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP). CJRP replaced the Census of Public and Private Juvenile Detention, Correctional, and Shelter Facilities, also known as the Children in Custody (CIC) census, which had been conducted since the early 1970s. The CJRP differs fundamentally from CIC in that the CIC collected aggregate data on juveniles held in each facility (e.g., number of juveniles in the facility) and the CJRP, which is conducted biennially, collects an individual record on each juvenile held in the residential facility to provide a detailed picture of juveniles in custody. The CJRP asked juvenile residential custody facilities in the United States to describe each youth assigned a bed in the facility on a specified reference date. In 2001, the reference date was the fourth Wednesday in October. Characteristics of the facility, treatment services, and facility population were also collected. Each record in the data that provides information about a juvenile also includes the characteristics of the facility in which the juvenile was held. Therefore, the CJRP data can be analyzed at the juvenile or facility level. Some state and regional agencies provide CJRP data for more than one facility under their jurisdiction. The census was not sent to adult facilities or to facilities exclusively for drug or mental health treatment or for abused or neglected children.

Curated

Restricted

Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement, 2003 [United States] (ICPSR 23480)

Released/updated on: 2016-08-10

Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Indiana, Wyoming, Utah, Arizona, Montana, Kentucky, California, Kansas, Florida, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Mississippi, Iowa, Illinois, Texas, Connecticut, Georgia, Virginia, Maryland, Idaho, Oregon, Vermont, United States, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Maine, Alabama, Arkansas, Washington, South Carolina, Nebraska, West Virginia, Massachusetts, Colorado, Missouri, Alaska, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Nevada, District of Columbia, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Hawaii, Minnesota, New York (state), New Jersey, Michigan, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Louisiana, Ohio

Time period: 2003-10-22--2003-10-22, 2003-10-24--2004-04-21

The Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement (CJRP) was administered for the first time in 1997 by the United States Bureau of the Census, for the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP). CJRP replaced the Census of Public and Private Juvenile Detention, Correctional, and Shelter Facilities, also known as the Children in Custody (CIC) census, which had been conducted since the early 1970s. The CJRP differs fundamentally from CIC in that the CIC collected aggregate data on juveniles held in each facility (e.g., number of juveniles in the facility) and the CJRP, which is conducted biennially, collects an individual record on each juvenile held in the residential facility to provide a detailed picture of juveniles in custody. The CJRP asked juvenile residential custody facilities in the United States to describe each youth assigned a bed in the facility on a specified reference date. In 2003, the reference date was the fourth Wednesday in October. Characteristics of the facility, treatment services, and facility population were also collected. Each record in the data that provides information about a juvenile also includes the characteristics of the facility in which the juvenile was held. Therefore, the CJRP data can be analyzed at the juvenile or facility level. Some state and regional agencies provide CJRP data for more than one facility under their jurisdiction. The census was not sent to adult facilities or to facilities exclusively for drug or mental health treatment or for abused or neglected children.

Curated

Restricted

Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement, 2006 [United States] (ICPSR 24300)

Released/updated on: 2016-08-10

Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Indiana, Wyoming, Utah, Arizona, Montana, Kentucky, California, Kansas, Florida, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Mississippi, Iowa, Illinois, Texas, Connecticut, Georgia, Virginia, Maryland, Idaho, Oregon, Vermont, United States, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Maine, Alabama, Arkansas, Washington, South Carolina, Nebraska, West Virginia, Massachusetts, Colorado, Missouri, Alaska, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Nevada, District of Columbia, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Hawaii, Minnesota, New York (state), New Jersey, Michigan, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Louisiana, Ohio

Time period: 2006-02-22--2006-02-22, 2006-02-23--2006-12-12

The Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement (CJRP) was administered for the first time in 1997 by the United States Bureau of the Census, for the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP). CJRP replaced the Census of Public and Private Juvenile Detention, Correctional, and Shelter Facilities, also known as the Children in Custody (CIC) census, which had been conducted since the early 1970s. The CJRP differs fundamentally from CIC in that the CIC collected aggregate data on juveniles held in each facility (e.g., number of juveniles in the facility) and the CJRP, which is conducted biennially, collects an individual record on each juvenile held in the residential facility to provide a detailed picture of juveniles in custody. The CJRP asked juvenile residential custody facilities in the United States to describe each youth assigned a bed in the facility on a specified reference date. In 2006, the reference date was the fourth Wednesday in February. Characteristics of the facility, treatment services, and facility population were also collected. Each record in the data that provides information about a juvenile also includes the characteristics of the facility in which the juvenile was held. Therefore, the CJRP data can be analyzed at the juvenile or facility level. Some state and regional agencies provide CJRP data for more than one facility under their jurisdiction. The census was not sent to adult facilities or to facilities exclusively for drug or mental health treatment or for abused or neglected children.

Curated

Restricted

Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement, 2007 [United States] (ICPSR 34401)

Released/updated on: 2016-08-10

Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Indiana, Wyoming, Utah, Arizona, Montana, Kentucky, California, Kansas, Florida, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Mississippi, Iowa, Illinois, Texas, Connecticut, Georgia, Virginia, Maryland, Idaho, Oregon, Vermont, United States, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Maine, Alabama, Arkansas, Washington, South Carolina, Nebraska, West Virginia, Massachusetts, Colorado, Missouri, Alaska, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Nevada, District of Columbia, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Hawaii, Minnesota, New York (state), New Jersey, Michigan, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Louisiana, Ohio

Time period: 2007-10-24--2007-10-24, 2007-10-22--2008-06-30

The Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement (CJRP) was administered for the first time in 1997 by the United States Bureau of the Census, for the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP). CJRP replaced the Census of Public and Private Juvenile Detention, Correctional, and Shelter Facilities, also known as the Children in Custody (CIC) census, which had been conducted since the early 1970s. The CJRP differs fundamentally from CIC in that the CIC collected aggregate data on juveniles held in each facility (e.g., number of juveniles in the facility) and the CJRP, which is conducted biennially, collects an individual record on each juvenile held in the residential facility to provide a detailed picture of juveniles in custody. The CJRP asked juvenile residential custody facilities in the United States to describe each youth assigned a bed in the facility on a specified reference date. In 2007, the reference date was the fourth Wednesday in October. Characteristics of the facility, treatment services, and facility population were also collected. Each record in the data that provides information about a juvenile also includes the characteristics of the facility in which the juvenile was held. Therefore, the CJRP data can be analyzed at the juvenile or facility level. Some state and regional agencies provide CJRP data for more than one facility under their jurisdiction. The census was not sent to adult facilities or to facilities exclusively for drug or mental health treatment or for abused or neglected children.

Curated

Restricted

Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement, 2010 [United States] (ICPSR 34448)

Released/updated on: 2016-08-10

Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Indiana, Wyoming, Northern Mariana Islands, Utah, Virgin Islands of the United States, Arizona, Montana, Kentucky, California, Kansas, Florida, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Mississippi, Iowa, Illinois, Texas, Connecticut, Georgia, Virginia, Maryland, Idaho, Oregon, Vermont, Puerto Rico, United States, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Maine, Alabama, Arkansas, Washington, South Carolina, Nebraska, West Virginia, Massachusetts, Colorado, Missouri, Alaska, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Nevada, District of Columbia, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Hawaii, Minnesota, New York (state), New Jersey, Michigan, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Louisiana, Ohio

Time period: 2010-02-24--2010-02-24, 2010-02-26--2010-09-09

The Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement (CJRP) was administered for the first time in 1997 by the United States Bureau of the Census, for the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP). CJRP replaced the Census of Public and Private Juvenile Detention, Correctional, and Shelter Facilities, also known as the Children in Custody (CIC) census, which had been conducted since the early 1970s. The CJRP differs fundamentally from CIC in that the CIC collected aggregate data on juveniles held in each facility (e.g., number of juveniles in the facility) and the CJRP, which is conducted biennially, collects an individual record on each juvenile held in the residential facility to provide a detailed picture of juveniles in custody. The CJRP asked juvenile residential custody facilities in the United States to describe each youth assigned a bed in the facility on a specified reference date. In 2010, the reference date was the fourth Wednesday in February. Characteristics of the facility, treatment services, and facility population were also collected. Each record in the data that provides information about a juvenile also includes the characteristics of the facility in which the juvenile was held. Therefore, the CJRP data can be analyzed at the juvenile or facility level. Some state and regional agencies provide CJRP data for more than one facility under their jurisdiction. The census was not sent to adult facilities or to facilities exclusively for drug or mental health treatment or for abused or neglected children.

Curated

Restricted

Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement, 2011 [United States] (ICPSR 36436)

Released/updated on: 2016-09-12

Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Indiana, Wyoming, Northern Mariana Islands, Utah, Virgin Islands of the United States, Arizona, Montana, Kentucky, California, Kansas, Florida, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Mississippi, Iowa, Illinois, Texas, Connecticut, Georgia, Virginia, Maryland, Idaho, Oregon, Vermont, Puerto Rico, United States, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Maine, Alabama, Arkansas, Washington, South Carolina, Nebraska, West Virginia, Massachusetts, Colorado, Missouri, Alaska, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Nevada, District of Columbia, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Hawaii, Minnesota, New York (state), New Jersey, Michigan, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Louisiana, Ohio

Time period: 2011-10-26--2011-10-26, 2011-10-28--2012-05-28

The Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement (CJRP), conducted every other year, asks juvenile residential custody facilities in the United States to describe all youth assigned a bed in the facility on a specified reference date. In 2011, the reference date was Wednesday, October 26 (the last Wednesday in October).

Each record in the data provides information on a juvenile in a residential facility on the reference date, including information on placement (e.g. placing agency), the judicial process (e.g. court adjudication status), and demographics (e.g. age). Each record that provides information about a juvenile also includes information about institutional characteristics (e.g. facility type, use of locked doors or gates), treatment services, and population of the facility in which the juvenile was held. Therefore, CJRP data can be analyzed at the individual or facility level.

Some state and regional agencies provide CJRP data for more than one facility under their jurisdiction. The census was not sent to adult facilities or to facilities exclusively for drug or mental health treatment or for abused or neglected children.

Curated

Restricted

Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement, 2013 [United States] (ICPSR 36463)

Released/updated on: 2016-08-04

Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Indiana, Wyoming, Northern Mariana Islands, Utah, Virgin Islands of the United States, Arizona, Montana, Kentucky, California, Kansas, Florida, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Mississippi, Iowa, Illinois, Texas, Connecticut, Georgia, Virginia, Maryland, Idaho, Oregon, Vermont, Puerto Rico, United States, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Maine, Alabama, Arkansas, Washington, South Carolina, Nebraska, West Virginia, Massachusetts, Colorado, Missouri, Alaska, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Nevada, District of Columbia, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Hawaii, Minnesota, New York (state), New Jersey, Michigan, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Louisiana, Ohio

Time period: 2013-10-23--2013-10-23, 2013-11-01--2014-07-26

The Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement (CJRP), conducted every other year, asks juvenile residential custody facilities in the United States to describe all youth assigned a bed in the facility on a specified reference date. In 2013, the reference date was Wednesday, October 23 (the fourth Wednesday in October).

Each record in the data provides information on a juvenile in a residential facility on the reference date, including information on placement (e.g. placing agency), the judicial process (e.g. court adjudication status), and demographics (e.g. age). Each record that provides information about a juvenile also includes information about institutional characteristics (e.g. facility type, use of locked doors or gates), treatment services, and population of the facility in which the juvenile was held. Therefore, CJRP data can be analyzed at the individual or facility level.

The census was not sent to adult facilities or to facilities exclusively for drug or mental health treatment or for abused or neglected children. Some state and regional agencies provide CJRP data for more than one facility under their jurisdiction.

Curated

Restricted

Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement, 2015 [United States] (ICPSR 36871)

Released/updated on: 2018-01-25

Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Indiana, Wyoming, Northern Mariana Islands, Utah, Virgin Islands of the United States, Arizona, Montana, Kentucky, California, Kansas, Florida, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Mississippi, Iowa, Illinois, Texas, Connecticut, Georgia, Virginia, Maryland, Idaho, Oregon, Vermont, Puerto Rico, United States, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Maine, Alabama, Arkansas, Washington, South Carolina, Nebraska, West Virginia, Massachusetts, Colorado, Missouri, Alaska, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Nevada, District of Columbia, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Hawaii, Minnesota, New York (state), New Jersey, Michigan, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Louisiana, Ohio

Time period: 2015-10-28--2015-10-28, 2015-10-29--2016-05-19

The Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement (CJRP), conducted every other year, asks juvenile residential custody facilities in the United States to describe all youth assigned a bed in the facility on a specified reference date. In 2015, the reference date was Wednesday, October 28 (the fourth Wednesday in October).

Each record in the data provides information on a juvenile in a residential facility on the reference date, including information on placement (e.g. placing agency), the judicial process (e.g. court adjudication status), and demographics (e.g. age). Each record that provides information about a juvenile also includes information about institutional characteristics (e.g. facility type, use of locked doors or gates), treatment services, and population of the facility in which the juvenile was held. Therefore, CJRP data can be analyzed at the individual or facility level.

The census was not sent to adult facilities or to facilities exclusively for drug or mental health treatment or for abused or neglected children. Some state and regional agencies provide CJRP data for more than one facility under their jurisdiction.

Curated

Restricted

Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement, 2017 [United States] (ICPSR 37952)

Released/updated on: 2021-07-29

Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Indiana, Wyoming, Northern Mariana Islands, Utah, Virgin Islands of the United States, Arizona, Montana, Kentucky, California, Kansas, Florida, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Mississippi, Iowa, Illinois, Texas, Connecticut, Georgia, Virginia, Maryland, Idaho, Oregon, Vermont, Puerto Rico, United States, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Maine, Alabama, Arkansas, Washington, South Carolina, Nebraska, West Virginia, Massachusetts, Colorado, Missouri, Alaska, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Nevada, District of Columbia, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Hawaii, Minnesota, New York (state), New Jersey, Michigan, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Louisiana, Ohio

Time period: 2017-10-25--2017-10-25, 2017-01-01--2018-12-31

The Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement (CJRP), conducted every other year, asks juvenile residential custody facilities in the United States to describe all youth assigned a bed in the facility on a specified reference date. In 2017, the reference date was Wednesday, October 25 (the fourth Wednesday in October).

Each record in the data provides information on a juvenile in a residential facility on the reference date, including information on placement (e.g. placing agency), the judicial process (e.g. court adjudication status), and demographics (e.g. age). Each record that provides information about a juvenile also includes information about institutional characteristics (e.g. facility type, use of locked doors or gates), treatment services, and population of the facility in which the juvenile was held. Therefore, CJRP data can be analyzed at the individual or facility level.

The census was not sent to adult facilities or to facilities exclusively for drug or mental health treatment or for abused or neglected children. Some state and regional agencies provide CJRP data for more than one facility under their jurisdiction.

Curated

Restricted

Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement, 2019 [United States] (ICPSR 38915)

Released/updated on: 2024-06-04

Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Indiana, Wyoming, Northern Mariana Islands, Utah, Guam, Virgin Islands of the United States, Arizona, Montana, Kentucky, California, Kansas, Florida, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Mississippi, Iowa, Illinois, Texas, Connecticut, Georgia, Virginia, Maryland, Idaho, Oregon, Vermont, Puerto Rico, United States, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Maine, American Samoa, Alabama, Arkansas, South Carolina, Nebraska, West Virginia, Massachusetts, Colorado, Missouri, Alaska, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Nevada, District of Columbia, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Hawaii, Minnesota, New York (state), New Jersey, Michigan, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Louisiana, Ohio

Time period: 2019-10-23--2019-10-23

The Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement (CJRP), conducted every other year, asks juvenile residential custody facilities in the United States to describe all youth assigned to a bed in the facility on a specified reference date. In 2019, the reference date was Wednesday, October 23 (the fourth Wednesday in October).

Each record in the data provides information on a juvenile in a residential facility on the reference date, including information on placement (e.g., placing agency), the judicial process (e.g., court adjudication status), and demographics (e.g., age). Each record that provides information about a juvenile also includes information about institutional characteristics (e.g., facility type, use of locked doors or gates), treatment services, and population of the facility in which the juvenile was held. Therefore, CJRP data can be analyzed at the individual or facility level.

The census was not sent to adult facilities or to facilities exclusively for drug or mental health treatment or for abused or neglected children. Some state and regional agencies provide CJRP data for more than one facility under their jurisdiction.

Curated

Restricted

Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement, 2021 [United States] (ICPSR 38916)

Released/updated on: 2024-06-04

Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Indiana, Wyoming, Northern Mariana Islands, Utah, Virgin Islands of the United States, Arizona, Montana, Kentucky, California, Kansas, Florida, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Mississippi, Iowa, Illinois, Texas, Connecticut, Georgia, Virginia, Maryland, Idaho, Oregon, Vermont, Puerto Rico, United States, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Maine, Alabama, Arkansas, Washington, South Carolina, Nebraska, West Virginia, Massachusetts, Colorado, Missouri, Alaska, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Nevada, District of Columbia, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Hawaii, Minnesota, New York (state), New Jersey, Michigan, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Louisiana, Ohio

Time period: 2021-10-27--2021-10-27

The Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement (CJRP), conducted every other year, asks juvenile residential custody facilities in the United States to describe all youth assigned a bed in the facility on a specified reference date. In 2021, the reference date was Wednesday, October 27 (the fourth Wednesday in October).

Each record in the data provides information on a juvenile in a residential facility on the reference date, including information on placement (e.g. placing agency), the judicial process (e.g. court adjudication status), and demographics (e.g. age). Each record that provides information about a juvenile also includes information about institutional characteristics (e.g. facility type, use of locked doors or gates), treatment services, and population of the facility in which the juvenile was held. Therefore, CJRP data can be analyzed at the individual or facility level.

The census was not sent to adult facilities or to facilities exclusively for drug or mental health treatment or for abused or neglected children. Some state and regional agencies provide CJRP data for more than one facility under their jurisdiction.

Curated

Restricted

Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement and Juvenile Residential Facility Census, 1997-2010 -- Concatenated Matched Data [United States] (ICPSR 27543)

Released/updated on: 2013-03-08

Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Indiana, Wyoming, Utah, Arizona, Montana, Kentucky, California, Kansas, Florida, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Mississippi, Iowa, Illinois, Texas, Connecticut, Georgia, Virginia, Maryland, Idaho, Oregon, Vermont, United States, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Maine, Alabama, Arkansas, Washington, South Carolina, Nebraska, West Virginia, Massachusetts, Colorado, Missouri, Alaska, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Nevada, District of Columbia, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Hawaii, Minnesota, New York (state), New Jersey, Michigan, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Louisiana, Ohio

Time period: 1997-01-01--1997-12-31, 1999-01-01--1999-12-31, 2000-01-01--2000-12-31, 2001-01-01--2001-12-31, 2002-01-01--2002-12-31, 2003-01-01--2003-12-31, 2004-01-01--2004-12-31, 2006-01-01--2006-12-31, 2007-01-01--2007-12-31, 2008-01-01--2008-12-31, 2010-01-01--2010-12-31

This collection includes data from the CENSUS OF JUVENILES IN RESIDENTIAL PLACEMENT (CJRP), 1997-2010 -- CONCATENATED DATA [UNITED STATES] (ICPSR 27541) and the JUVENILE RESIDENTIAL FACILITY CENSUS (JRFC), 2000-2010 -- CONCATENATED DATA [UNITED STATES] (ICPSR 27542) that were matched on the facility identifier to create one data file. The CJRP asked juvenile residential custody facilities in the United States to describe each youth assigned a bed in the facility on a specified reference date. For 1997, the reference date was the fifth Wednesday in October. For 1999-2003 and 2007, the reference date was the fourth Wednesday in October. For 2006 and 2010, the reference date was the fourth Wednesday in February. Characteristics of the facility, treatment services, and facility population were also collected in the CJRP. The JRFC collected information on facility characteristics, including size, structure, security arrangements, ownership, and use of bed space in the facility. The JRFC used four modules to collect information on the physical health services, educational services, substance abuse treatment, and mental health treatment provided to youth in these facilities. These four modules were not always collected each year. The JRFC also identified the type of facility, which was complemented with a series of questions about other residential services provided by the facility, such as independent living, foster care, or other arrangements. The JRFC has been administered biennially since 2000, in even-numbered years. The JRFC census reference date is the fourth Wednesday in October. Each record in the concatenated matched data file provides information about the juvenile and also includes the characteristics of the facility in which the juvenile was held from both the CJRP and JRFC collections. Therefore, these data can be analyzed at the juvenile or facility level. Only facilities that held at least one juvenile for an offense on the CJRP census reference date are included in this file, i.e., all facilities in the biennial JRFC data may not be included in this concatenated matched file. Data were harmonized so that variables present across years are identically named to facilitate analysis.

Curated

Restricted

Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement and Juvenile Residential Facility Census, 1997-2010 -- Concatenated Matched Facility-Level Data [United States] (ICPSR 27544)

Released/updated on: 2013-03-08

Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Indiana, Wyoming, Utah, Arizona, Montana, Kentucky, California, Kansas, Florida, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Mississippi, Iowa, Illinois, Texas, Connecticut, Georgia, Virginia, Maryland, Idaho, Oregon, Vermont, United States, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Maine, Alabama, Arkansas, Washington, South Carolina, Nebraska, West Virginia, Massachusetts, Colorado, Missouri, Alaska, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Nevada, District of Columbia, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Hawaii, Minnesota, New York (state), New Jersey, Michigan, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Louisiana, Ohio

Time period: 1997-01-01--1997-12-31, 1999-01-01--1999-12-31, 2000-01-01--2000-12-31, 2001-01-01--2001-12-31, 2002-01-01--2002-12-31, 2003-01-01--2003-12-31, 2004-01-01--2004-12-31, 2006-01-01--2006-12-31, 2007-01-01--2007-12-31, 2008-01-01--2008-12-31, 2010-01-01--2010-12-31

This collection includes data from the CENSUS OF JUVENILES IN RESIDENTIAL PLACEMENT (CJRP) AND JUVENILE RESIDENTIAL FACILITY CENSUS (JRFC), 1997-2010 -- CONCATENATED MATCHED DATA [UNITED STATES] (ICPSR 27543) that were aggregated to the facility level. The CJRP asked juvenile residential custody facilities in the United States to describe each youth assigned a bed in the facility on a specified reference date. For 1997, the reference date was the fifth Wednesday in October. For 1999-2003 and 2007, the reference date was the fourth Wednesday in October. For 2006 and 2010, the reference date was the fourth Wednesday in February. Characteristics of the facility, treatment services, and facility population were also collected in the CJRP. The JRFC collected information on facility characteristics, including size, structure, security arrangements, ownership, and use of bed space in the facility. The JRFC used four modules to collect information on the physical health services, educational services, substance abuse treatment, and mental health treatment provided to youth in these facilities. These four modules were not always collected each year. The JRFC also identified the type of facility, which was complemented with a series of questions about other residential services provided by the facility, such as independent living, foster care, or other arrangements. The JRFC has been administered biennially since 2000, in even-numbered years. The JRFC census reference date is the fourth Wednesday in October. Records in the concatenated matched data file (ICPSR 27543) were aggregated to the facility level. Therefore, the CJRP/JRFC concatenated matched facility-level data provide information about the characteristics of the facility from both the CJRP and JRFC collections and the juvenile population held in that facility from the CJRP collection. Only facilities that held at least one juvenile for an offense on the CJRP census reference date are included in this file, i.e., all facilities in the biennial JRFC data may not be included in this concatenated matched facility-level file. Data were harmonized so that variables present across years are identically named to facilitate analysis.

Curated

Restricted

Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement and Juvenile Residential Facility Census, 1997-2010 -- Concatenated Matched State-Level Data [United States] (ICPSR 27545)

Released/updated on: 2013-03-08

Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Indiana, Wyoming, Utah, Arizona, Montana, Kentucky, California, Kansas, Florida, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Mississippi, Iowa, Illinois, Texas, Connecticut, Georgia, Virginia, Maryland, Idaho, Oregon, Vermont, United States, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Maine, Alabama, Arkansas, Washington, South Carolina, Nebraska, West Virginia, Massachusetts, Colorado, Missouri, Alaska, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Nevada, District of Columbia, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Hawaii, Minnesota, New York (state), New Jersey, Michigan, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Louisiana, Ohio

Time period: 1997-01-01--1997-12-31, 1999-01-01--1999-12-31, 2000-01-01--2000-12-31, 2001-01-01--2001-12-31, 2002-01-01--2002-12-31, 2003-01-01--2003-12-31, 2004-01-01--2004-12-31, 2006-01-01--2006-12-31, 2007-01-01--2007-12-31, 2008-01-01--2008-12-31, 2010-01-01--2010-12-31

This collection includes data from the CENSUS OF JUVENILES IN RESIDENTIAL PLACEMENT (CJRP) AND JUVENILE RESIDENTIAL FACILITY CENSUS (JRFC), 1997-2010 -- CONCATENATED MATCHED DATA [UNITED STATES] (ICPSR 27543) that were aggregated to the state level. The CJRP asked juvenile residential custody facilities in the United States to describe each youth assigned a bed in the facility on a specified reference date. For 1997, the reference date was the fifth Wednesday in October. For 1999-2003 and 2007, the reference date was the fourth Wednesday in October. For 2006 and 2010, the reference date was the fourth Wednesday in February. Characteristics of the facility, treatment services, and facility population were also collected in the CJRP. The JRFC collected information on facility characteristics, including size, structure, security arrangements, ownership, and use of bed space in the facility. The JRFC used four modules to collect information on the physical health services, educational services, substance abuse treatment, and mental health treatment provided to youth in these facilities. These four modules were not always collected each year. The JRFC also identified the type of facility, which was complemented with a series of questions about other residential services provided by the facility, such as independent living, foster care, or other arrangements. The JRFC has been administered biennially since 2000, in even-numbered years. The JRFC census reference date is the fourth Wednesday in October. Records in the concatenated matched data file (ICPSR 27543) were aggregated to the state level. Therefore, the CJRP/JRFC concatenated matched state-level data provide information about the characteristics of juvenile residential facilities in the state from both the CJRP and JRFC collections and the juvenile population held in these facilities from the CJRP collection. Only facilities that held at least one juvenile for an offense on the CJRP census reference date were included in the concatenated matched file, i.e., all facilities in the biennial JRFC data may not have been included in the file used for the aggregation. Variables providing United States Census population data and upper age of juvenile court jurisdiction were also added. Data were harmonized so that variables present across years are identically named to facilitate analysis.

Curated

Restricted

Census of Juveniles on Probation, United States, 2012 (ICPSR 37438)

Released/updated on: 2020-01-30

Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Indiana, Wyoming, Utah, Arizona, Montana, Kentucky, California, Kansas, Florida, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Mississippi, Iowa, Illinois, Texas, Connecticut, Georgia, Virginia, Maryland, Idaho, Oregon, Vermont, United States, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Maine, Alabama, Arkansas, Washington, South Carolina, Nebraska, West Virginia, Massachusetts, Colorado, Missouri, Alaska, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Nevada, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Hawaii, Minnesota, New York (state), New Jersey, Michigan, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Louisiana, Ohio

Time period: 2012-01-01--2012-12-31

The purpose of the Census of Juveniles on Probation (CJP) was to collect individual-level data about youth on probation, including their numbers and characteristics. The CJP survey asked respondents to report the total number of juveniles on formal probation within their reporting jurisdiction on the reference date of October 24, 2012.

For each youth on probation, responding agencies were asked to provide the following information: sex, date of birth, race, most serious offense, state and county where most serious offense was committed, and the state and county where the juvenile resided on the census reference date.

This data collection contains the national data.

Curated

Restricted

Collecting DNA from Juveniles in 30 U.S. States, 2009-2010 (ICPSR 31281)

Released/updated on: 2014-12-19

Geographic coverage: Oregon, United States, Tennessee, Maine, Alabama, Arkansas, Utah, Washington, South Carolina, Massachusetts, Colorado, Alaska, Wisconsin, Arizona, Montana, Kentucky, South Dakota, Minnesota, California, Kansas, Florida, New Jersey, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Iowa, Illinois, Texas, New Hampshire, Louisiana, Ohio, Virginia

Time period: 2007-01-01--2010-12-31

This study examined the laws, policies, and practices related to juvenile DNA collection, as well as their implications for the juvenile and criminal justice systems. DNA evidence proved valuable in solving crimes, which motivated a concerted effort to expand the categories of offenders who provided DNA samples for analysis and inclusion in the Combined DNA Index System (CODIS), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)-operated national database.

State requirements for DNA collection, which initially focused on adult offenders convicted of sexual or violent offenses, expanded to include other categories of convicted felons, convicted misdemeanants, arrestees, and juveniles. In 30 states, certain categories of juveniles handled in the juvenile justice system must now provide DNA samples. The study was designed to explore the practice and implications of collecting DNA from juveniles and addressed the following questions:

How have state agencies, juvenile justice agencies and state laboratories implemented juvenile DNA collection laws?
What were the number and characteristics of juveniles with profiles included in CODIS?
How have juvenile profiles in CODIS contributed to public safety or other justice outcomes?
What improvements to policies and practices needed to be made?

To examine these questions, researchers at the Urban Institute: (1) systematically reviewed all state DNA statutes; (2) conducted semi-structured interviews with CODIS lab representatives in states that collect DNA from juveniles to understand how the laws were implemented; (3) collected and analyzed descriptive data provided by these labs on the volume and characteristics of juvenile profiles in CODIS; (4) conducted semi-structured interviews with juvenile and criminal justice stakeholders in five case study states; and (5) convened a meeting of federal officials and experts from the forensic and juvenile justice committees to explore the broader impacts of juvenile DNA collection.

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--1975-12-31

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--1977-12-31

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

Community Policing in Madison, Wisconsin: Evaluation of Implementation and Impact, 1987-1990 (ICPSR 6480)

Released/updated on: 2005-11-04

Geographic coverage: Madison, United States, Wisconsin

Time period: 1987-01-01--1990-12-31

This study sought to evaluate the Madison, Wisconsin, Police Department's creation of a new organizational design (both structural and managerial) that was intended to support community-oriented and problem-oriented policing. One-sixth of the organization serving approximately one-sixth of the community was used as a test site for the new community policing approach. This Experimental Police District (EPD) was charged with implementing "quality policing," which emphasized quality of service delivery, quality of life in the community, and quality of life in the workplace. For the first part of the program evaluation, attitude changes among officers working in the EPD were compared with those of officers working in the rest of the police department. Part 1, Commissioned Personnel Data, Wave 1, contains responses from 269 commissioned personnel surveyed in December 1987, before the creation of the EPD. Part 2, Commissioned Personnel Data, Wave 2, consists of responses from 264 police officers who completed a Wave 2 survey in December 1988, and Part 3, Commissioned Personnel Data, Wave 3, supplies responses from 230 police officers who completed a Wave 3 survey in December 1989. Although the analysis was to be based on a panel design, efforts were made to survey all commissioned personnel during each survey administration period. Police personnel provided their assessments on how successfully quality leadership had been implemented, the extent to which they worked closely with and received feedback from other officers, the amount of their interaction with detectives, the amount of time available for problem-solving, ease of arranging schedules, safety of working conditions, satisfaction with working conditions, type of work they performed, their supervisor, commitment to the department, attitudes related to community policing and problem-solving, perception of their relationship with the community, views of human nature, attitudes toward change, attitudes toward decentralization, and demographic information. As the second part of the program evaluation, attitude changes among residents served by the EPD were compared with those of residents in the rest of the city. These data are presented in Part 4, Residents Data, Waves 1 and 2. Data for Wave 1 consist of personal interviews with a random sample of 1,166 Madison residents in February and March 1988, prior to the opening of the EPD station. During the second wave, Wave 1 respondents were interviewed by telephone in February and March 1990. Residents provided their perceptions of police presence, frequency and quality of police-citizen contacts, estimates of the magnitude of various problems in their neighborhoods, evaluation of the problem-solving efforts of the police, perception of neighborhood conditions, levels of fear of crime, personal experience of victimization, knowledge of victimization of other residents, and demographic information.

Curated

Consequences of a Criminal Record for Employment Opportunity in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, 2002 (ICPSR 3599)

Released/updated on: 2005-11-04

Geographic coverage: Milwaukee, United States, Wisconsin

This study examined employers' policies and practices for hiring entry-level workers in the Milwaukee metropolitan area. The study consisted of telephone interviews conducted in the spring of 2002 with 177 employers who had advertised entry-level openings in the prior six months. The survey included questions about the company, such as size, industry, employee turnover, and racial composition, questions about hiring procedures, questions about the last worker hired for a position not requiring a college degree, and questions about the employer's attitude toward various kinds of marginalized workers. An emphasis in the survey was placed on assessing employers' attitudes about and experience with applicants with criminal histories.

Curated

Partially restricted

Crime During the Transition to Adulthood: How Youth Fare As They Leave Out-of-Home Care in Illinois, Iowa, and Wisconsin, 2002-2007 (ICPSR 27062)

Released/updated on: 2010-12-14

Geographic coverage: Iowa, United States, Illinois, Wisconsin

Time period: 2002-05-01--2007-08-31

The purpose of the study was to examine criminal behavior and criminal justice system involvement among youth making the transition from out-of-home care to independent adulthood. The study collected data from two sources: (1) survey data from the Midwest Study of the Adult Functioning of Former Foster Youth (Midwest Study), and (2) official arrest data. The Midwest Study was a longitudinal panel study that was part of a collaborative effort of the state public child welfare agencies in Illinois, Iowa, and Wisconsin, Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago, and the University of Washington. The participating states funded and/or operated the full range of services supported by the Chafee Foster Care Independence Program. The Midwest Study survey data were collected directly from the youth in the sample every two years over three waves, between May 2002 and January 2007. A total of 732 respondents participated in at least one of the in-person interviews over the three waves. This data collection includes some variables that were directly measured from the original Midwest Study survey instrument and other variables that were computed or derived from variables in the original data for purposes of the current study. To supplement the survey data, the research team accessed official arrest data from each state for this study. Researchers obtained data on all criminal arrests that occurred between the respondents' Wave 1 interview and August 31, 2007, a date by which all of the study participants were at least 21 years old. The study contains a total of 85 variables including indicator variables, demographic and background variables, delinquency and crime variables, out-of-home care experiences variables, and social bonds variables.

Curated

Crime Incident Data for Selected HOPE VI Sites in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, 2002-2010, and Washington, DC, 2000-2009 (ICPSR 29981)

Released/updated on: 2011-07-06

Geographic coverage: Milwaukee, District of Columbia, United States, Wisconsin

Time period: 2002-01-01--2010-02-28, 2000-01-01--2009-09-30

The purpose of this project was to conduct an evaluation of the impact on crime of the closing, renovation, and subsequent reopening of selected public housing developments under the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) Housing Opportunities for People Everywhere (HOPE VI) initiative. The study examined crime displacement and potential diffusion of benefits in and around five public housing developments that, since 2000, had been redeveloped using funds from HUD's HOPE VI initiative and other sources. In Milwaukee, Wisconsin, three sites were selected for inclusion in the study. However, due to substantial overlap between the various target sites and displacement zones, the research team ultimately decided to aggregate the three sites into a single target area. A comparison area was then chosen based on recommendations from the Housing Authority of the City of Milwaukee (HACM). In Washington, DC, two HOPE VI sites were selected for inclusion in the study. Based on recommendations from the District of Columbia Housing Authority (DCHA), the research team selected a comparison site for each of the two target areas. Displacement areas were then drawn as concentric rings ("buffers") around the target areas in both Milwaukee, Wisconsin and Washington, DC. Address-level incident data were collected for the city of Milwaukee from the Milwaukee Police Department for the period January 2002 through February 2010. Incident data included all "Group A" offenses as classified under National Incident Based Reporting System (NIBRS). The research team classified the offenses into personal and property offenses. The offenses were aggregated into monthly counts, yielding 98 months of data (Part 1: Milwaukee, Wisconsin Data). Address-level data were also collected for Washington, DC from the Metropolitan Police Department for the time period January 2000 through September 2009. Incident data included all Part I offenses as classified under the Uniform Crime Report (UCR) system. The data were classified by researchers into personal and property offenses and aggregated by month, yielding 117 months of data (Part 2: Washington, DC Data). Part 1 contains 15 variables, while Part 2 contains a total of 27 variables. Both datasets include variables on the number of personal offenses reported per month, the number of property offenses reported per month, and the total number of incidents reported per month for each target site, buffer zone area (1000 feet or 2000 feet), and comparison site. Month and year indicators are also included in each dataset.

Curated

Criminal Victimization and Perceptions of Community Safety in 12 United States Cities, 1998 (ICPSR 2743)

Released/updated on: 2006-01-18

Geographic coverage: Madison, District of Columbia, Savannah, United States, Chicago, Tennessee, Tucson, Kansas City (Missouri), California, New York (state), Spokane, Washington, New York City, Knoxville, San Diego, Illinois, Massachusetts, Missouri, Los Angeles, Georgia, Springfield (Massachusetts), Wisconsin, Arizona

Time period: 1998-01-01--1998-12-31

This collection presents survey data from 12 cities in the United States regarding criminal victimization, perceptions of community safety, and satisfaction with local police. Participating cities included Chicago, IL, Kansas City, MO, Knoxville, TN, Los Angeles, CA, Madison, WI, New York, NY, San Diego, CA, Savannah, GA, Spokane, WA, Springfield, MA, Tucson, AZ, and Washington, DC. The survey used the current National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) questionnaire with a series of supplemental questions measuring the attitudes in each city. Respondents were asked about incidents that occurred within the past 12 months. Information on the following crimes was collected: violent crimes of rape, robbery, aggravated assault, and simple assault, personal crimes of theft, and household crimes of burglary, larceny, and motor vehicle theft. Part 1, Household-Level Data, covers the number of household respondents, their ages, type of housing, size of residence, number of telephone lines and numbers, and language spoken in the household. Part 2, Person-Level Data, includes information on respondents' sex, relationship to householder, age, marital status, education, race, time spent in the housing unit, personal crime and victimization experiences, perceptions of neighborhood crime, job and professional demographics, and experience and satisfaction with local police. Variables in Part 3, Incident-Level Data, concern the details of crimes in which the respondents were involved, and the police response to the crimes.

Curated

Effect of Procedural Justice in Spouse Assault in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, 1987-1989 (ICPSR 20343)

Released/updated on: 2008-04-17

Geographic coverage: Milwaukee, United States, Wisconsin

Time period: 1987-01-01--1989-12-31

The purpose of the research project was to examine the extent to which the perception of procedural fairness by suspects arrested for spouse assault effectively inhibited their subsequent violence. The data for this study were collected for the MILWAUKEE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE EXPERIMENT, 1987-1989 (ICPSR 9966), which was conducted from April 1987 to August 1988. In this experiment, all cases of misdemeanor domestic battery where probable cause to arrest existed were randomly assigned to one of three conditions: (1) warning with no arrest, (2) arrest with a brief detention period (average of 3 hours), and (3) arrest with a longer detention period (average of 11 hours). Variables include demographic and background information, as well as descriptive variables pertaining to the domestic violence incident.

Curated

Restricted

Evaluating Gunshot Detection Technology (GDT) to Aid in the Reduction of Firearms Violence, United States, 2006-2016 (ICPSR 37448)

Released/updated on: 2023-05-30

Geographic coverage: Milwaukee, United States, Colorado, Denver, California, Wisconsin

Time period: 2008-01-01--2016-04-30, 2008-01-01--2016-12-31, 2006-01-01--2015-12-31, 2015-01-08--2016-05-28, 2011-02-25--2016-05-31, 2009-06-01--2015-10-31, 2015-01-08--2016-06-15, 2011-02-25--2016-12-31, 2009-06-01--2015-10-31

In 2015, the National Institute of Justice funded the Urban Institute's Evaluation of Gunshot Detection Technology to Aid in the Reduction of Firearms Violence. This project was designed to investigate the degree to which gunshot detection technology (GDT) aids in the response, investigation, and prevention of firearms violence and related crimes. The goal of this study was to conduct a rigorous process and impact evaluation of GDT to inform policing researchers and practitioners about the impact GDT may have. To achieve this goal, the research team implemented a mixed-methods research design with police departments in Denver, Colorado; Milwaukee, Wisconsin; and Richmond, California.

Quantitative data collection included administrative data on calls for service (CFS), crime, and GDT alerts, as well as comprehensive case file reviews of 174 crimes involving a firearm. Quantitative analyses examined the impact of GDT by (1) comparing counts of gunshot notifications for GDT alerts to shooting-related CFS, (2) comparing response times of GDT alerts to shooting-related CFS, (3) examining the impact GDT has had on CFS and crimes, and (4) conducting a cost-benefit analysis of the GDT. Qualitative data collection included 46 interviews with criminal justice stakeholders to learn implementation processes and challenges associated with its GDT, and 6 focus groups with 49 community members to learn how residents feel about policing efforts to reduce firearm violence and its use of GDT.

Three types of files were uploaded for each site. They include quantitative data on crimes and CFS (DS1-DS3), gunshot notifications (DS4-DS6), and response times (DS7-DS9). The qualitative data are not currently available as part of this collection.

Curated

Restricted

Evaluation of a Demonstration for Enhanced Judicial Oversight of Domestic Violence Cases in Milwaukee, Wisconsin; Washtenaw County, Michigan; and Dorchester, Massachusetts; 1997-2004 (ICPSR 25924)

Released/updated on: 2011-04-29

Geographic coverage: Milwaukee, United States, Lowell, Massachusetts, Dorchester, Wisconsin, Michigan

Time period: 1997-01-01--2004-12-31

The Judicial Oversight Demonstration (JOD) was designed to test the feasibility and impact of a coordinated response to intimate partner violence (IPV) that involved the courts and justice agencies in a central role. The primary goals were to protect victim safety, hold offenders accountable, and reduce repeat offending. The two primary evaluation objectives were: (1) to test the impact of JOD interventions on victim safety, offender accountability, and recidivism, and (2) to learn from the experiences of well-qualified sites who were given resources and challenged to build a collaboration between the courts and community agencies to respond to intimate partner violence. Dorchester, Massachusetts, and Washtenaw County, Michigan, participated in a quasi-experimental evaluation of the impact of the program. IPV cases reaching disposition during the JOD were compared to similar cases reaching disposition in Lowell, Massachusetts, and Ingham County, Michigan. All IPV cases reaching disposition from approximately January 2003 to November 2004 (see Study Time Periods and Time Frames) were reviewed and included in the sample if appropriate. To be eligible for the sample, cases had to involve: (1) criminal IPV charges; (2) victims and offenders age 18 or older; and (3) victims and offenders who lived in the target jurisdiction at the time of case disposition. Cases that reached disposition more than a year after the incident were excluded to limit loss of data due to poor recall of the facts of the incident and police response. The evaluation design of JOD in Milwaukee differed from that of the other two sites. The evaluation in Milwaukee was based on a quasi-experimental comparison of offenders convicted of IPV and ordered to probation during JOD (January 1, 2001, to May 21, 2002) and before JOD (October 8, 1997, to December 21, 1999). This design was selected when early plans for an experimental design had to be abandoned and no comparable contemporaneous comparison group could be identified. Data for this evaluation were collected from court and prosecutors' records of case and defendant characteristics, probation files on offender supervision practices, and official records of rearrest, but do not include interviews with victims or offenders. This data collection has 20 data files containing 3,578 cases and 4,092 variables. The data files contain information related to each site's Batterer Intervention Programs (Parts 1, 8, and 15), court data (Parts 2, 12, 13, 14, 16, and 18), law enforcement (Parts 3, 11, and 17), and victim data (Parts 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, and 19). The Dorchester, Massachusetts, and Washtenaw County, Michigan, Impact Evaluation Data (Part 7) include baseline and follow-up information for the offender and the victim. The data file also contains Probation Supervision Performance Reports, Victim Services Logs, and Case Incident Fact Sheet information. The Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Impact Evaluation Data (Part 20) include information related to the offender and the victim such as age, race, and sex, as well as arrest records including charges filed.

Curated

Evaluation of Intensive Probation in Milwaukee, 1980-1981 (ICPSR 8276)

Released/updated on: 2006-01-18

Geographic coverage: Milwaukee, United States, Wisconsin

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the results and impact of a two-year experiment in innovative probation practices in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. After being classified according to the Wisconsin risk and needs assessment scale, individuals who had been sentenced to probation between January 2, 1980 and June 30, 1981 and had reported to the probation department for intake were randomly assigned to one of eight experimental and control groups. The experiment was limited to adult residents of Milwaukee County who were not already on probation, were not judged to be severe psychotic or severe sex-deviant cases, and were not assigned to jail work-release sentences of more than ten days followed by probation (Huber cases). There are three files in this data collection: the Reassessment file, the Admissions/Terminations file, and the Chronological file. Each case in the Reassessment and Admissions/Terminations files represents data on an individual probationer. There are 84 variables for 1343 cases in the Reassessment file and 218 variables for 1922 cases in the Admissions/Terminations file, both files have logical record lengths of 100 characters. Of the 1922 cases for which admissions data were collected (about 133 variables), 397 cases also have termination data available (an additional 85 variables). Cases in the Chronological file are records of probation agent contacts with probationers over the course of the study. There are 17 variables for 47,169 cases (contacts) in this file which includes information on 1781 probationers. As many as 270 contacts with a single probationer are recorded. This file has a logical record length of 80.

Curated

Restricted

Harnessing Existing Technologies to Mitigate Driving Distraction Among Law Enforcement Officers, Iowa, Tennessee, Wisconsin, Wyoming, 2019 (ICPSR 38994)

Released/updated on: 2026-06-29

Geographic coverage: Iowa, United States, Wyoming, Tennessee, Wisconsin

Time period: 2019-01-01--2019-12-31

Nearly half of the law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty in the United States were due to automobile crashes. Driver distraction has been identified as a common causal factor leading to the crash, with the primary source of distractions being the mobile computer. While there is plenty of literature on officer safety, what is lacking is an understanding of the needs of the officers to interact with the control or communication equipment while driving and how that interaction impacts distraction and, consequently, officer safety. To examine these issues, the research team conducted focus group discussions with law enforcement officers from local, county, and state agencies in four states. The two primary topics of discussion were:

Officer requirements to operate different pieces of equipment while driving, and
Different software and systems being used in patrol cars.

Curated

Impact Assessment of Sex Offender Notification on Wisconsin Communities, 1998 (ICPSR 3015)

Released/updated on: 2006-03-30

Geographic coverage: United States, Wisconsin

Time period: 1998-01-01--1998-12-31

In response to widespread public concern about convicted sex offenders being returned from prison, federal and state laws have been passed authorizing or requiring the notification of local communities where sex offenders would be living. The dilemma associated with community notification is balancing the public's right to be informed with the need to successfully reintegrate offenders within the community. Wisconsin was one of the 50 state jurisdictions that enacted a sex offender community notification statute. This project was an in-depth study of that state's experience from the vantage point of several groups affected by the community notification process. This data collection contains three surveys that were conducted from January 1998 through mid-September 1998: (1) a survey of 704 neighborhood residents at 22 community notification meetings throughout the state (Part 1), (2) a statewide survey of 312 police and sheriff agencies (Part 2), and (3) a statewide survey of 128 probation and parole agents and their supervisors from units with sex offender caseloads (Part 3). Variables in Part 1 include how respondents found out about the date and place of the community notification meeting, respondents' opinions of the purpose of the meeting, how clearly the purpose of meeting was stated, how the meeting went, outcomes, rating of information presented, if materials were handed out, if the materials were helpful, and respondents' level of concern after the meeting. Enforcement agency data (Part 2) include variables such as type of agency, type of jurisdiction, population size, if the agency designated a special staff member to coordinate the sex offender registration and notification functions, if the agency had policies regarding registration of sex offenders and community notification about sex offenders, if the agency attended statewide training, who participated in the Core Notification Team, what kind of information was used to determine a sex offender's risk to the community, which agencies registered to receive notice, and if the agency planned to update or expand their notification list. Additional variables cover the number of requests for information from Neighborhood Watch Programs, what identifying information about the offender the agency released, types of communication the agency received from the public after a notification had been issued, topics discussed in the public communication to the agency, benefits of the community notification law, difficulties in carrying out the requirements of the law, and methods developed to handle the problems. Probation and parole survey (Part 3) variables focused on characteristics of the respondent's supervising area, the number of agents assigned to the respondents' unit, the number of agents designated as Sex Offender Intensive Supervision Program (SO-ISP) agents or SO-ISP back-up agents, the number of child or adult sex offenders under probation or parole, if the respondent participated in any meetings regarding the provisions of the notification law and its implementation, if the supervisor received specialized training, and areas covered in the training. Other variables include whether the notification level was decided by the Core Notification Team, difficulties the respondent had with Special Bulletin Notification (SBN) offenders assigned to his/her caseload, if the respondent's field unit utilized SO-ISP or "high risk" agent teams to manage sex offenders, which individuals worked with the respondent's team, the type of caseload the respondent supervised, the number of sex offenders on the respondent's caseload, if the respondent used a special risk assessment or classification instrument for sex offenders, other information used to determine the supervision level for a sex offender, if child sex offenders were managed differently than other sex offenders, how often a polygraph was used on sex offenders, who paid for the polygraph, who chose the treatment provider, the number of supervision contacts with high-risk, SBN, or medium-risk sex offenders per week, victim policies and procedures used, rules or policies regarding revocation, and prerevocation sanctions used.

Curated

Restricted

Impact Evaluation of Stop Violence Against Women Grants in Dane County, Wisconsin, Hillsborough County, New Hampshire, Jackson County, Missouri, and Stark County, Ohio, 1996-2000 (ICPSR 3252)

Released/updated on: 2006-03-30

Geographic coverage: United States, Missouri, New Hampshire, Ohio, Wisconsin

In 1996 the Institute for Law and Justice (ILJ) began an evaluation of the law enforcement and prosecution components of the "STOP Violence Against Women" grant program authorized by the Violence Against Women Act of 1994. This data collection constitutes one component of the evaluation. The researchers chose to evaluate two specialized units and two multi-agency team projects in order to study the local impact of STOP on victim safety and offender accountability. The two specialized units reflected typical STOP funding, with money being used for the addition of one or two dedicated professionals in each community. The Dane County, Wisconsin, Sheriff's Office used STOP funds to support the salaries of two domestic violence detectives. This project was evaluated through surveys of domestic violence victims served by the Dane County Sheriff's Office (Part 1). In Stark County, Ohio, the Office of the Prosecutor used STOP funds to support the salary of a designated felony domestic violence prosecutor. The Stark County project was evaluated by tracking domestic violence cases filed with the prosecutor's office. The case tracking system included only cases involving intimate partner violence, with a male offender and female victim. All domestic violence felons from 1996 were tracked from arrest to disposition and sentence (Part 2). This pre-grant group of felons was compared with a sample of cases from 1999 (Part 3). In Hillsborough County, New Hampshire, a comprehensive evaluation strategy was used to assess the impact of the use of STOP funds on domestic violence cases. First, a sample of 1996 pre-grant and 1999 post-grant domestic violence cases was tracked from arrest to disposition for both regular domestic violence cases (Part 4) and also for dual arrest cases (Part 5). Second, a content analysis of police incident reports from pre- and post-grant periods was carried out to gauge any changes in report writing (Part 6). Finally, interviews were conducted with victims to document their experiences with the criminal justice system, and to better understand the factors that contribute to victim safety and well-being (Part 7). In Jackson County, Missouri, evaluation methods included reviews of prosecutor case files and tracking all sex crimes referred to the Jackson County Prosecutor's Office over both pre-grant and post-grant periods (Part 8). The evaluation also included personal interviews with female victims (Part 9). Variables in Part 1 (Dane County Victim Survey Data) describe the relationship of the victim and offender, injuries sustained, who called the police and when, how the police responded to the victim and the situation, how the detective contacted the victim, and services provided by the detective. Part 2 (1996 Stark County Case Tracking Data), Part 3 (1999 Stark County Case Tracking Data), Part 4 (Hillsborough County Regular Case Tracking Data), Part 5 (Hillsborough County Dual Arrest Case Tracking Data), and Part 8 (Jackson County Case Tracking Data) include variables on substance abuse by victim and offender, use of weapons, law enforcement response, primary arrest offense, whether children were present, injuries sustained, indictment charge, pre-sentence investigation, victim impact statement, arrest and trial dates, disposition, sentence, and court costs. Demographic variables include the age, sex, and ethnicity of the victim and the offender. Variables in Part 6 (Hillsborough County Police Report Data) provide information on whether there was an existing protective order, whether the victim was interviewed separately, severity of injuries, seizure of weapons, witnesses present, involvement of children, and demeanor of suspect and victim. In Part 7 (Hillsborough County Victim Interview Data) variables focus on whether victims had prior experience with the court, type of physical abuse experienced, injuries from abuse, support from relatives, friends, neighbors, doctor, religious community, or police, assistance from police, satisfaction with police response, expectations about case outcome, why the victim dropped the charges, contact with the prosecutor, criminal justice advocate, and judge, and the outcome of the case. Demographic variables include age, race, number of children, and occupation. Variables in Part 9 (Jackson County Victim Interview Data) relate to when victims were sexually assaulted, if they knew the perpetrator, who was contacted to help, victims' opinions about police and detectives who responded to the case, contact with the prosecutor and victim's advocate, and aspects of the medical examination. Demographic variables include age, race, and marital status.

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--1996-12-31, 1976-01-01--1997-12-31

This study examined the impacts of jurisdictions' domestic violence policies on violent behavior of family members and intimate partners, on the likelihood that the police discovered an incident, and on the likelihood that the police made an arrest. The research combined two datasets. Part 1 contains information on police, prosecution policies, and local victim services. Informants within the local agencies of the 50 largest cities in the United States were contacted and asked to complete a survey inventorying policies and activities by type and year of implementation. Data from completed surveys covered 48 cities from 1976 to 1996. Part 2 contains data on domestic violence laws. Data on state statutes from 1976 to 1997 that related to protection orders were collected by a legal expert for all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

Curated

Restricted

The Impact of Mindfulness-Based Resilience Training on Stress-Related Biological, Behavioral, and Health-Related Outcomes in Law Enforcement Officers, Wisconsin, 2018-2019 (ICPSR 38293)

Released/updated on: 2024-04-25

Geographic coverage: United States, Dane County, Wisconsin

Time period: 2018-03-01--2019-12-31

This mixed-methods randomized controlled trial study, conducted in collaboration with three Dane County (Wisconsin) law enforcement agencies, compared the effects of an 8-week mindfulness training (MT) program relative to a waitlist control (WLC) group on biological, behavioral, and self-report measures of stress and stress-related health outcomes. Across a two-year data collection period, the research team randomly assigned 114 sworn law enforcement officers to MT or WLC groups. Across three timepoints (baseline, post-program, and 3-month follow-up), researchers assessed the impact of MT on perceived stress (Aim 1), physical and mental health outcomes including behaviorally assessed and self-reported sleep quality, cardiovascular risk factors, and symptoms of PTSD, anxiety, and depression (Aim 2), and stress-related biological and behavioral markers (Aim 3), including cortisol output and a behavioral assay of hippocampus function. Data collected as part of this study include quantitative measures obtained during laboratory visits and a week of field data collection, as well as optional semi-structured qualitative interview data.

This collection currently contains the following file types available in zipped package format. Excluding changes made for confidentiality purposes, files have been released as they were received by ICPSR:

Summary data: Master data file (nij_masterfile.csv) containing demographics, summed scores from self-report questionnaires, behavioral markers, biomarkers, and mindfulness practice logs; Fitbit activity, heart rate, and sleep data (nij_fitbitSummary.csv); saliva sample collection data (nij_salivaCollectionNotes.csv, nij_salivaQCSpreadsheet.xlsx, nij_salivaryCortCleaned.csv, nij_salivaryCortProcessed.csv, nij_salivaryCortRaw.csv); work event log data (nij_workEventsRaw.xlsx)
Raw behavioral data files: for all timepoints, affective go/no-go task data (agnRaw) and mnemonic similarity task data (mstRaw)
Summary behavioral data files (agnSummary): for all timepoints, affective go/no-go task data
Raw Fitbit data files (fitbitRaw): activity/steps, heart rate, and sleep data for all timepoints
Scripts: R, Python, and bash scripts, with readme files, that were used in biomarker and behavioral marker data cleaning/analysis

Qualitative interview data and documentation are not available at this time.

Curated

Restricted

Integrating Data to Reduce Violence, Milwaukee, WI, 2015-2016 (ICPSR 36591)

Released/updated on: 2018-03-16

Geographic coverage: Milwaukee, United States, Wisconsin

Time period: 2015-01-01--2016-07-31

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

The study investigated the feasibility of implementing the Cardiff Model. The Cardiff Model is a unique violence surveillance system and intervention that involves data sharing and violence prevention planning between law enforcement and the medical field. Anonymized data on assaults from emergency and police departments (EDs; PDs) are combined to detail assault incidents and "hotspots." Data are discussed by a multidisciplinary consortium, which develops and implements a data-informed violence prevention action plan that includes behavioral, environmental, and policy changes to impact violence. Model actions led to decreases in injurious assaults and this model is now statutory in the United Kingdom.

The Cardiff Model has never been translated to the U.S. and would require an investigation within our health care system and in different geographical and population contexts. This study investigated the feasibility of essential Cardiff Model Components in order to refine study procedures and situate this community to request further funds for full model implementation.

As part of this study, researchers collected a number of feasibility measures from ED and study staff to evaluate the feasibility of translating included model components. Geospatial and statistical analyses investigated the added benefit of the combined ED, PD and Emergency Medical Services (EMS) data.

The study contains 1 SPSS data files (CHW Data_1.1.15 to 7.31.16.sav (n=748; 14 variables)), 1 STATA data file (nurse survey data.dta (n=43; 26 variables)), a text document (Nurse Survey_Qualitative data.txt), and 1 excel file (CHW Incidents_Block level data only.xlsx).

Curated

Juvenile Delinquency and Adult Crime, 1948-1977 [Racine, Wisconsin]: City Ecological Data (ICPSR 8164)

Released/updated on: 2006-01-12

Geographic coverage: United States, Wisconsin, Racine

Time period: 1948-01-01--1977-12-31

These data, intended for use in conjunction with JUVENILE DELINQUENCY AND ADULT CRIME, 1948-1977 [RACINE, WISCONSIN]: THREE BIRTH COHORTS (ICPSR 8163), are organized into two different types: Block data and Home data. Part 1, Block Data, contains the characteristics of each block in Racine for the years 1950, 1960, and 1970 as selected from the United States Census of Housing for each of these years. The data are presented for whole blocks for each year and for blocks agglomerated into equal spaces so that comparison may be made between the 1950, 1960, and 1970 data. In addition, land use and target density (gas stations, grocery and liquor stores, restaurants, and taverns) measures are included. The data were obtained from land use maps and city directories. These block data have been aggregated into census tracts, police grid areas, natural areas, and neighborhoods for the purpose of describing the spatial units of each in comparable fashion for 1950, 1960, and 1970. The information contained within the Block Data file is intended to be used to merge ecological data with any of the files described in the ICPSR 8163 codebook. The Home datasets (Parts 2-6) contain selected variables from the Block Data file merged with the Cohort Police Contact data or the Cohort Interview data from ICPSR 8163. The Home datasets represent the merged files used by the principal investigators for their analysis and are included here only as examples of how the files from ICPSR 8163 may be merged with the Block data.

Curated

Juvenile Delinquency and Adult Crime, 1948-1977 [Racine, Wisconsin]: Three Birth Cohorts (ICPSR 8163)

Released/updated on: 2005-11-04

Geographic coverage: United States, Wisconsin, Racine

Time period: 1948-01-01--1977-12-31

This data collection contains information on juvenile delinquency and adult crime for three birth cohorts born in 1942, 1949, and 1955 in Racine, Wisconsin. These individual-level data are organized into three basic types: police contact data for the three cohorts, interview and contact data for the 1942 and 1949 cohorts, and contact data classified by age for all three cohorts. The police contact data include information on the type and frequency of police contacts by individual as well as the location, date, and number of the first contact. The interview datasets contain information on police contacts and a number of variables measured during personal interviews with the 1942 and 1949 cohorts. The interview variables include retrospective measures of the respondents' attitudes toward the police and a variety of other variables such as socioeconomic status and age at marriage. The age-by-age datasets provide juvenile court and police contact data classified by age.

Curated

Restricted

Juvenile Residential Facility Census, 2000-2010 -- Concatenated Data [United States] (ICPSR 27542)

Released/updated on: 2013-03-08

Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Indiana, Wyoming, Utah, Arizona, Montana, Kentucky, California, Kansas, Florida, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Mississippi, Iowa, Illinois, Texas, Connecticut, Georgia, Virginia, Maryland, Idaho, Oregon, Vermont, United States, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Maine, Alabama, Arkansas, Washington, South Carolina, Nebraska, West Virginia, Massachusetts, Colorado, Missouri, Alaska, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Nevada, District of Columbia, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Hawaii, Minnesota, New York (state), New Jersey, Michigan, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Louisiana, Ohio

Time period: 2000-01-01--2000-12-31, 2002-01-01--2002-12-31, 2004-01-01--2004-12-31, 2006-01-01--2006-12-31, 2008-01-01--2008-12-31, 2010-01-01--2010-12-31

The Juvenile Residential Facility Census (JRFC) collected basic information on facility characteristics, including size, structure, security arrangements, and ownership. It also collected information on the use of bedspace in the facility to indicate whether the facility was experiencing crowding. The JRFC included questions about the type of facility, such as detention center, training school, ranch, or group home. This information was complemented by a series of questions about other residential services provided by the facility, such as independent living, foster care, or other arrangements. JRFC used four modules to collect information on the physical health services, educational services, substance abuse treatment, and mental health treatment provided to youth in these facilities. These four modules were not always collected each year. While not evaluating the effectiveness or quality of these services, the JRFC gathered important information about the youth the services were directed toward and how the services were provided. The census indicated the use of screenings or tests conducted to determine counseling, education, health, or substance abuse needs, and also examined prominent issues about conditions of confinement, including the restraint of youth and improper absences from the facility. The JRFC has been administered biennially since 2000, in even-numbered years. The census reference date is the fourth Wednesday in October.

Curated

Restricted

Juvenile Residential Facility Census, 2000-2010 -- Concatenated State-Level Data [United States] (ICPSR 27546)

Released/updated on: 2013-03-08

Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Indiana, Wyoming, Utah, Arizona, Montana, Kentucky, California, Kansas, Florida, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Mississippi, Iowa, Illinois, Texas, Connecticut, Georgia, Virginia, Maryland, Idaho, Oregon, Vermont, United States, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Maine, Alabama, Arkansas, Washington, South Carolina, Nebraska, West Virginia, Massachusetts, Colorado, Missouri, Alaska, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Nevada, District of Columbia, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Hawaii, Minnesota, New York (state), New Jersey, Michigan, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Louisiana, Ohio

Time period: 2000-01-01--2000-12-31, 2002-01-01--2002-12-31, 2004-01-01--2004-12-31, 2006-01-01--2006-12-31, 2008-01-01--2008-12-31, 2010-01-01--2010-12-31

This collection includes data from the JUVENILE RESIDENTIAL FACILITY CENSUS (JRFC), 2000-2010 -- CONCATENATED DATA [UNITED STATES] (ICPSR 27542) that were aggregated to the state level. The JRFC collected basic information on facility characteristics, including size, structure, security arrangements, and ownership. It also collected information on the use of bed space in the facility to indicate whether the facility is experiencing crowding. The JRFC included questions about the type of facility, such as detention center, training school, ranch, or group home. This information was complemented by a series of questions about other residential services provided by the facility, such as independent living, foster care, or other arrangements. JRFC used four modules to collect information on the physical health services, educational services, substance abuse treatment, and mental health treatment provided to youth in these facilities. These four modules were not always collected each year. While not evaluating the effectiveness or quality of these services, the JRFC gathered important information about the youth the services were directed toward and how the services were provided. The census indicated the use of screenings or tests conducted to determine counseling, education, health, or substance abuse needs, and also examined prominent issues about conditions of confinement, including the restraint of youth and improper absences from the facility. The JRFC has been administered biennially since 2000, in even-numbered years. The census reference date is the fourth Wednesday in October. Records in the JRFC concatenated data file (ICPSR 27542) were aggregated to the state level and variables providing United States Census population data and upper age of juvenile court jurisdiction were added. Data were harmonized so that variables present across years are identically named to facilitate analysis.

Curated

Restricted

Juvenile Residential Facility Census, 2000 [United States] (ICPSR 4672)

Released/updated on: 2016-08-10

Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Indiana, Wyoming, Utah, Arizona, Montana, Kentucky, California, Kansas, Florida, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Mississippi, Iowa, Illinois, Texas, Connecticut, Georgia, Virginia, Maryland, Idaho, Oregon, Vermont, United States, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Maine, Alabama, Arkansas, Washington, South Carolina, Nebraska, West Virginia, Massachusetts, Colorado, Missouri, Alaska, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Nevada, District of Columbia, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Hawaii, Minnesota, New York (state), New Jersey, Michigan, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Louisiana, Ohio

Time period: 2000-10-25--2000-10-25

The Juvenile Residential Facility Census (JRFC) collected basic information on facility characteristics, including size, structure, security arrangements, and ownership. It also collected information on the use of bedspace in the facility to indicate whether the facility was experiencing crowding. The JRFC included questions about the type of facility, such as detention center, training school, ranch, or group home. This information was complemented by a series of questions about other residential services provided by the facility, such as independent living, foster care, or other arrangements. In 2000, the JRFC used four modules to collect information on the physical health services, educational services, substance abuse treatment, and mental health treatment provided to youth in these facilities. While not evaluating the effectiveness or quality of these services, the JRFC gathered important information about the youth the services were directed toward and how the services were provided. The census indicated the use of screenings or tests conducted to determine counseling, education, health, or substance abuse needs, and also examined prominent issues about conditions of confinement, including the restraint of youth and improper absences from the facility. Congress requires the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) to report annually on the number of deaths of juveniles in custody; JRFC collected information on such deaths for the one-year period just prior to the census reference date. The census reference date was the fourth Wednesday in October.

Curated

Restricted

Juvenile Residential Facility Census, 2002 [United States] (ICPSR 23520)

Released/updated on: 2016-08-10

Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Indiana, Wyoming, Utah, Arizona, Montana, Kentucky, California, Kansas, Florida, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Mississippi, Iowa, Illinois, Texas, Connecticut, Georgia, Virginia, Maryland, Idaho, Oregon, Vermont, United States, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Maine, Alabama, Arkansas, Washington, South Carolina, Nebraska, West Virginia, Massachusetts, Colorado, Missouri, Alaska, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Nevada, District of Columbia, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Hawaii, Minnesota, New York (state), New Jersey, Michigan, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Louisiana, Ohio

Time period: 2002-10-23--2002-10-23, 2002-10-31--2003-04-15

The Juvenile Residential Facility Census (JRFC) collected basic information on facility characteristics, including size, structure, security arrangements, and ownership. It also collected information on the use of bedspace in the facility to indicate whether the facility was experiencing crowding. The JRFC included questions about the type of facility, such as detention center, training school, ranch, or group home. This information was complemented by a series of questions about other residential services provided by the facility, such as independent living, foster care, or other arrangements. In 2002, the JRFC used two modules to collect information on the substance abuse treatment and mental health treatment provided to youth in these facilities. While not evaluating the effectiveness or quality of these services, the JRFC gathered important information about the youth the services were directed toward and how the services were provided. The census indicated the use of screenings or tests conducted to determine counseling, education, health, or substance abuse needs, and also examined prominent issues about conditions of confinement, including the restraint of youth and improper absences from the facility. Congress requires the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) to report annually on the number of deaths of juveniles in custody; JRFC collected information on such deaths for the one-year period just prior to the census reference date. The census reference date was the fourth Wednesday in October.

Curated

Restricted

Juvenile Residential Facility Census, 2004 [United States] (ICPSR 25282)

Released/updated on: 2016-08-10

Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Indiana, Wyoming, Utah, Arizona, Montana, Kentucky, California, Kansas, Florida, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Mississippi, Iowa, Illinois, Texas, Connecticut, Georgia, Virginia, Maryland, Idaho, Oregon, Vermont, United States, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Maine, Alabama, Arkansas, Washington, South Carolina, Nebraska, West Virginia, Massachusetts, Colorado, Missouri, Alaska, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Nevada, District of Columbia, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Hawaii, Minnesota, New York (state), New Jersey, Michigan, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Louisiana, Ohio

Time period: 2004-10-27--2004-10-27, 2005-02-06--2005-06-29

The Juvenile Residential Facility Census (JRFC) collected basic information on facility characteristics, including size, structure, security arrangements, and ownership. It also collected information on the use of bedspace in the facility to indicate whether the facility was experiencing crowding. The JRFC included questions about the type of facility, such as detention center, training school, ranch, or group home. This information was complemented by a series of questions about other residential services provided by the facility, such as independent living, foster care, or other arrangements. In 2004, the JRFC used two modules to collect information on the physical health and educational services provided to youth in these facilities. While not evaluating the effectiveness or quality of these services, the JRFC gathered important information about the youth the services were directed toward and how the services were provided. The census indicated the use of screenings or tests conducted to determine counseling, education, health, or substance abuse needs, and also examined prominent issues about conditions of confinement, including the restraint of youth and improper absences from the facility. Congress requires the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) to report annually on the number of deaths of juveniles in custody; JRFC collected information on such deaths for the one-year period just prior to the census reference date. The census reference date was the fourth Wednesday in October.

Curated

Restricted

Juvenile Residential Facility Census, 2006 [United States] (ICPSR 25981)

Released/updated on: 2016-08-11

Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Indiana, Wyoming, Utah, Arizona, Montana, Kentucky, California, Kansas, Florida, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Mississippi, Iowa, Illinois, Texas, Connecticut, Georgia, Virginia, Maryland, Idaho, Oregon, Vermont, United States, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Maine, Alabama, Arkansas, Washington, South Carolina, Nebraska, West Virginia, Massachusetts, Colorado, Missouri, Alaska, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Nevada, District of Columbia, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Hawaii, Minnesota, New York (state), New Jersey, Michigan, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Louisiana, Ohio

Time period: 2006-10-25--2006-10-25, 2007-03-02--2007-11-30

The Juvenile Residential Facility Census (JRFC) collected basic information on facility characteristics, including size, structure, security arrangements, and ownership. It also collected information on the use of bedspace in the facility to indicate whether the facility was experiencing crowding. The JRFC included questions about the type of facility, such as detention center, training school, ranch, or group home. This information was complemented by a series of questions about other residential services provided by the facility, such as independent living, foster care, or other arrangements. In 2006, the JRFC used four modules to collect information on the physical health services, educational services, substance abuse treatment, and mental health treatment provided to youth in these facilities. While not evaluating the effectiveness or quality of these services, the JRFC gathered important information about the youth the services were directed toward and how the services were provided. The census indicated the use of screenings or tests conducted to determine counseling, education, health, or substance abuse needs, and also examined prominent issues about conditions of confinement, including the restraint of youth and improper absences from the facility. Congress requires the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) to report annually on the number of deaths of juveniles in custody; JRFC collected information on such deaths for the one-year period just prior to the census reference date. The census reference date was the fourth Wednesday in October.

Curated

Restricted

Juvenile Residential Facility Census, 2008 [United States] (ICPSR 34402)

Released/updated on: 2016-08-11

Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Indiana, Wyoming, Utah, Arizona, Montana, Kentucky, California, Kansas, Florida, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Mississippi, Iowa, Illinois, Texas, Connecticut, Georgia, Virginia, Maryland, Idaho, Oregon, Vermont, United States, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Maine, Alabama, Arkansas, Washington, South Carolina, Nebraska, West Virginia, Massachusetts, Colorado, Missouri, Alaska, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Nevada, District of Columbia, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Hawaii, Minnesota, New York (state), New Jersey, Michigan, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Louisiana, Ohio

Time period: 2008-10-22--2008-10-22, 2008-10-26--2009-06-24

The Juvenile Residential Facility Census (JRFC) collected basic information on facility characteristics, including size, structure, security arrangements, and ownership. It also collected information on the use of bedspace in the facility to indicate whether the facility was experiencing crowding. The JRFC included questions about the type of facility, such as detention center, training school, ranch, or group home. This information was complemented by a series of questions about other residential services provided by the facility, such as independent living, foster care, or other arrangements. While not evaluating the effectiveness or quality of these services, the JRFC gathered important information about the youth the services were directed toward and how the services were provided. The census indicated the use of screenings or tests conducted to determine counseling, education, health, or substance abuse needs, and also examined prominent issues about conditions of confinement, including the restraint of youth and improper absences from the facility. Congress requires the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) to report annually on the number of deaths of juveniles in custody; JRFC collected information on such deaths for the one-year period just prior to the census reference date. The census reference date was the fourth Wednesday in October.

Curated

Restricted

Juvenile Residential Facility Census, 2010 [United States] (ICPSR 34449)

Released/updated on: 2016-08-11

Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Indiana, Wyoming, Utah, Virgin Islands of the United States, Arizona, Montana, Kentucky, California, Kansas, Florida, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Mississippi, Iowa, Illinois, Texas, Connecticut, Georgia, Virginia, Maryland, Idaho, Oregon, Vermont, Puerto Rico, United States, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Maine, Alabama, Arkansas, Washington, South Carolina, Nebraska, West Virginia, Massachusetts, Colorado, Missouri, Alaska, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Nevada, District of Columbia, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Hawaii, Minnesota, New York (state), New Jersey, Michigan, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Louisiana, Ohio

Time period: 2010-10-27--2010-10-27, 2011-01-21--2011-05-12

The Juvenile Residential Facility Census (JRFC) collected basic information on facility characteristics, including size, structure, security arrangements, and ownership. It also collected information on the use of bedspace in the facility to indicate whether the facility was experiencing crowding. The JRFC included questions about the type of facility, such as detention center, training school, ranch, or group home. This information was complemented by a series of questions about other residential services provided by the facility, such as independent living, foster care, or other arrangements. In 2010, the JRFC used three modules to collect information on the educational services, substance abuse treatment, and mental health treatment provided to youth in these facilities. While not evaluating the effectiveness or quality of these services, the JRFC gathered important information about the youth the services were directed toward and how the services were provided. The census indicated the use of screenings or tests conducted to determine counseling, education, health, or substance abuse needs, and also examined prominent issues about conditions of confinement, including the restraint of youth and improper absences from the facility. Congress requires the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) to report annually on the number of deaths of juveniles in custody; JRFC collected information on such deaths for the one-year period just prior to the census reference date. The census reference date was the fourth Wednesday in October.

Curated

Restricted

Juvenile Residential Facility Census, 2012 [United States] (ICPSR 36476)

Released/updated on: 2016-08-05

Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Indiana, Wyoming, Northern Mariana Islands, Utah, Virgin Islands of the United States, Arizona, Montana, Kentucky, California, Kansas, Florida, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Mississippi, Iowa, Illinois, Texas, Connecticut, Georgia, Virginia, Maryland, Idaho, Oregon, Vermont, Puerto Rico, United States, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Maine, Alabama, Arkansas, Washington, South Carolina, Nebraska, West Virginia, Massachusetts, Colorado, Missouri, Alaska, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Nevada, District of Columbia, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Hawaii, Minnesota, New York (state), New Jersey, Michigan, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Louisiana, Ohio

Time period: 2012-10-24--2012-10-24, 2013-01-09--2013-05-31

The Juvenile Residential Facility Census (JRFC), which is conducted biennially, collects basic information on juvenile residential facility characteristics, including security, capacity and crowding, injuries and deaths in custody, and facility ownership and operation. The JRFC also includes questions about facility type (such as detention center, training school, ranch, or group home) and residential services provided by the facility (such as independent living, foster care, or other arrangements).

In 2012, the JRFC was divided into four sections:

General facility information
Events in the 30 days prior to the census reference date
Deaths in the year prior to the census reference date
Space shared with other facilities

Congress requires the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) to report annually on the number of deaths of juveniles in custody; the JRFC gathers this information and offers a portrait of the nation's juvenile facilities. The census reference date was the fourth Wednesday in October.

Curated

Restricted

Juvenile Residential Facility Census, 2014 [United States] (ICPSR 36512)

Released/updated on: 2016-08-05

Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Indiana, Wyoming, Northern Mariana Islands, Utah, Virgin Islands of the United States, Arizona, Montana, Kentucky, California, Kansas, Florida, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Mississippi, Iowa, Illinois, Texas, Connecticut, Georgia, Virginia, Maryland, Idaho, Oregon, Vermont, Puerto Rico, United States, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Maine, Alabama, Arkansas, Washington, South Carolina, Nebraska, West Virginia, Massachusetts, Colorado, Missouri, Alaska, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Nevada, District of Columbia, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Hawaii, Minnesota, New York (state), New Jersey, Michigan, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Louisiana, Ohio

Time period: 2014-10-22--2014-10-22, 2014-12-22--2015-07-01

The Juvenile Residential Facility Census (JRFC), which is conducted biennially, collects basic information on juvenile residential facility characteristics, including security, capacity and crowding, injuries and deaths in custody, and facility ownership and operation. The JRFC also includes questions about facility type (such as detention center, training school, ranch, or group home) and residential services provided by the facility (such as independent living, foster care, or other arrangements), and detailed questions about mental health, substance abuse, and educational services provided to young persons.

In 2014, the JRFC was divided into seven sections:

General facility information
Mental health services
Educational services
Substance abuse services
Events in the 30 days prior to the census reference date
Deaths in the year prior to the census reference date
Space shared with other facilities

Congress requires the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) to report annually on the number of deaths of juveniles in custody; the JRFC gathers this information and offers a portrait of the nation's juvenile facilities. The census reference date was the fourth Wednesday in October.

Curated

Restricted

Juvenile Residential Facility Census, 2016 [United States] (ICPSR 37197)

Released/updated on: 2019-08-21

Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Indiana, Wyoming, Northern Mariana Islands, Utah, Virgin Islands of the United States, Arizona, Montana, Kentucky, California, Kansas, Florida, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Mississippi, Iowa, Illinois, Texas, Connecticut, Georgia, Virginia, Maryland, Idaho, Oregon, Vermont, Puerto Rico, United States, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Maine, Alabama, Arkansas, Washington, South Carolina, Nebraska, West Virginia, Massachusetts, Colorado, Missouri, Alaska, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Nevada, District of Columbia, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Hawaii, Minnesota, New York (state), New Jersey, Michigan, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Louisiana, Ohio

Time period: 2016-10-26--2016-10-26, 2017-04-16--2017-05-17

The Juvenile Residential Facility Census (JRFC), which is conducted biennially, collects basic information on juvenile residential facility characteristics, including security, capacity and crowding, injuries and deaths in custody, and facility ownership and operation. The JRFC also includes questions about facility type (such as detention center, training school, ranch, or group home) and residential services provided by the facility (such as independent living, foster care, or other arrangements), and detailed questions about mental health, substance abuse, and educational services provided to young persons.

In 2016, the JRFC was divided into seven sections:

General facility information
Mental health services
Educational services
Substance abuse services
Events in the 30 days prior to the census reference date
Deaths in the year prior to the census reference date
Space shared with other facilities

Congress requires the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) to report annually on the number of deaths of juveniles in custody; the JRFC gathers this information and offers a portrait of the nation's juvenile facilities. The census reference date was the fourth Wednesday in October.