Showing 1 – 50 of 73 results.
Curated
Alcohol Availability, Type of Alcohol Establishment, Distribution Policies, and Their Relationship to Crime and Disorder in the District of Columbia, 2000-2006 (ICPSR 25763)
Released/updated on: 2009-07-31
Geographic coverage: District of Columbia, United States
Time period: 2000-01-01--2006-12-31
The purpose of the study was to investigate the relationship between alcohol availability, type of alcohol establishment, distribution policies, and violence and disorder at the block group level in the District of Columbia. This study developed and tested a grounded comprehensive theoretical model of the relationship between alcohol availability and violence and disorder. The study also developed a geographic information system (GIS) containing neighborhood crime and demographic and physical environmental characteristics at the block group level for 431 block groups in the District of Columbia. The principal investigator calculated density measures of alcohol availability and distribution practices and aggregated characteristics of neighborhoods to examine the relationships of those measures to crime and violence. The project used data from various sources to create multiple variables measuring the physical, social, economic, and cultural characteristics of a given area in addition to the density of alcohol-selling establishments by type and incidence of criminal activity. This study examined the influence of alcohol outlets on four outcomes: (1) aggravated assault incidents, (2) calls for service for disorderly conduct, (3) calls for services for social disorder more broadly defined, and (4) calls for service for a domestic incident. The dataset for this study contains a total of 103 variables including crime variables, Census variables, alcohol outlet variables, neighborhood structural constraints variables, motivated offenders variables, and physical environment variables.
Curated
Restricted
Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Program in the United States, 1998 (ICPSR 2826)
Released/updated on: 1999-11-10
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1998-01-01--1998-12-31
The Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Program measures levels of and trends in drug use among persons arrested and booked in the United States. The ADAM Program is a redesigned version of the Drug Use Forecasting (DUF) Program (DRUG USE FORECASTING IN 24 CITIES IN THE UNITED STATES, 1987-1997 [ICPSR 9477]), upgraded methodologically and expanded to include 35 cities. The data address the following topics: (1) types of drugs used by arrestees (based on self-reports and urinalysis), (2) self-reported dependency on drugs, (3) self-reported need for alcohol/drug treatment, (4) the relationship between drug use and certain types of offenses, and (5) the relationship between self-reported indicators of drug use and indicators of drug use based on urinalysis. Participation in the project is voluntary, and all information collected from the arrestees is anonymous and confidential. The data include the arrestee's age, race, gender, educational attainment, marital status, and the charge at the time of booking. The recently modified ADAM/DUF interview instrument (used for part of the 1995 DUF data and all of the DUF 1996, DUF 1997, and ADAM 1998 data) also collected information about the arrestee's self-reported use of 15 drugs. For each drug type, arrestees were asked whether they had ever used the drug, the age at which they first used the drug, whether they had used the drug within the past three days, how many days they had used the drug within the past month, whether they had ever needed or felt dependent on the drug, and whether they were dependent on the drug at the time of the interview. Data from the new interview instrument also included information about whether arrestees had ever injected drugs and whether they were influenced by drugs when they allegedly committed the crimes for which they were arrested. The data also include information about whether the arrestee had been to an emergency room for drug-related incidents and whether he or she had prior arrests in the last 12 months. Data that continue to be collected with the new version of the ADAM/DUF interview provide information about arrestees' histories of drug/alcohol treatment, including whether they ever received drug/alcohol treatment and whether they needed drug/alcohol treatment. As part of the ADAM program, arrestees were asked to provide a urine specimen, which was screened for the presence of the following ten drug types: marijuana, opiates, cocaine, PCP, methadone, benzodiazepines (Valium), methaqualone, propoxyphene (Darvon), barbiturates, and amphetamines (positive test results for amphetamines were confirmed by gas chromatography).
Curated
Restricted
Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Program in the United States, 1999 (ICPSR 2994)
Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1999-01-01--1999-12-31
The Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Program, the successor to the Drug Use Forecasting (DUF) Program (DRUG USE FORECASTING IN 24 CITIES IN THE UNITED STATES, 1987-1997 [ICPSR 9477]), measures levels of and trends in drug use among persons arrested and booked in 35 sites across the United States. The data address the following topics: (1) types of drugs used by arrestees (based on self-reports and urinalysis), (2) self-reported dependency on drugs, (3) self-reported need for alcohol/drug treatment, (4) the relationship between drug use and certain types of offenses, and (5) the relationship between self-reported indicators of drug use and indicators of drug use based on urinalysis. Participation in the project is voluntary, and all information collected from the arrestees is anonymous and confidential. The data include the arrestee's age, race, gender, educational attainment, marital status, and the charge at the time of booking. The modified ADAM/DUF interview instrument (used for part of the 1995 data and all of the 1996, 1997, 1998, and 1999 data) also collected information about the arrestee's use of 15 drugs, including recent and past use (e.g., 3-day and 30-day drug use), age at first use, and whether the arrestee had ever been dependent on drugs. As part of the ADAM program, arrestees were asked to provide a urine specimen, which was screened for the presence of ten drugs, including marijuana, opiates, cocaine, PCP, methadone, benzodiazepines (Valium), methaqualone, propoxyphene (Darvon), barbiturates, and amphetamines (positive test results for amphetamines were confirmed by gas chromatography).
Curated
Restricted
Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Program in the United States, 2000 (ICPSR 3270)
Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 2000-01-01--2000-12-31
Beginning in 1996, the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) initiated a major redesign of its multisite drug-monitoring program, the Drug Use Forecasting (DUF) system (DRUG USE FORECASTING IN 24 CITIES IN THE UNITED STATES, 1987-1997 [ICPSR 9477]). The program was retitled Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) (see ARRESTEE DRUG ABUSE MONITORING (ADAM) PROGRAM IN THE UNITED STATES, 1998 [ICPSR 2628] and 1999 [ICPSR 2994]). ADAM extended DUF in the number of sites and improved the quality and generalizability of the data. The redesign was fully implemented in all sites beginning in the first quarter of 2000. The ADAM program implemented a new and expanded adult instrument in the first quarter of 2000, which was used for both the male (Part 1) and female (Part 2) data. The juvenile data for 2000 (Part 3) used the juvenile instrument from previous years. The ADAM program also moved to probability-based sampling for the adult male population during 2000. Therefore, the 2000 adult male sample includes weights, generated through post-sampling stratification of the data. The shift to sampling of the adult male population in 2000 required that all 35 sites move to a common catchment area, the county. The core instrument for the adult cases was supplemented by a facesheet, which was used to collect demographic and charge information from official records. Core instruments were used to collect self-report information from the respondent. Both the adult and juvenile instruments were administered to persons arrested and booked on local or state charges relevant to the jurisdiction (i.e., not federal or out-of-county charges) within the past 48 hours. At the completion of the interview the arrestee was asked to voluntarily provide a urine specimen. An external lab used the Enzyme Multiplied Immunoassay Testing (EMIT) protocols to test for the presence of ten drugs or metabolites of the drug in the urine sample. All amphetamine positives were confirmed by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS) to determine whether methamphetamine was used. For the adult data, variables from the facesheet include arrest precinct, ZIP code of arrest location, ZIP code of respondent's address, respondent's gender and race, three most serious arrest charges, sample source (stock, flow, other), interview status (including reason the individual selected in the sample was not interviewed), language of instrument used, and the number of hours since arrest. Demographic information from the core instrument includes respondent's age, ethnicity, residency, education, employment, health insurance coverage, marital status, housing, and telephone access. Variables from the calendar provide information on inpatient and outpatient substance abuse treatment, inpatient mental health treatment, arrests and incarcerations, heavy alcohol use, use of marijuana, crack/rock cocaine, powder cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, and other drug (ever and previous 12 months), age of first use of the above six drugs and heavy alcohol use, drug dependency in the previous 12 months, characteristics of drug transactions in past 30 days, use of marijuana, crack/rock cocaine, powder cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamine in past 30 days, 7 days, and 48 hours, heavy alcohol use in past 30 days, and secondary drug use of 15 other drugs in the past 48 hours. Urine test results are provided for 11 drugs -- marijuana, cocaine, opiates, phencyclidine (PCP), benzodiazepines (Valium), propoxyphene (Darvon), methadone, methaqualone, barbiturates, amphetamines, and methamphetamine. The adult data files include several derived variables. The male data also include four sampling weights, and stratum identifications and percents. For the juvenile data, demographic variables include age, race, sex, educational attainment, employment status, and living circumstances. Data also include each juvenile arrestee's self-reported use of 15 drugs (alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, powder cocaine, crack, heroin, PCP, amphetamines, barbiturates, quaaludes, methadone, crystal methamphetamine, Valium, LSD, and inhalants). For each drug type, arrestees reported whether they had ever used the drug, age of first use, whether they had used the drug in the past 30 days and past 72 hours, number of days they used the drug in past month, whether they tried to cut down or quit using the drug, if they were successful, whether they felt dependent on the drug, whether they were receiving treatment for the drug, whether they had received treatment for the drug in the past, and whether they thought they could use treatment for that drug. Additional variables include whether juvenile respondents had ever injected drugs, whether they were influenced by drugs when they allegedly committed the crime for which they were arrested, whether they had been to an emergency room for drug-related incidents, and if so, whether in the past 12 months, and information on arrests and charges in the past 12 months. As with the adult data, urine test results are also provided. Finally, variables covering precinct (precinct of arrest) and law (penal law code associated with the crime for which the juvenile was arrested) are also provided for use by local law enforcement officials at each site.
Curated
Restricted
Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Program in the United States, 2001 (ICPSR 3688)
Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Oklahoma City, Detroit, Charlotte, Indiana, Tucson, Albuquerque, Spokane, Utah, San Jose, New York City, San Diego, Arizona, Las Vegas, Sacramento, Seattle, California, Pennsylvania, Tulsa, Laredo, Iowa, Illinois, Texas, Portland (Oregon), Indianapolis, Oregon, United States, Oklahoma, Alabama, Cleveland, Washington, Nebraska, Albany (New York), Omaha, Minneapolis, Colorado, Honolulu, Missouri, New Orleans, Alaska, Phoenix, Denver, Salt Lake City, Dallas, Nevada, Des Moines, San Antonio, Chicago, Hawaii, Minnesota, Kansas City (Missouri), New York (state), Birmingham, Michigan, New Mexico, Louisiana, Anchorage, Ohio, Philadelphia
Time period: 2001-01-01--2001-12-31
The goal of the Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Program is to determine the extent and correlates of illicit drug use in the population of booked arrestees in local areas. Data were collected in 2001 at four separate times (quarterly) during the year in 33 metropolitan areas in the United States. The ADAM program adopted a new instrument in 2000 in adult booking facilities for male (Part 1) and female (Part 2) arrestees. Data from arrestees in juvenile detention facilities (Part 3) continued to use the juvenile instrument from previous years, extending back through the DRUG USE FORECASTING series (ICPSR 9477). The ADAM program in 2001 also continued the use of probability-based sampling for male arrestees in adult facilities, which was initiated in 2000. Therefore, the male adult sample includes weights, generated through post-sampling stratification of the data. For the adult files, variables fell into one of eight categories: (1) demographic data on each arrestee, (2) ADAM facesheet (records-based) data, (3) data on disposition of the case, including accession to a verbal consent script, (4) calendar of admissions to substance abuse and mental health treatment programs, (5) data on alcohol and drug use, abuse, and dependence (6) drug acquisition data covering the five most commonly used illicit drugs, (7) urine test results, and (8) weights. The juvenile file contains demographic variables and arrestee's self-reported past and continued use of 15 drugs, as well as other drug-related behaviors.
Curated
Restricted
Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Program in the United States, 2002 (ICPSR 3815)
Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Oklahoma City, Charlotte, Indiana, Tucson, Albuquerque, Spokane, Utah, San Jose, New York City, San Diego, Arizona, Las Vegas, Sacramento, Seattle, California, Washington, District of Columbia, Pennsylvania, Tulsa, Laredo, Iowa, Illinois, Texas, Portland (Oregon), Georgia, Indianapolis, Oregon, United States, Oklahoma, Rio Arriba, Alabama, Cleveland, Washington, Nebraska, Albany (New York), Omaha, Minneapolis, Woodbury, Atlanta, Colorado, Honolulu, New Orleans, Alaska, Phoenix, Denver, Salt Lake City, Dallas, Nevada, Des Moines, San Antonio, Chicago, Hawaii, Minnesota, New York (state), Birmingham, New Mexico, Louisiana, Anchorage, Ohio, Los Angeles, Philadelphia
Time period: 2002-01-01--2002-12-31
The goal of the Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Program is to determine the extent and correlates of illicit drug use in the population of booked arrestees in local areas. Data were collected in 2002 at four separate times (quarterly) during the year in 36 metropolitan areas in the United States. The ADAM program adopted a new instrument in 2000 in adult booking facilities for male (Part 1) and female (Part 2) arrestees. Data from arrestees in juvenile detention facilities (Part 3) continued to use the juvenile instrument from previous years, extending back through the DRUG USE FORECASTING series (ICPSR 9477). The ADAM program in 2002 also continued the use of probability-based sampling for male arrestees in adult facilities, which was initiated in 2000. Therefore, the male adult sample includes weights, generated through post-sampling stratification of the data. For the adult files, variables fell into one of eight categories: (1) demographic data on each arrestee, (2) ADAM facesheet (records-based) data, (3) data on disposition of the case, including accession to a verbal consent script, (4) calendar of admissions to substance abuse and mental health treatment programs, (5) data on alcohol and drug use, abuse, and dependence, (6) drug acquisition data covering the five most commonly used illicit drugs, (7) urine test results, and (8) weights. The juvenile file contains demographic variables and arrestee's self-reported past and continued use of 15 drugs, as well as other drug-related behaviors.
Curated
Restricted
Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Program in the United States, 2003 (ICPSR 4020)
Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Oklahoma City, Charlotte, Indiana, Tucson, Albuquerque, Spokane, Utah, San Jose, New York City, San Diego, Arizona, Las Vegas, Boston, Sacramento, Seattle, California, Florida, Pennsylvania, Tulsa, Iowa, Illinois, Texas, Portland (Oregon), Georgia, Tampa, Indianapolis, Oregon, United States, Oklahoma, Rio Arriba, Alabama, Cleveland, Washington, Nebraska, Albany (New York), Omaha, Minneapolis, Woodbury, Atlanta, Massachusetts, Colorado, Honolulu, New Orleans, Alaska, Phoenix, Denver, Salt Lake City, Dallas, Nevada, Des Moines, District of Columbia, San Antonio, Chicago, Hawaii, Minnesota, New York (state), Birmingham, Miami, New Mexico, Louisiana, Anchorage, Ohio, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Houston
Time period: 2003-01-01--2003-12-31
The goal of the Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Program is to determine the extent and correlates of illicit drug use in the population of booked arrestees in local areas. Data were collected in 2003 up to four separate times (quarterly) during the year in 39 metropolitan areas in the United States. The ADAM program adopted a new instrument in 2000 in adult booking facilities for male (Part 1) and female (Part 2) arrestees. The ADAM program in 2003 also continued the use of probability-based sampling for male arrestees in adult facilities, which was initiated in 2000. Therefore, the male adult sample includes weights, generated through post-sampling stratification of the data. For the adult male and female files, variables fell into one of eight categories: (1) demographic data on each arrestee, (2) ADAM facesheet (records-based) data, (3) data on disposition of the case, including accession to a verbal consent script, (4) calendar of admissions to substance abuse and mental health treatment programs, (5) data on alcohol and drug use, abuse, and dependence, (6) drug acquisition data covering the five most commonly used illicit drugs, (7) urine test results, and (8) for males, weights.
Curated
Restricted
Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Project in Rural Nebraska, 1998 (ICPSR 28141)
Released/updated on: 2011-01-28
Geographic coverage: Omaha, United States, Nebraska
Time period: 1998-10-01--1998-11-30
A pilot outreach project of the National Intstitute of Justice's Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) program, the rural Nebraska ADAM program examined the prevalence and type of arrestee drug use in four rural Nebraska counties and compared the results to those found in Omaha, Nebraska, an established ADAM site. The data were collected in Madison (n=78), Dawson (n=50), Hall (n=53), and Scotts Bluff (n=149) counties, and Omaha, Nebraska, (n=202) in October and November of 1998. The catchment area for Omaha was the central city. The ADAM interview provided demographic and descriptive data, including race, age, marital status, source of income, screens of substance abuse and dependency, treatment history, arrest and incarceration experiences, and participation in local drug markets. At the conclusion of the interview, respondents were asked to provide a urine specimen. The current study included a supplemental questionnaire about methamphetamine use. The methamphetamine addendum included variables on why the respondent began and continued the use of methamphetamines, how often and how much methamphetamine was used, if and why the respondent had ever sought and completed treatment, source of the methamphetamine, and if the respondent had ever made or sold methamphetamine.
Curated
Restricted
Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring Program II in the United States, 2009 (ICPSR 30061)
Released/updated on: 2011-02-24
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Oregon, District of Columbia, Charlotte, Sacramento, Indiana, United States, Chicago, Minnesota, California, New York (state), New York City, Minneapolis, Atlanta, Illinois, Colorado, Portland (Oregon), Denver, Georgia, Indianapolis
Time period: 2009-01-01--2009-12-31
The Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM II) program was designed to monitor trends in drug use among arrested populations in key urban areas across the United States. The first ADAM data collection was instituted in 2000 as a replacement for the Drug Use Forecasting program (DUF), which employed a non-scientific sampling procedure to select primarily felony arrestees in 23 urban areas throughout the country. The year 2000 revision of ADAM instituted a representative sampling strategy among booked male arrestees in an expanded network of 35 sites. The program was suspended by the National Institute of Justice in 2003 and restarted in 2007 with funding from the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP). With ADAM II, ONDCP and its contractor, Abt Associates Inc., initiated a new data collection that replicated the ADAM methodology in order to obtain data comparable to previously established trends. ADAM II implemented two quarters of data collection in ten sentinel ADAM sites to revive monitoring drug trends, with a particular focus on obtaining valid and reliable information on methamphetamine use. Representing minimal adjustments to the previously employed ADAM survey, the ADAM II survey collected data about drug use, drug and alcohol dependency and treatment, and drug market participation among booked male arrestees within 48 hours of arrest. A total of 7,794 arrestees were interviewed during the second and third quarters of 2009. Collection occurred in two cycles in booking facilities at each site to provide estimates for two calendar quarters each year. Data in this file were collected beginning April 1, 2009, and ending September 30, 2009. Participation was voluntary and confidential, and the procedures included a personal interview (lasting approximately 20 minutes) and collection of a urine specimen. Demographic variables include age, race, most serious charge, date of arrest, time of arrest, and education level. The data also include whether the provided urine specimen was positive for several drugs including marijuana, cocaine, PCP, methamphetamines, and barbiturates.
Curated
Restricted
Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring Program II in the United States, 2010 (ICPSR 32321)
Released/updated on: 2011-11-04
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Oregon, District of Columbia, Charlotte, Sacramento, Indiana, United States, Chicago, Minnesota, California, New York (state), New York City, Minneapolis, Atlanta, Illinois, Colorado, Portland (Oregon), Denver, Georgia, Indianapolis
Time period: 2010-01-01--2010-12-31
The Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM II) program was designed to monitor trends in drug use among arrested populations in key urban areas across the United States. The first ADAM data collection was instituted in 2000 as a replacement for the Drug Use Forecasting program (DUF), which employed a non-scientific sampling procedure to select primarily felony arrestees in 23 urban areas throughout the country. The year 2000 revision of ADAM instituted a representative sampling strategy among booked male arrestees in an expanded network of 35 sites. The program was suspended by the National Institute of Justice in 2003 and restarted in 2007 with funding from the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP). With ADAM II, ONDCP and its contractor, Abt Associates Inc., initiated a new data collection that replicated the ADAM methodology in order to obtain data comparable to previously established trends. ADAM II implemented two quarters of data collection in ten sentinel ADAM sites to revive monitoring drug trends, with a particular focus on obtaining valid and reliable information on methamphetamine use. Representing minimal adjustments to the previously employed ADAM survey, the ADAM II survey collected data about drug use, drug and alcohol dependency and treatment, and drug market participation among booked male arrestees within 48 hours of arrest. A total of 8,332 arrestees were interviewed during the second and third quarters of 2010. Collection occurred in two cycles in booking facilities at each site to provide estimates for two calendar quarters each year. Data in this file were collected beginning April 1, 2010, and ending September 30, 2010. Participation was voluntary and confidential, and the procedures included a personal interview (lasting approximately 20 minutes) and collection of a urine specimen. Demographic variables include age, race, most serious charge, date of arrest, time of arrest, and education level. The data also include whether the provided urine specimen was positive for several drugs including marijuana, cocaine, PCP, methamphetamines, and barbiturates.
Curated
British Crime Survey, 1982 (ICPSR 8672)
Released/updated on: 2006-01-18
Geographic coverage: Great Britain, Wales, England, Global
Time period: 1981-01-01--1981-12-31
The primary purpose of the British Crime Survey was to estimate how many of the public in England and Wales are victims of selected types of crime over a year, describing the circumstances under which people become victims, and the consequences of crime for victims. Other aims included providing background information on fear of crime among the public and on public contact with the police. Respondents were asked a series of screening questions to establish whether or not they or their households had been victims of relevant crimes during the one-year reference period. They were then asked a series of very detailed questions about the incidents they reported. Basic descriptive background information on respondents and their households was collected to allow analysis of the sorts of people who do and do not become victims. Information was also collected on other areas which were of intrinsic interest and which could usefully be related to experience as a victim, namely, fear of crime, contact with the police, lifestyle, and self-reported offending.
Curated
British Crime Survey, 1988 (ICPSR 9850)
Released/updated on: 2006-01-12
Geographic coverage: Great Britain, Wales, England, Global
Time period: 1987-01-01--1987-12-31
This 1988 survey, the third in a series of surveys instituted by the Home Office in 1982, examines levels of victimization in Great Britain and offers attitudinal data on issues relating to crime. The 1988 survey was intended to replicate the 1982 and 1984 surveys (ICPSR 8672 and 8685) as much as possible. However, in 1988 an additional sample of ethnic minority respondents was included. Respondents were asked a series of screening questions to establish whether they had been the victims of crime during the reference period, and another series of detailed questions about the incidents they reported. Basic descriptive background information, such as sex, age, employment, education, and number of children, was also collected on the respondents and their households. Other information was collected on fear of crime, contact with the police, lifestyle, and self-reported offending. Part 1 consists of data captured on the Demographic Questionnaire. Parts 2 and 3 represent data collected via Follow-Up Questionnaire A and Follow-Up Questionnaire B, respectively. Each respondent completed one of the two Follow-Up Questionnaires, with all respondents in the ethnic minority sample completing Follow-Up Questionnaire B. Part 4 consists of data from the Main Questionnaire. Each respondent completed a Main Questionnaire that included a large number of screening questions to identify crime victims, and some attitudinal questions. Data in Part 5 were collected from the Victim Form. Only respondents reporting incidents of victimization on the Main Questionnaire have Victim Forms, with up to four Victim Forms per respondent. The unit of analysis for this collection is the individual.
Curated
British Crime Survey, 1992 (ICPSR 6717)
Released/updated on: 2006-01-18
Geographic coverage: Great Britain, Wales, England, Global
Time period: 1992-01-01--1992-12-31
The fourth in a series of surveys instituted by the Home Office in 1982, this survey examines levels of victimization in Great Britain and offers attitudinal data on issues relating to crime. The 1992 survey was intended to replicate the 1982, 1984, and 1988 surveys (ICPSR 8672, 8685, and 9850) in methodology and content as much as possible. In 1992, a "core" sample of 10,059 adults along with booster samples of 1,650 ethnic minority adults and 1,350 young people aged 12-15 resident in the same households as adult respondents were interviewed. The 1988 survey had also included an ethnic minority booster sample employing the same sampling method. Respondents were asked a series of screening questions to establish whether they had been the victims of crime during the reference period, and another series of detailed questions about the incidents they reported. Basic descriptive background information, such as sex, age, employment, education, and number of children, was also collected on the respondents and their households. Other information was elicited on fear of crime, contact with the police, lifestyle, and self-reported offending. Part 1, Demographic File, consists of data captured on the Demographic Questionnaire. Parts 2 and 3 represent data collected via Follow-Up Questionnaire A and Follow-Up Questionnaire B, respectively. Each respondent completed one of the two Follow-Up Questionnaires, with all respondents in the ethnic minority booster sample completing Follow-Up Questionnaire A. Part 4, Main File, consists of data from the Main Questionnaire. Each respondent completed a Main Questionnaire that included some attitudinal questions and a large number of screening questions to identify crime victims. Data in Part 5, Victim File, were collected from the Victim Form. Only respondents reporting incidents of victimization on the Main Questionnaire have Victim Forms, with up to four Victim Forms per respondent. The unit of analysis for this collection is the individual.
Curated
British Crime Survey, 1992: Teenage Booster Sample (ICPSR 6834)
Released/updated on: 1997-02-13
Geographic coverage: Great Britain, Wales, England, Global
Time period: 1992-01-01--1992-12-31
This survey was conducted in parallel with the BRITISH CRIME SURVEY, 1992 (ICPSR 6717) in the same households among the age group 12-15. The survey covers victimization out of the home, contacts with the police, and self-reported offending. The questions replicate the adult version as much as possible. Respondents were asked a series of screening questions to establish whether they had been victims of crime during the reference period, and another series of detailed questions about the incidents they reported. Basic descriptive background information was also collected on the respondent. Other information was elicited on fear of crime, contact with the police, lifestyle, and self-reported offending. The unit of analysis for this collection is the individual.
Curated
British Crime Surveys, 1984 (ICPSR 8685)
Released/updated on: 1992-02-16
Geographic coverage: Great Britain, Wales, England, Global
Time period: 1984-01-01--1984-12-31
In 1982 the Home Office conducted the first British Crime Survey, a major study with the aim of discovering levels of victimization in Britain, and of producing attitudinal data on issues relating to crime. The survey was repeated in 1984 and was restricted to England and Wales, whereas the previous study had included Scotland. The survey set out to replicate the previous one as far as possible. Other than questions having to do with victimization and basic demographic details, the topics covered in the questionnaire were: general opinion of the local area, fear of crime and precautions taken, likelihood of crime occurring, extent of "incivilities" in the area, seriousness of various crimes, attitudes towards punishment and prison reform, victim support schemes, neighborhood watch schemes, and self-reported offending.
Curated
Calls for Service to Police as a Means of Evaluating Crime Trends in Oklahoma City, 1986-1988 (ICPSR 9669)
Released/updated on: 2006-01-12
Geographic coverage: Oklahoma City, United States, Oklahoma
Time period: 1986-06-01--1988-06-30
In an effort to measure the effectiveness of crime deterrents and to estimate crime rates, calls for assistance placed to police in Oklahoma City over a two-year period were enumerated. This type of call was studied in order to circumvent problems such as "interviewer's effect" and sampling errors that occur with other methods. The telephone calls were stratified by police district, allowing for analysis on the neighborhood level to determine whether deterrence operates ecologically--that is, by neighbors informing one another about arrests which took place as a result of their calls to the police. In measuring deterrence, only the calls that concerned robbery were used. To estimate crime rates, calls were tallied on a monthly basis for 18 types of offenses: aggravated assault, robbery, rape, burglary, grand larceny, motor vehicle theft, simple assault, fraud, child molestation, other sex offenses, domestic disturbance, disorderly conduct, public drunkenness, vice and drugs, petty larceny, shoplifting, kidnapping/hostage taking, and suspicious activity.
Curated
Changing Patterns of Homicide and Social Policy in Philadelphia, Phoenix, and St. Louis, 1980-1994 (ICPSR 2729)
Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: United States, Missouri, Phoenix, St. Louis, Arizona, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Time period: 1980-01-01--1994-12-31
This study sought to assess changes in the volume and types of homicide committed in Philadelphia, Phoenix, and St. Louis from 1980 to 1994 and to document the nature of those changes. Three of the eight cities originally studied by Margaret Zahn and Marc Riedel (NATURE AND PATTERNS OF HOMICIDE IN EIGHT AMERICAN CITIES, 1978 [ICPSR 8936]) were revisited for this data collection. In each city, police records were coded for each case of homicide occurring in the city each year from 1980 to 1994. Homicide data for St. Louis were provided by the St. Louis Homicide Project with Scott Decker and Richard Rosenfeld as the principal investigators. Variables describing the event cover study site, year of the case, date and time of assault, location of fatal injury, method used to kill the victim, and circumstances surrounding the death. Variables pertaining to offenders include total number of homicide and assault victims, number of offenders arrested, number of offenders identified, and disposition of event for offenders. Variables on victims focus on whether the victim was killed at work, if the victim was using drugs or alcohol, the victim's blood alcohol level, and the relationship of the victim to the offender. Demographic variables include age, sex, race, and marital status of victims and offenders.
Curated
Restricted
A Comparative Study of Violent Extremism and Gangs, United States, 1948-2018 (ICPSR 37386)
Released/updated on: 2021-01-27
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1948-01-01--2018-12-31, 1960-01-01--2013-12-31
The study assesses the extent of commonalities between individuals who become involved in violent extremist groups and criminal gangs, and the processes by which individuals engage in each group. Following this comparison, the extent to which the empirical results support the potential for anti-gang programs to bolster the resilience of communities against violent extremism and other forms of crime is assessed.
Quantitative assessment was conducted by comparing individuals included in the Profiles of Individual Radicalization in the United States (PIRUS) dataset with a subset of individuals drawn from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1997 (NLSY97) along a number of demographic, social, and socioeconomic characteristics.
Supplementary survey data was also collected from 45 former and current gang members in the United States concurrently with long-form interviews, covering a range of variables including background characteristics, demographic information, and attitudes among the respondents.
Curated
Restricted
Compstat and Organizational Change in the United States, 1999-2001 (ICPSR 25481)
Released/updated on: 2009-10-30
Geographic coverage: Minneapolis, United States, Lowell, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Newark, New Jersey
Time period: 1999-01-01--2001-12-31
The purpose of the study was to determine how Compstat programs were being implemented across the United States by examining the diffusion of Compstat and factors associated with its implementation. Another goal of the study was to assess the impact of Compstat on line or patrol officers at the bottom of the police organization. The researchers administered a national survey on Compstat and problem solving in police agencies (Part 1) by mail to all 515 American police agencies with over 100 sworn police officers, and to a random sample of 100 agencies with between 50 and 100 sworn officers. The researchers received a total of 530 completed surveys (Part 1) between June 1999 and April 2000. The researchers distributed an anonymous, voluntary, and self-administered survey (Part 2) between December 2000 and May 2001 to a total of 450 patrol officers at three police departments -- Lowell, Massachusetts (LPD), Minneapolis, Minnesota (MPD), and Newark, New Jersey (NPD). The Compstat Survey (Part 1) contains a total of 321 variables pertaining to executive views and departmental policy, organizational features and technology, and comments about problem solving in police agencies. The Line Officer Survey (Part 2) contains a total of 85 variables pertaining to the patrol officers' involvement in Compstat-generated activities, their motivation to participate in them, and their views on these activities.
Curated
Restricted
Crack, Powder Cocaine, and Heroin: Drug Purchase and Use Patterns in Six Cities in the United States, 1995-1996 (ICPSR 2564)
Released/updated on: 2012-08-22
Geographic coverage: New York City, Oregon, District of Columbia, San Diego, San Antonio, United States, Chicago, Illinois, Texas, Portland (Oregon), California, New York (state)
Time period: 1995-01-01--1996-12-31
This study was designed to address the practical and policy implications of various drug market participation patterns. In 1995, the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) and the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) collaborated on a project called the Procurement Study. This study was executed as an addendum to NIJ's Drug Use Forecasting (DUF) program (DRUG USE FORECASTING IN 24 CITIES IN THE UNITED STATES, 1987-1997 [ICPSR 9477]) with the goal of extending previous research in which heroin users were interviewed on various aspects of drug market activity. The present study sought to explore additional features of drug market participation and use, both within and across drug types and cities, and included two additional drugs -- powder cocaine and crack cocaine. Data were collected from recently arrested users of powder cocaine, crack cocaine, and heroin in six DUF cities (Chicago, New York, Portland, San Diego, San Antonio, and Washington, DC). Each of the three files in this collection, Crack Data (Part 1), Heroin Data (Part 2), and Powder Cocaine Data (Part 3), is comprised of data from a procurement interview, urine test variables, and a DUF interview. During the procurement interview, information was collected on purchase and use patterns for specific drugs. Variables from the procurement interview include the respondent's method of using the drug, the term used to refer to the drug, whether the respondent bought the drug in the neighborhood, the number of different dealers the respondent bought the drug from, how the respondent made the connection with the dealer (i.e., street, house, phone, beeper, business/store, or friends), their main drug source, whether the respondent went to someone else if the source was not available, how the respondent coped with not being able to find drugs to buy, whether the respondent got the drug for free, the means by which the respondent obtained money, the quantity and packaging of the drug, and the number of minutes spent searching for, traveling to, and waiting for their last purchase. Urine tests screened for the presence of ten drugs, including marijuana, opiates, cocaine, PCP, methadone, benzodiazepines (Valium), methaqualone, propoxyphene (Darvon), barbiturates, and amphetamines (positive test results for amphetamines were confirmed by gas chromatography). Data from the DUF interview provide detailed information about each arrestee's self-reported use of 15 drugs. For each drug type, arrestees were asked whether they had ever used the drug, the age at which they first used the drug, whether they had used the drug within the past three days, how many days they had used the drug within the past month, whether they had ever needed or felt dependent on the drug, and whether they were dependent on the drug at the time of the interview. Data from the DUF interview instrument also included alcohol/drug treatment history, information about whether arrestees had ever injected drugs, and whether they were influenced by drugs when the crime that they were charged with was committed. The data also include information about whether the arrestee had been to an emergency room for drug-related incidents and whether he or she had had prior arrests in the past 12 months. Demographic data include the age, race, sex, educational attainment, marital status, employment status, and living circumstances of each respondent.
Curated
Crime and Mental Disorder, 1972 (ICPSR 9088)
Released/updated on: 1992-02-16
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1972-01-01--1972-12-31
The purpose of this data collection was to explore the relationship between crime and mental disorder among jail inmates. Three sample groups were studied: jail inmates who had psychiatric contacts, jail inmates who did not have psychiatric contacts, and a control group of psychiatric patients who were not in jail. Psychiatric diagnosis history for inmates and patients with psychiatric contacts spanning 18 years (1960-1977) is available along with each subject's crime record and sentencing history. Variables include demographic characteristics, type of offenses sentenced, and number of arrests. Also included are psychiatric contact information including date of contact, diagnosis, type of service given, date of treatment termination, and reason for termination.
Curated
Simple Crosstabs
Crime Hot Spot Forecasting with Data from the Pittsburgh [Pennsylvania] Bureau of Police, 1990-1998 (ICPSR 3469)
Released/updated on: 2015-08-07
Geographic coverage: United States, Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh
Time period: 1990-01-01--1998-12-31
This study used crime count data from the Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Bureau of Police offense reports and 911 computer-aided dispatch (CAD) calls to determine the best univariate forecast method for crime and to evaluate the value of leading indicator crime forecast models.
The researchers used the rolling-horizon experimental design, a design that maximizes the number of forecasts for a given time series at different times and under different conditions. Under this design, several forecast models are used to make alternative forecasts in parallel. For each forecast model included in an experiment, the researchers estimated models on training data, forecasted one month ahead to new data not previously seen by the model, and calculated and saved the forecast error. Then they added the observed value of the previously forecasted data point to the next month's training data, dropped the oldest historical data point, and forecasted the following month's data point. This process continued over a number of months.
A total of 15 statistical datasets and 3 geographic information systems (GIS) shapefiles resulted from this study.
The statistical datasets consist of
- Univariate Forecast Data by Police Precinct (Dataset 1) with 3,240 cases
- Output Data from the Univariate Forecasting Program: Sectors and Forecast Errors (Dataset 2) with 17,892 cases
- Multivariate, Leading Indicator Forecast Data by Grid Cell (Dataset 3) with 5,940 cases
- Output Data from the 911 Drug Calls Forecast Program (Dataset 4) with 5,112 cases
- Output Data from the Part One Property Crimes Forecast Program (Dataset 5) with 5,112 cases
- Output Data from the Part One Violent Crimes Forecast Program (Dataset 6) with 5,112 cases
- Input Data for the Regression Forecast Program for 911 Drug Calls (Dataset 7) with 10,011 cases
- Input Data for the Regression Forecast Program for Part One Property Crimes (Dataset 8) with 10,011 cases
- Input Data for the Regression Forecast Program for Part One Violent Crimes (Dataset 9) with 10,011 cases
- Output Data from Regression Forecast Program for 911 Drug Calls: Estimated Coefficients for Leading Indicator Models (Dataset 10) with 36 cases
- Output Data from Regression Forecast Program for Part One Property Crimes: Estimated Coefficients for Leading Indicator Models (Dataset 11) with 36 cases
- Output Data from Regression Forecast Program for Part One Violent Crimes: Estimated Coefficients for Leading Indicator Models (Dataset 12) with 36 cases
- Output Data from Regression Forecast Program for 911 Drug Calls: Forecast Errors (Dataset 13) with 4,936 cases
- Output Data from Regression Forecast Program for Part One Property Crimes: Forecast Errors (Dataset 14) with 4,936 cases
- Output Data from Regression Forecast Program for Part One Violent Crimes: Forecast Errors (Dataset 15) with 4,936 cases.
- The GIS Shapefiles (Dataset 16) are provided with the study in a single zip file: Included are polygon data for the 4,000 foot, square, uniform grid system used for much of the Pittsburgh crime data (grid400); polygon data for the 6 police precincts, alternatively called districts or zones, of Pittsburgh(policedist); and polygon data for the 3 major rivers in Pittsburgh the Allegheny, Monongahela, and Ohio (rivers).
Curated
Crime in Boomburb Cities: 1970-2004 [United States] (ICPSR 29202)
Released/updated on: 2011-08-10
Geographic coverage: San Bernardino, United States, St. Petersburg, California, Florida, Miami, Santa Clara, San Diego, Atlanta, Orlando, Texas, Colorado, Phoenix, Denver, Georgia, Tampa, Dallas, Arizona, Las Vegas, Nevada, Houston, Riverside
Time period: 1970-01-01--2004-12-31
This study focused on the effect of economic resources and racial/ethnic composition on the change in crime rates from 1970-2004 in United States cities in metropolitan areas that experienced a large growth in population after World War II. A total of 352 cities in the following United States metropolitan areas were selected for this study: Atlanta, Dallas, Denver, Houston, Las Vegas, Miami, Orange County, Orlando, Phoenix, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, Silicon Valley (Santa Clara), and Tampa/St. Petersburg. Selection was based on the fact that these areas developed during a similar time period and followed comparable development trajectories. In particular, these 14 areas, known as the "boomburbs" for their dramatic, post-World War II population growth, all faced issues relating to the rapid growth of tract-style housing and the subsequent development of low density, urban sprawls. The study combined place-level data obtained from the United States Census with crime data from the Uniform Crime Reports for five categories of Type I crimes: aggravated assaults, robberies, murders, burglaries, and motor vehicle thefts. The dataset contains a total of 247 variables pertaining to crime, economic resources, and race/ethnic composition.
Curated
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 Histories and Criminal Justice Processing of Drug Use Forecasting (DUF) Sample Members in Washington, DC, 1989-1991 (ICPSR 6122)
Released/updated on: 2006-01-12
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1989-01-01--1991-12-31
These data provide information on the relationship between arrestee drug tests and future criminality once other risk factors, such as prior criminal history, are accounted for. Also explored is whether the association between drug test results and future offending varies depending upon the attributes of individual offenders. The dataset contains information drawn from the Pretrial Services Agency (PSA) in Washington, DC, and the National Institute of Justice's Drug Use Forecasting (DUF) program. Data are available from each source for 1989 and 1990 with subsequent arrest data provided by PSA through August 1991. The 1989-1990 data supplied by PSA contain information on criminal history and drug test results taken at the time of arrest. Data provided from the DUF program include drug test results from a sample of persons arrested as well as information obtained from arrestee interviews on items such as family and work status. The combined data contain the arrestees' demographic characteristics, arrest and charge information, prior criminal history, and subsequent offending. Drugs tested for include cocaine, opiates, methadone, PCP, amphetamines, barbiturates, marijuana, methaqualone, Darvon, and Valium. In addition, self-reported information regarding an individual's use of and dependency on these drugs is supplied. Demographic information includes age, sex, income, and employment status. Due to changes in the DUF measurement instrument from 1989 to 1990, the variables contained in the two data files are not completely identical.
Curated
Restricted
Denver Youth Survey Waves 1-5, (1988-1992) [Denver, Colorado] (ICPSR 36473)
Released/updated on: 2017-01-04
Geographic coverage: United States, Colorado, Denver
Time period: 1988-01-01--1992-12-31
The Denver Youth Survey (DYS) is part of the larger "Program of Research on the Causes and Correlates of Delinquency" initiated by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention in 1986. The DYS is a longitudinal study of problem and successful behavior over the life course that focuses on delinquency, drug use, victimization, and mental health. The DYS is based on a probability sample of households in "high-risk" neighborhoods of Denver, Colorado. These neighborhoods were selected on the basis of their social ecology in terms of population and housing characteristics. Only socially disorganized neighborhoods with high official crime rates (top one-third) were included. The survey respondents include 1,528 children and youth who were 7, 9, 11, 13, or 15 years old in 1987, and one of their parents, who lived in one of the more than 20,000 randomly selected households.
The survey respondents include 807 boys and 721 girls and include White (10 percent), Latino (45 percent), and African American (33 percent) youth, as well as 12 percent from other racial/ethnic backgrounds. The child and youth respondents, along with one caretaker, were interviewed annually from 1988 until 1992, and annually from 1995 until 1999. The age range covered by the study is from age 7 through age 26.
The dataset contains 1,528 cases and 22,081 variables.
Curated
Restricted
Denver Youth Survey Waves 6-11 (1993-2003) [Denver, Colorado] (ICPSR 36474)
Released/updated on: 2016-12-30
Geographic coverage: United States, Colorado, Denver
Time period: 1993-01-01--2003-12-31
The Denver Youth Survey (DYS) is part of the larger "Program of Research on the Causes and Correlates of Delinquency" initiated by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention in 1986. It is a longitudinal study of problem and successful behavior over the life course that focuses on delinquency, drug use, victimization, and mental health. DYS variables also address family demographics, neighborhood characteristics, parenting, and involvement in social roles.
The DYS is based on a probability sample of households in "high-risk" neighborhoods of Denver, Colorado. These neighborhoods were selected on the basis of their social ecology in terms of population and housing characteristics. Only socially disorganized neighborhoods with high (top one-third) official crime rates were included. The survey respondents include 1,528 children and youth who were 7, 9, 11, 13, or 15 years old in 1987, and one of their parents, who lived in one of the more than 20,000 randomly selected households.
The survey respondents include 807 boys and 721 girls and include White (10%), Latino (45%), and African American (33%) youth, as well as 12% from other racial/ethnic backgrounds. The child and youth respondents, along with one caretaker, were interviewed annually from 1988 until 1992 (waves 1-5), annually from 1995 until 1999 (waves 6-10), and in 2003 (wave 11). The study covers an age range of 7 through 26.
Curated
Determinants of Chicago Neighborhood Homicide Trends, 1980-2000 (ICPSR 34182)
Released/updated on: 2013-03-22
Geographic coverage: United States, Chicago, Illinois
Time period: 1980-01-01--2000-12-31
The purpose of the study was to examine homicide trends in Chicago neighborhoods from 1980-2000 using HOMICIDES IN CHICAGO, 1965-1995 (ICPSR 6399), 1980-2000 Census data, and PROJECT ON HUMAN DEVELOPMENT IN CHICAGO NEIGHBORHOODS: COMMUNITY SURVEY, 1994-1995 (ICPSR 2766). Drawing on the social disorganization and concentrated disadvantage literature, this study used growth-curve modeling and semi-parametric group-based trajectory modeling to: (1) assess neighborhood variation in homicide trends; (2) identify the particular types of homicide trajectory that Chicago neighborhoods follow; (3) assess whether structural characteristics of neighborhoods influence homicide trends and trajectories; and (4) determine the extent to which the influence of structural characteristics is mediated by neighborhood levels of collective efficacy. This project extended prior research by not only describing the homicide trends and trajectories of Chicago neighborhoods, but also identifying the neighborhood characteristics that directly and indirectly influence those trends.
Curated
Development of Crime Forecasting and Mapping Systems for Use by Police in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and Rochester, New York, 1990-2001 (ICPSR 4545)
Released/updated on: 2006-08-31
Geographic coverage: United States, Rochester (New York), New York (state), Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh
Time period: 1990-01-01--2001-12-31
This study was designed to develop crime forecasting as an application area for police in support of tactical deployment of resources. Data on crime offense reports and computer aided dispatch (CAD) drug calls and shots fired calls were collected from the Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Bureau of Police for the years 1990 through 2001. Data on crime offense reports were collected from the Rochester, New York Police Department from January 1991 through December 2001. The Rochester CAD drug calls and shots fired calls were collected from January 1993 through May 2001. A total of 1,643,828 records (769,293 crime offense and 874,535 CAD) were collected from Pittsburgh, while 538,893 records (530,050 crime offense and 8,843 CAD) were collected from Rochester. ArcView 3.3 and GDT Dynamap 2000 Street centerline maps were used to address match the data, with some of the Pittsburgh data being cleaned to fix obvious errors and increase address match percentages. A SAS program was used to eliminate duplicate CAD calls based on time and location of the calls. For the 1990 through 1999 Pittsburgh crime offense data, the address match rate was 91 percent. The match rate for the 2000 through 2001 Pittsburgh crime offense data was 72 percent. The Pittsburgh CAD data address match rate for 1990 through 1999 was 85 percent, while for 2000 through 2001 the match rate was 100 percent because the new CAD system supplied incident coordinates. The address match rates for the Rochester crime offenses data was 96 percent, and 95 percent for the CAD data. Spatial overlay in ArcView was used to add geographic area identifiers for each data point: precinct, car beat, car beat plus, and 1990 Census tract. The crimes included for both Pittsburgh and Rochester were aggravated assault, arson, burglary, criminal mischief, misconduct, family violence, gambling, larceny, liquor law violations, motor vehicle theft, murder/manslaughter, prostitution, public drunkenness, rape, robbery, simple assaults, trespassing, vandalism, weapons, CAD drugs, and CAD shots fired.
Curated
Restricted
Drug Use Forecasting in 24 Cities in the United States, 1987-1997 (ICPSR 9477)
Released/updated on: 1998-07-15
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1987-06-01--1997-12-31
The Drug Use Forecasting (DUF) Program measures levels of and trends in drug use among persons arrested and booked in the United States. The data address the following topics: (1) types of drugs used by arrestees (based on self-reports and urinalysis), (2) self-reported dependency on drugs, (3) self-reported need for alcohol/drug treatment, (4) the relationship between drug use and certain types of offenses, and (5) the relationship between self-reported indicators of drug use and indicators of drug use based on urinalysis. Participation in the project is voluntary, and all information collected from the arrestees is anonymous and confidential. The data include the arrestee's age, race, gender, educational attainment, marital status, and the charge at the time of booking. The recently modified DUF interview instrument (used for part of the 1995 data and all of the 1996 and 1997 data) also collected information about the arrestee's use of 15 drugs, including recent and past use (e.g., 3-day and 30-day drug use) of each of these drugs, age at first use, and whether the arrestee had ever been dependent on drugs. In the original DUF interview instrument (used for the 1987 to 1994 data and part of the 1995 data), the information collected was the same as above except that the use of 22 drugs was queried, and the age at which the arrestee first became dependent on the drug was included. Arrestees also were questioned in the original instrument about their history of intravenous drug use, whether the consideration of AIDS influenced whether they shared needles, history of drug and alcohol treatment, their past and current drug treatment needs, and how many persons they had sex with during the past 12 months. Finally, arrestees were asked to provide a urine specimen, which was screened for the presence of ten drugs, including marijuana, opiates, cocaine, PCP, methadone, benzodiazepines (Valium), methaqualone, propoxyphene (Darvon), barbiturates, and amphetamines (positive test results for amphetamines were confirmed by gas chromatography). The Gun Addendum Data (Parts 27, 35, and 37) contain variables on topics such as arrestees' encounters with guns, whether they agreed or disagreed with statements about guns, gun possession, how they obtained handgun(s), whether they were armed with a gun at their arrest or during crimes, and if they had ever used a gun against another person. The Heroin Addendum Data, 1995 (Part 29) contains information that was formerly covered in the main annual file in 1992-1994, but in 1995 was revised and prepared as a separate dataset.
Curated
Empirical Investigation of "Going to Scale" in Drug Interventions in the United States, 1990, 2003 (ICPSR 26101)
Released/updated on: 2009-08-26
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1990-01-01--1990-12-31, 2003-01-01--2003-12-31
Despite a growing consensus among scholars that substance abuse treatment is effective in reducing offending, strict eligibility rules have limited the impact of current models of therapeutic jurisprudence on public safety. This research effort was aimed at providing policy makers some guidance on whether expanding this model to more drug-involved offenders is cost-beneficial. Since data needed for providing evidence-based analysis of this issue were not readily available, micro-level data from three nationally representative sources were used to construct a 40,320 case synthetic dataset -- defined using population profiles rather than sampled observation -- that was used to estimate the benefits of going to scale in treating drug involved offenders. The principal investigators combined information from the NATIONAL SURVEY ON DRUG USE AND HEALTH, 2003 (ICPSR 4138) and the ARRESTEE DRUG ABUSE MONITORING (ADAM) PROGRAM IN THE UNITED STATES, 2003 (ICPSR 4020) to estimate the likelihood of drug addiction or dependence problems and develop nationally representative prevalence estimates. They used information in the DRUG ABUSE TREATMENT OUTCOME STUDY (DATOS), 1991-1994 (ICPSR 2258) to compute expected crime reducing benefits of treating various types of drug involved offenders under four different treatment modalities. The project computed expected crime reducing benefits that were conditional on treatment modality as well as arrestee attributes and risk of drug dependence or abuse. Moreover, the principal investigators obtained estimates of crime reducing benefits for all crimes as well as select sub-types. Variables include age, race, gender, offense, history of violence, history of treatment, co-occurring alcohol problem, criminal justice system status, geographic location, arrest history, and a total of 134 prevalence and treatment effect estimates and variances.
Curated
Estimating the Elasticities of Demand for Cocaine and Heroin with Data from 21 Cities from the Drug Use Forecasting (DUF) Program, 1987-1991 (ICPSR 6567)
Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1987-01-01--1991-12-31
The objective of this research was to estimate the elasticity of the demand for cocaine and heroin with respect to the price. Price elasticity is the percentage of change in the dependent quantity corresponding to a one-percent change in price. The project involved the development of an econometric model to determine price elasticity, given that national- and city-level data on the consumption of cocaine and heroin are insufficient or nonexistent. The researchers circumvented this lack of data by partitioning the desired elasticity into the product of two elasticities, involving a measurable intermediate quantity whose relationship to the quantity of consumption could be modeled and estimated by measurable techniques. The intermediate quantity used for this project was the fraction of arrestees testing positive for cocaine or heroin as measured by the Drug Use Forecasting (DUF) System. From the Drug Enforcement Administration's (DEA's) System to Retrieve Information from Drug Evidence (STRIDE) data, expected purity was computed by regressing on log quantity and dummy variables for location and quarter. Price series were produced by finding the median standardized price per expected pure gram for each location and quarter. Variables for Part 1, National Data, include year, quarter, standardized prices for a gram of cocaine and a gram of heroin, and expected purity of cocaine and heroin. The Cities Data, Part 2, cover city, year, quarter, number of observations used to compute the median price of cocaine and heroin, standardized prices, and expected purity.
Curated
Evaluating the Incapacitative Benefits of Incarcerating Drug Offenders in Los Angeles and Maricopa [Arizona] Counties, 1986 and 1990 (ICPSR 6374)
Released/updated on: 2006-01-12
Geographic coverage: United States, California, Arizona
The objective of this study was to examine the observable offending patterns of recent and past drug offenders to assess the crime control potential associated with recent increases in the incarceration of drug offenders. The periods examined were 1986 (representing the second half of the 1980s, when dramatic shifts toward increasing incarceration of drug offenders first became evident), and 1990 (after escalating sentences were well under way). Convicted offenders were the focus, since these cases are most directly affected by changes in imprisonment policies, particularly provisions for mandatory prison terms. Offending patterns of convicted and imprisoned drug offenders were contrasted to patterns of convicted robbers and burglars, both in and out of prison. The researchers used data from the National Judicial Reporting Program (NJRP), sponsored by the U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), for information on the court processing of individual felony convictions. The National Association of Criminal Justice Planners (NACJP), which maintains data for the approximately 50 counties included in the NJRP, was contracted to determine the counties to be sampled (Los Angeles County and Maricopa County in Arizona were chosen) and to provide individual criminal histories. Variables include number of arrests for robbery, violent crimes, property crimes, and other felonies, number of drug arrests, number of misdemeanor arrests, rate of violent, property, robbery, weapons, other felony, drug, and misdemeanor arrests, offense type (drug trafficking, drug possession, robbery, and burglary), total number of incarcerations, total number of convictions, whether sentenced to prison, jail, or probation, incarceration sentence in months, sex, race, and age at sampled conviction, and age at first arrest (starting at age 17).
Curated
Restricted
Evaluation of CeaseFire, a Chicago-based Violence Prevention Program, 1991-2007 (ICPSR 23880)
Released/updated on: 2015-02-25
Geographic coverage: United States, Chicago, Illinois
Time period: 1991-01-01--2006-12-31, 1998-02-01--2006-04-30, 2006-05-01--2007-08-31, 2006-09-01--2007-02-28, 2007-04-05--2007-07-19
This study evaluated CeaseFire, a program of the Chicago Project for Violence Prevention. The evaluation had both outcome and process components.
The outcome evaluation assessed the program's impact on shootings and killings in selected CeaseFire sites. Two types of crime data were compiled by the research team: Time Series Data (Dataset 1) and Shooting Incident Data (Dataset 2). Dataset 1 is comprised of aggregate month/year data on all shooting, gun murder, and persons shot incidents reported to Chicago police for CeaseFire's target beats and matched sets of comparison beats between January 1991 and December 2006, resulting in 1,332 observations. Dataset 2 consists of data on 4,828 shootings that were reported in CeaseFire's targeted police beats and in a matched set of comparison beats for two-year periods before and after the implementation of the program (February 1998 to April 2006).
The process evaluation involved assessing the program's operations and effectiveness. Researchers surveyed three groups of CeaseFire program stakeholders: employees, representatives of collaborating organizations, and clients.
The three sets of employee survey data examine such topics as their level of involvement with clients and CeaseFire activities, their assessments of their clients' problems, and their satisfaction with training and management practices. A total of 154 employees were surveyed: 23 outreach supervisors (Dataset 3), 78 outreach workers (Dataset 4), and 53 violence interrupters (Dataset 5).
The six sets of collaborating organization representatives data examine such topics as their level of familiarity and contact with the CeaseFire program, their opinions of CeaseFire clients, and their assessments of the costs and benefits of being involved with CeaseFire. A total of 230 representatives were surveyed: 20 business representatives (Dataset 6), 45 clergy representatives (Dataset 7), 26 community representatives (Dataset 8), 35 police representatives (Dataset 9), 36 school representatives (Dataset 10), and 68 service organization representatives (Dataset 11).
The Client Survey Data (Dataset 12) examine such topics as clients' involvement in the CeaseFire program, their satisfaction with aspects of life, and their opinions regarding the role of guns in neighborhood life. A total of 297 clients were interviewed.
Curated
Partially restricted
Evaluation of the Target Corporation's Safe City Initiative in Chula Vista, California, and Cincinnati, Ohio, 2004-2008 (ICPSR 28044)
Released/updated on: 2010-09-29
Geographic coverage: United States, Texas, Chula Vista, Ohio, Cincinnati, California, New York (state), Buffalo, Houston
Time period: 2004-01-01--2008-11-30, 2004-01-01--2008-11-30, 2007-03-01--2008-03-31
The purpose of the study was to evaluate the implementation of the Safe City crime prevention model that was implemented in designated retail areas in jurisdictions across the United States. The model involved frequent meetings and information-sharing among the police, Target, and neighboring retailers, along with the implementation of enhanced technology. The first step in the Safe City evaluation involved selecting evaluation sites. The final sites selected were Chula Vista, California, and Cincinnati, Ohio. Next, for each of the two sites, researchers selected a site that had a potential for crime displacement caused by the intervention area, and a matched comparison area in another jurisdiction that would likely have been selected as a Safe City site. For Chula Vista, the displacement area was 2 miles east of the intervention area and the comparison area was in Houston, Texas. For Cincinnati, the displacement area was 1.5 miles north of the intervention area and the comparison area was in Buffalo, New York. In Chula Vista, the Safe City intervention activities were focused on gaining a better understanding of the nature and underlying causes of the crime and disorder problems occurring in the designated Safe City site, and strengthening pre-existing partnerships between law enforcement and businesses affected by these problems. In Cincinnati, the Safe City intervention activities centered on increasing business and citizen awareness, communication, and involvement in crime control and prevention activities. The research team collected pre- and post-intervention crime data from local police departments (Part 1) to measure the impact of the Safe City initiatives in Chula Vista and Cincinnati. The 981 records in Part 1 contain monthly crime counts from January 2004 to November 2008 for various types of crime in the retail areas that received the intervention in Chula Vista and Cincinnati, and their corresponding displacement zones and matched comparison areas. Using the monthly crime counts contained in the Safe City Monthly Crime Data (Part 1) and estimations of the total cost of crime to society for various offenses from prior research, the research team calculated the total cost of crimes reported during the month/year for each crime type that was readily available (Part 2). The 400 records in the Safe City Monthly Cost Benefit Analysis Data (Part 2) contain monthly crime cost estimates from January 2004 to November 2008 for assaults, burglaries, larcenies, and robberies in the retail areas that received the intervention in Chula Vista and Cincinnati, and their corresponding displacement zones and matched comparison areas. The research team also received a total of 192 completed baseline and follow-up surveys with businesses in Chula Vista and Cincinnati in 2007 and 2008 (Part 3). The surveys collected data on merchants' perceptions of crime and safety in and around businesses located in the Safe City areas. The Safe City Monthly Crime Data (Part 1) contain seven variables including the number of crimes in the target area, the month and year the crime was committed, the number of crimes in the displacement area, the number of crimes in a comparable area in a comparable city, the city, and the crime type. The Safe City Monthly Cost Benefit Analysis Data (Part 2) contain seven variables including the cost of the specified type of crime occurring in the target area, the month and year the cost was incurred, the cost of the specified type of crime in the displacement area, the cost of the specified type of crime in a matched comparison area, the city, and the crime type. The Safe City Business Survey Data (Part 3) contain 132 variables relating to perceptions of safety, contact with local police, experience and reporting of crime, impact of crime, crime prevention, community connections, and business/employee information.
Curated
Restricted
Foreclosure and Crime data for the District of Columbia and Miami-Dade County, Florida, 2003-2011 (ICPSR 35349)
Released/updated on: 2017-06-26
Geographic coverage: District of Columbia, United States, Florida, Miami
Time period: 2003-01-01--2010-12-31, 2003-08-01--2011-06-30
These data are part of NACJD's Fast Track Release and are distributed as they there received from the data depositor. The files have been zipped by NACJD for release, but not checked or processed except of the removal of direct identifiers. Users should refer to the accompany readme file for a brief description of the files available with this collections and consult the investigator(s) if further information is needed.
This study was a systematic assessment of the impacts of foreclosures and crime levels on each other, using sophisticated spatial analysis methods, informed by qualitative research on the topic. Using data on foreclosures and crime in District of Columbia and Miami-Dade County, Florida from 2003 to 2011, this study considered the effects of the two phenomena on each other through a dynamic systems approach.
Curated
Gender and Violent Victimization, 1973-2005 [United States] (ICPSR 27082)
Released/updated on: 2012-09-20
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1973-01-01--2005-12-31
The purpose of this project was to estimate long-term trends in violent victimization by gender and various socio-demographic factors. These factors included race and ethnicity, age, type of place (urban, suburban, rural), socio-economic status, marital status (for adults), and family status (for juveniles). The principal investigators also further disaggregated these violent victimization trends by victim-offender relationship to reveal trends in violence committed by strangers, intimate partners, and known/non-intimate offenders. The researchers produced these various trends in violent victimization by pooling and appropriately weighting the National Crime Survey and its successor, the National Crime Victimization Survey for the period 1973 to 2005, resulting in 33 years of data. In total, a series of 135 trends in violent victimization were developed.
Curated
Impact of Casino Gambling on Crime in the Atlantic City Region, 1970-1984 (ICPSR 9237)
Released/updated on: 2006-01-18
Geographic coverage: Atlantic City, United States, New Jersey
The aim of this data collection was to gauge the impact of legalized casino gambling on the level and spatial distribution of crime in the Atlantic City region by comparing crime rates before and after the introduction of this type of gambling in the area. Data for the years 1972 through 1984 were collected from various New Jersey state publications for 64 localities and include information on population size and density, population characteristics of race, age, per capita income, education and home ownership, real estate values, number of police employees and police expenditures, total city expenditure, and number of burglaries, larcenies, robberies and vehicle thefts. Spatial variables include population attributes standardized by land area in square miles, and measures of accessibility, location, and distance from Atlantic City. For the 1970/1980 data file, additional variables pertaining to population characteristics were created from census data to match economic and crime attributes found in the 1972-1984 data. Data on eight additional locations are available in the 1970/1980 file.
Curated
Restricted
Impact of Foreclosures on Neighborhood Crime in Five Cities in the United States, 2002-2011 (ICPSR 34978)
Released/updated on: 2016-10-31
Geographic coverage: New York City, United States, Chicago, Atlanta, Illinois, Georgia, Florida, New York (state), Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Miami
Time period: 2002-01-01--2011-12-31
These data are part of NACJD's Fast Track Release and are distributed as they there received from the data depositor. The files have been zipped by NACJD for release, but not checked or processed except of the removal of direct identifiers. Users should refer to the accompany readme file for a brief description of the files available with this collections and consult the investigator(s) if further information is needed.
The purpose of the study was to examine whether and how foreclosures affect neighborhood crime in five cities in the United States. Point-specific crime data was provide by the New York (New York) Police Department, the Chicago (Illinois) Police Department, the Miami (Florida) Police Department, the Philadelphia (Pennsylvania) Police Department, and the Atlanta (Georgia) Police Department. Researchers also created measures of violent and property crimes based on Uniform Crime Report (UCR) categories, and a measure of public order crime, which includes less serious offenses including loitering, prostitution, drug crimes, graffiti, and weapons offenses. Researchers obtained data on the number of foreclosure notices (Lis Pendens) filed, the number of Lis Pendens filed that do not become real estate owned (REO), and number of REO properties from court fillings, mortgage deeds and tax assessor's offices.
Curated
Restricted
Indirect Impacts of Community Policing, Jersey City, NJ, 1997-1999 (ICPSR 29430)
Released/updated on: 2014-10-08
Geographic coverage: Jersey City, United States, New Jersey
Time period: 1997-01-01--1999-12-31
This study attempted to measure spatial displacement or diffusion of crime to areas near the targeted sites of police intervention. Data were drawn from a controlled study of displacement and diffusion in Jersey City, New Jersey. Two sites with substantial street-level crime and disorder were targeted and carefully monitored during an experimental period. Two neighboring areas were selected as "catchment areas" from which to assess immediate spatial displacement or diffusion. Intensive police interventions were applied to each target site but not to the catchment areas. More than 6,000 20-minute social observations were conducted in the target and catchment areas. Physical observations of the areas were conducted before, during, and after the interventions as well. These data were supplemented by interviews with local residents and ethnographic field observations.
Curated
Simple Crosstabs
The Interactions and Impacts of State DNA Database Laws, United States, 2000-2015 (ICPSR 36519)
Released/updated on: 2025-06-26
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 2000-01-01--2015-12-31
This study collected historical data on state DNA database size and the timing of state DNA database expansions in order to examine any impacts on crime rates.
Curated
Intercity Variation in Youth Homicide, Robbery, and Assault, 1984-2006 [United States] (ICPSR 30981)
Released/updated on: 2012-09-20
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1984-01-01--2006-12-31
The research team collected data on homicide, robbery, and assault offending from 1984-2006 for youth 13 to 24 years of age in 91 of the 100 largest cities in the United States (based on the 1980 Census) from various existing data sources. Data on youth homicide perpetration were acquired from the Supplementary Homicide Reports (SHR) and data on nonlethal youth violence (robbery and assault) were obtained from the Uniform Crime Reports (UCR). Annual homicide, robbery, and assault arrest rates per 100,000 age-specific populations (i.e., 13 to 17 and 18 to 24 year olds) were calculated by year for each city in the study. Data on city characteristics were derived from several sources including the County and City Data Books, SHR, and the Vital Statistics Multiple Cause of Death File. The research team constructed a dataset representing lethal and nonlethal offending at the city level for 91 cities over the 23-year period from 1984 to 2006, resulting in 2,093 city year observations.
Curated
Law Enforcement Agency Identifiers Crosswalk [United States], 1996 (ICPSR 2876)
Released/updated on: 2001-09-20
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1996-01-01--1996-12-31
Researchers have long been able to analyze crime and law enforcement data at the individual agency level (see UNIFORM CRIME REPORTING PROGRAM DATA: [UNITED STATES] [ICPSR 9028]) and at the county level (see, for example, UNIFORM CRIME REPORTING PROGRAM DATA [UNITED STATES]: COUNTY-LEVEL DETAILED ARREST AND OFFENSE DATA, 1997 [ICPSR 2764]). However, analyzing crime data at the intermediate level, the city or place, has been difficult. To facilitate the creation and analysis of place-level data, the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) and the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data (NACJD) created the Law Enforcement Agency Identifiers Crosswalk. The crosswalk file was designed to provide geographic and other identification information for each record included in either the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) files or BJS's Directory of Law Enforcement Agencies. The main variables for each record are the UCR originating agency identifier number, agency name, mailing address, Census Bureau's government identification number, UCR state and county codes, and Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS) state, county, and place codes. These variables make it possible for researchers to take police agency-level data, combine them with Bureau of the Census and BJS data, and perform place-level, jurisdiction-level, and government-level analyses.
Curated
Law Enforcement Agency Identifiers Crosswalk [United States], 2000 (ICPSR 4082)
Released/updated on: 2004-09-16
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 2000-01-01--2000-12-31
Researchers have long been able to analyze crime and law enforcement data at the individual agency level (see UNIFORM CRIME REPORTING PROGRAM DATA: [UNITED STATES] [ICPSR 9028]) and at the county level (see, for example, UNIFORM CRIME REPORTING PROGRAM DATA [UNITED STATES]: COUNTY-LEVEL DETAILED ARREST AND OFFENSE DATA, 1997 [ICPSR 2764]). However, analyzing crime data at the intermediate level, the city or place, has been difficult. To facilitate the creation and analysis of place-level data, the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) and the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data (NACJD) created the Law Enforcement Agency Identifiers Crosswalk. The crosswalk file was designed to provide geographic and other identification information for each record included in either the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) files or BJS's Directory of Law Enforcement Agencies. The main variables for each record are the UCR originating agency identifier number, agency name, mailing address, Census Bureau's government identification number, UCR state and county codes, and Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS) state, county, and place codes. These variables make it possible for researchers to take police agency-level data, combine them with Bureau of the Census and BJS data, and perform place-level, jurisdiction-level, and government-level analyses.
Curated
Law Enforcement Agency Identifiers Crosswalk [United States], 2005 (ICPSR 4634)
Released/updated on: 2007-01-10
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 2005-01-01--2005-12-31
The crosswalk file is designed to provide geographic and other identification information for each record included in either the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program files or in the Bureau of Justice Statistics' Census of State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies (CSLLEA). The main variables each record contains are the alpha state code, county name, place name, government agency name, police agency name, government identification number, Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS) state, county, and place codes, and Originating Agency Identifier (ORI) code. These variables allow a researcher to take agency-level data, combine it with Bureau of the Census and BJS data, and perform place-level and government-level analyses.
Curated
Longitudinal Study of Criminal Career Patterns of Former California Youth Authority Wards, 1965-1984 (ICPSR 2478)
Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: United States, California
Time period: 1965-01-01--1984-12-31
This study was designed to measure changes that occur in criminal behavior as offenders move through life. It investigated the patterns of criminal behavior that occurred over ten to fifteen years for men whose early criminal involvement was serious enough to result in commitment to California Youth Authority (state-level) institutions. The main focus of the study was on changes in criminal behavior as these men moved through their 20s and into their 30s. This study extended and expanded the follow-up data for the study EARLY IDENTIFICATION OF THE CHRONIC OFFENDER, [1978-1980: CALIFORNIA] (ICPSR 8226). Half of the sample from the earlier study was used in the present study, along with smaller samples of adult offenders with no history of state-level commitments as juveniles. These data allow for analyses of adult patterns of criminal behavior and the relationship of the patterns to various explanatory variables. Part 1, Offense Data, contains arrest information covering the period after parole from the California Youth Authority through the date of data collection. Variables include entry and release dates to jail, prison, or probation, the most serious offense and charge, total number of offenses for violent, property, and all crimes, and dates of arrest, offense codes, and number of counts for all arrests. These arrest data incorporate the arrest data contained in EARLY IDENTIFICATION OF THE CHRONIC OFFENDER, [1978-1980: CALIFORNIA] (ICPSR 8226) for all California Youth Authority cases in the current study. Part 2, Arrest Data by Age and Year, contains counts of arrest charges by type of offense (violent or nonviolent) and by age and calendar year. Part 3, Arrest Data for Specific Offenses, contains counts of more specific arrest charges for four-year age blocks (from 18 through 30-plus) for 21 types of offenses, including murder, assault, rape, robbery, burglary, theft, forgery, arson, and drug possession. Variables include months of street time, months of incarceration, and total arrests. Part 4, Prison and Probation Data, contains information on prison or probation terms and arrest and lifestyle characteristics for the year immediately prior to and following jail or prison. Variables include family criminal history, family life, education, entry and release dates, offenses, treatment and training while incarcerated, gang affiliation, psychological evaluation, drug use, employment history, and marital status. Part 5, Social History Data, contains lifestyle characteristics by age and year. Variables include drug and alcohol use, marital status, living arrangements, and employment history. All files contain age and race variables.
Curated
Monitoring Drug Epidemics and the Markets That Sustain Them, Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) and ADAM II Data, 2000-2003 and 2007-2010 (ICPSR 33201)
Released/updated on: 2012-12-13
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Oregon, District of Columbia, Charlotte, Sacramento, Indiana, United States, Chicago, Minnesota, California, New York (state), New York City, Minneapolis, Atlanta, Illinois, Colorado, Portland (Oregon), Denver, Georgia, Indianapolis
Time period: 2000-01-01--2003-12-31, 2007-01-01--2010-12-31
This study examined trends in the use of five widely abused drugs among arrestees at 10 geographically diverse locations from 2000 to 2010: Atlanta, Charlotte, Chicago, Denver, Indianapolis, Manhattan, Minneapolis, Portland Oregon, Sacramento, and Washington DC. The data came from the Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring Program reintroduced in 2007 (ADAM II) and its predecessor the ADAM program. ADAM data included urinalysis results that provided an objective measure of recent drug use, provided location specific estimates over time, and provided sample weights that yielded unbiased estimates for each location. The ADAM data were analyzed according to a drug epidemics framework, which has been previously employed to understand the decline of the crack epidemic, the growth of marijuana use in the 1990s, and the persistence of heroin use. Similar to other diffusion of innovation processes, drug epidemics tend to follow a natural course passing through four distinct phases: incubation, expansion, plateau, and decline. The study also searched for changes in drug markets over the course of a drug epidemic.
Curated
Restricted
Monitoring Drug Markets in Manhattan [New York City], With the Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Program, 1998-2002 (ICPSR 22381)
Released/updated on: 2009-06-03
Geographic coverage: New York City, United States, New York (state)
Time period: 1998-01-01--2002-12-31
The purpose of the study was to determine how much Manhattan (New York City) arrestees surveyed by the Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) program spend on drug expenses. The program obtained both self-report and urinalysis data from a total of 5,210 Manhattan arrestees surveyed by the ADAM program from 1998 to 2002. The principal investigators developed a formula for an episodic estimator of a respondent's drug expense for cash, noncash, and cash-combination transactions. The dataset contains a total of 267 variables relating to Manhattan arrestees' demographics, interview information, criminal history, urinalysis test results, drug use, drug market transactions, and drug expenses.
Curated
Restricted
Pathological Gambling in Arrestee Populations in Des Moines, Iowa, and Las Vegas, Nevada, 2000-2001 (ICPSR 3499)
Released/updated on: 2003-06-05
Geographic coverage: Des Moines, Iowa, United States, Las Vegas, Nevada
Time period: 2000-01-01--2001-12-31
This study sought to examine the extent, nature, and consequences of pathological gambling disorders in arrestee populations. Five research questions were addressed: (1) What is the prevalence of pathological gambling in arrestee populations? (2) What is the profile of the pathological gambler arrested for felony and misdemeanor offenses? (3) How does the nature and level of criminal activity among pathological gamblers compare to that of non- pathological gamblers? (4) What proportion of the crime committed by offenders with pathological gambling disorders is linked to their gambling activities (either to fund gambling or pay off gambling debts)? and (5) How does substance abuse interact with pathological gambling to affect the nature and extent of criminal activity? The data for this research were collected in conjunction with the National Institute of Justice's Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) programs. Arrestees in Las Vegas, Nevada, and Des Moines, Iowa, who had completed the ADAM interview and provided a urine specimen were asked if they would be willing to answer an additional set of questions concerning their gambling behavior. Data from the ADAM interview and drug screening were merged with data collected using the gambling addendum, producing the dataset for this study. Variables from the ADAM instruments were comprised of demographic data on each arrestee, calendar of admissions to drug treatment-related programs, data on dependence and abuse, drug market and use data, and urine test results. The gambling addendum was used to collect data on five topics: (1) past-year gambling activity, (2) the use of alcohol and illegal drugs prior to and during gambling, (3) substance abuse and/or self-reported gambling problems, (4) past-year criminal activity (property, drug, and violent offending), and (5) motivations for criminal activity (gambling or non-gambling related).
Curated
Restricted
Pittsburgh Youth Study Age Variables, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 1987-2001 (ICPSR 37354)
Released/updated on: 2019-09-30
Geographic coverage: United States, Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh
Time period: 1987-01-01--1991-12-31, 1991-01-01--2001-12-31, 2006-01-01--2007-12-31, 2009-01-01--2010-12-31
The Pittsburgh Youth Study (PYS) is part of the larger "Program of Research on the Causes and Correlates of Delinquency" initiated by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention in 1986. PYS aims to document the development of antisocial and delinquent behavior from childhood to early adulthood, the risk factors that impinge on that development, and help seeking and service provision of boys' behavior problems. The study also focuses on boys' development of alcohol and drug use, and internalizing problems.
PYS consists of three samples of boys who were in the first, fourth, and seventh grades in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania public schools during the 1987-1988 academic year (called the youngest, middle, and oldest sample, respectively). Using a screening risk score that measured each boy's antisocial behavior, boys identified at the top 30 percent within each grade sample on the screening risk measure (n=~250), as well as an equal number of boys randomly selected from the remainder (n=~250), were selected for follow-up. Consequently, the final sample for the study consisted of 1,517 total students selected for follow-up. 506 of these students were in the oldest sample, 508 were in the middle sample, and 503 were in the youngest sample.
Assessments were conducted semiannually and then annually using multiple informants (i.e., boys, parents, teachers) between 1987 and 2010. The youngest sample was assessed from ages 6-19 and again at ages 25 and 28. The middle sample was assessed from ages 9-13 and again at age 23. The oldest sample was assessed from ages 13-25, with an additional assessment at age 35. Information has been collected on a broad range of risk and protective factors across multiple domains (e.g., individual, family, peer, school, neighborhood). Measures of conduct problems, substance use/abuse, criminal behavior, mental health problems have been collected.
This collection contains data for participants' ages at each phase of the PYS study and were created by using the PYS raw data. The raw data are available at ICPSR in the following studies: Pittsburgh Youth Study Youngest Sample (1987 - 2001) [Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania], Pittsburgh Youth Study Middle Sample (1987 - 1991) [Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania] , and Pittsburgh Youth Study Oldest Sample (1987 - 2000) [Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania].