Showing 1 – 50 of 63 results.
Curated
Restricted
Alternative Sentencing Policies for Drug Offenders: Evaluating the Effectiveness of Kansas Senate Bill 123, 2001-2010 (ICPSR 30982)
Released/updated on: 2014-01-31
Geographic coverage: United States, Kansas
Time period: 2001-11-01--2010-08-31
The study examined the first five years of operation of Kansas senate bill 123 (November 2003-November 2008) examining individual-level and system-level outcomes over time and across community corrections districts and judicial actors. The study also assesses the impact of SB 123 on the work routines of criminal justice system actors, examining changes in sentencing and supervision practices and interactions across agencies following the implementation of SB 123.
Individual-level impacts of SB 123 on recidivism rates are assessed using sentencing and revocation data collected by the Kansas Sentencing Commission for drug possessors sentenced in Kansas between November 1, 2001 and October 31, 2008 (Dataset 1). Propensity score matching was used to compare the revocation and reconviction rates of drug possessors sentenced to SB 123 with the recidivism rates of similar individuals sentenced to regular probation (standard supervision by community corrections or court services) (Dataset 2). Supervision and program participation data provided by the Kansas Department of Corrections were used to assess the use of drug treatment services, education and employment services, and sanctions for individuals sentenced to SB 123 or standard community corrections (Dataset 3). These quantitative data were complemented by a set qualitative data derived from interviews with SB 123-eligible offenders (Dataset 4), community corrections managers, and courtroom actors (judges, prosecutors, public defenders) (Dataset 5).
Curated
Armed Criminals in America: A Survey of Incarcerated Felons, 1983 (ICPSR 8357)
Released/updated on: 2005-11-04
Geographic coverage: United States
The data for this study were collected using self-administered questionnaires given to a nonprobability sample of incarcerated felons in ten states. Information in the data include socioeconomic status of the inmate, prior criminal record, drug use, weapon usage, family history, and demographic information.
Curated
Assessment of a Single-Purpose Substance Abuse Facility for Committed Juvenile Offenders in Virginia, 1995-1997 (ICPSR 2730)
Released/updated on: 2005-11-04
Geographic coverage: United States, Virginia
Time period: 1995-01-01--1997-01-01
The objective of this data collection was to provide a preliminary assessment of the effectiveness of treatment offered at the Barrett Juvenile Correctional Center, a substance abuse treatment facility in Virginia for convicted male offenders that began operation in late 1993. The center uses a holistic approach in the treatment of youth to identify the triggers for substance abuse and to investigate the relationship between substance abuse and delinquent behavior. For the facility assessment, various types of data from the Virginia Department of Juvenile Justice were gathered. Baseline data on each juvenile were obtained from the department's Reception and Diagnostic Center and consisted of demographic information and I.Q. scores, criminal history, and substance abuse history. Demographic variables include the youth's race, last grade placement, and with whom the youth lived. Youths' scores on standardized tests were also compiled, including SASSI, verbal I.Q., performance I.Q., and full-scale I.Q. scores. Criminal histories covered whether the committing offense was a felony or misdemeanor, the type of committing offense, the total number of committing offenses, whether a prior offense was a felony or a misdemeanor, the type of prior offense, the total number of prior offenses, the age at first criminal adjudication, age at commitment, and degree of delinquency. Alcohol and drug use data focused on the age at which alcohol was first used, number of times alcohol was used in the past year, age at which marijuana was first used, number of times marijuana was used in the past month, and whether the youth ever used cocaine, crack, inhalants, speed, depressants, hallucinogens, or other drugs. Another source of information was the youths' parole officers, who provided data on youths' criminal offending status and substance abuse at three, six, and twelve months after release from the center. Data obtained from parole officers assessing youths' improvement after leaving the center include whether they were rearrested, the type of offense if rearrested, the total number of offenses rearrested for, disposition, most serious offense overall, and youths' overall drug use.
Curated
Restricted
Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement, 1997-2010 -- Concatenated Data [United States] (ICPSR 27541)
Released/updated on: 2013-02-28
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Indiana, Wyoming, Utah, Arizona, Montana, Kentucky, California, Kansas, Florida, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Mississippi, Iowa, Illinois, Texas, Connecticut, Georgia, Virginia, Maryland, Idaho, Oregon, Vermont, United States, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Maine, Alabama, Arkansas, Washington, South Carolina, Nebraska, West Virginia, Massachusetts, Colorado, Missouri, Alaska, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Nevada, District of Columbia, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Hawaii, Minnesota, New York (state), New Jersey, Michigan, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Louisiana, Ohio
The Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement (CJRP) was administered for the first time in 1997 by the United States Bureau of the Census, for the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP). CJRP replaced the Census of Public and Private Juvenile Detention, Correctional, and Shelter Facilities, also known as the Children in Custody (CIC) census, which had been conducted since the early 1970s. The CJRP differs fundamentally from CIC in that the CIC collected aggregate data on juveniles held in each facility (e.g., number of juveniles in the facility) and the CJRP collects an individual record on each juvenile held in the residential facility to provide a detailed picture of juveniles in custody. The CJRP, which is conducted biennially, asked juvenile residential custody facilities in the United States to describe each youth assigned a bed in the facility on a specified reference date. For 1997, the reference date was the fifth Wednesday in October. For 1999-2003 and 2007, the reference date was the fourth Wednesday in October. For 2006 and 2010, the reference date was the fourth Wednesday in February. Characteristics of the facility, treatment services, and facility population were also collected. Each record in the data that provides information about a juvenile also includes the characteristics of the facility in which the juvenile was held. Therefore, the CJRP data can be analyzed at the juvenile or facility level. Some state and regional agencies provide CJRP data for more than one facility under their jurisdiction. The census was not sent to adult facilities or to facilities exclusively for drug or mental health treatment or for abused or neglected children. The concatenated data include the seven years of CJRP data in one file. Data were harmonized so that variables present across years are identically named to facilitate analysis.
Curated
Restricted
Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement, 1997 [United States] (ICPSR 4673)
Released/updated on: 2016-08-10
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Indiana, Wyoming, Utah, Arizona, Montana, Kentucky, California, Kansas, Florida, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Mississippi, Iowa, Illinois, Texas, Connecticut, Georgia, Virginia, Maryland, Idaho, Oregon, Vermont, United States, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Maine, Alabama, Arkansas, Washington, South Carolina, Nebraska, West Virginia, Massachusetts, Colorado, Missouri, Alaska, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Nevada, District of Columbia, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Hawaii, Minnesota, New York (state), New Jersey, Michigan, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Louisiana, Ohio
The Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement (CJRP) was administered for the first time in 1997 by the United States Bureau of the Census, for the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP). CJRP replaced the Census of Public and Private Juvenile Detention, Correctional, and Shelter Facilities, also known as the Children in Custody (CIC) census, which had been conducted since the early 1970s. The CJRP differs fundamentally from CIC in that the CIC collected aggregate data on juveniles held in each facility (e.g., number of juveniles in the facility) and the CJRP, which is conducted biennially, collects an individual record on each juvenile held in the residential facility to provide a detailed picture of juveniles in custody. The CJRP asked juvenile residential custody facilities in the United States to describe each youth assigned a bed in the facility on a specified reference date. In 1997, the reference date was the fifth Wednesday in October. Characteristics of the facility, treatment services, and facility population were also collected. Each record in the data that provides information about a juvenile also includes the characteristics of the facility in which the juvenile was held. Therefore, the CJRP data can be analyzed at the juvenile or facility level. Some state and regional agencies provide CJRP data for more than one facility under their jurisdiction. The census was not sent to adult facilities or to facilities exclusively for drug or mental health treatment or for abused or neglected children.
Curated
Restricted
Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement, 1999 [United States] (ICPSR 4674)
Released/updated on: 2016-08-10
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Indiana, Wyoming, Utah, Arizona, Montana, Kentucky, California, Kansas, Florida, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Mississippi, Iowa, Illinois, Texas, Connecticut, Georgia, Virginia, Maryland, Idaho, Oregon, Vermont, United States, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Maine, Alabama, Arkansas, Washington, South Carolina, Nebraska, West Virginia, Massachusetts, Colorado, Missouri, Alaska, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Nevada, District of Columbia, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Hawaii, Minnesota, New York (state), New Jersey, Michigan, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Louisiana, Ohio
The Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement (CJRP) was administered for the first time in 1997 by the United States Bureau of the Census, for the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP). CJRP replaced the Census of Public and Private Juvenile Detention, Correctional, and Shelter Facilities, also known as the Children in Custody (CIC) census, which had been conducted since the early 1970s. The CJRP differs fundamentally from CIC in that the CIC collected aggregate data on juveniles held in each facility (e.g., number of juveniles in the facility) and the CJRP, which is conducted biennially, collects an individual record on each juvenile held in the residential facility to provide a detailed picture of juveniles in custody. The CJRP asked juvenile residential custody facilities in the United States to describe each youth assigned a bed in the facility on a specified reference date. In 1999, the reference date was the fourth Wednesday in October. Characteristics of the facility, treatment services, and facility population were also collected. Each record in the data that provides information about a juvenile also includes the characteristics of the facility in which the juvenile was held. Therefore, the CJRP data can be analyzed at the juvenile or facility level. Some state and regional agencies provide CJRP data for more than one facility under their jurisdiction. The census was not sent to adult facilities or to facilities exclusively for drug or mental health treatment or for abused or neglected children.
Curated
Restricted
Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement, 2001 [United States] (ICPSR 4670)
Released/updated on: 2016-08-10
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Indiana, Wyoming, Utah, Arizona, Montana, Kentucky, California, Kansas, Florida, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Mississippi, Iowa, Illinois, Texas, Connecticut, Georgia, Virginia, Maryland, Idaho, Oregon, Vermont, United States, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Maine, Alabama, Arkansas, Washington, South Carolina, Nebraska, West Virginia, Massachusetts, Colorado, Missouri, Alaska, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Nevada, District of Columbia, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Hawaii, Minnesota, New York (state), New Jersey, Michigan, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Louisiana, Ohio
Time period: 2001-10-12--2002-06-26
The Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement (CJRP) was administered for the first time in 1997 by the United States Bureau of the Census, for the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP). CJRP replaced the Census of Public and Private Juvenile Detention, Correctional, and Shelter Facilities, also known as the Children in Custody (CIC) census, which had been conducted since the early 1970s. The CJRP differs fundamentally from CIC in that the CIC collected aggregate data on juveniles held in each facility (e.g., number of juveniles in the facility) and the CJRP, which is conducted biennially, collects an individual record on each juvenile held in the residential facility to provide a detailed picture of juveniles in custody. The CJRP asked juvenile residential custody facilities in the United States to describe each youth assigned a bed in the facility on a specified reference date. In 2001, the reference date was the fourth Wednesday in October. Characteristics of the facility, treatment services, and facility population were also collected. Each record in the data that provides information about a juvenile also includes the characteristics of the facility in which the juvenile was held. Therefore, the CJRP data can be analyzed at the juvenile or facility level. Some state and regional agencies provide CJRP data for more than one facility under their jurisdiction. The census was not sent to adult facilities or to facilities exclusively for drug or mental health treatment or for abused or neglected children.
Curated
Restricted
Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement, 2003 [United States] (ICPSR 23480)
Released/updated on: 2016-08-10
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Indiana, Wyoming, Utah, Arizona, Montana, Kentucky, California, Kansas, Florida, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Mississippi, Iowa, Illinois, Texas, Connecticut, Georgia, Virginia, Maryland, Idaho, Oregon, Vermont, United States, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Maine, Alabama, Arkansas, Washington, South Carolina, Nebraska, West Virginia, Massachusetts, Colorado, Missouri, Alaska, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Nevada, District of Columbia, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Hawaii, Minnesota, New York (state), New Jersey, Michigan, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Louisiana, Ohio
Time period: 2003-10-24--2004-04-21
The Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement (CJRP) was administered for the first time in 1997 by the United States Bureau of the Census, for the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP). CJRP replaced the Census of Public and Private Juvenile Detention, Correctional, and Shelter Facilities, also known as the Children in Custody (CIC) census, which had been conducted since the early 1970s. The CJRP differs fundamentally from CIC in that the CIC collected aggregate data on juveniles held in each facility (e.g., number of juveniles in the facility) and the CJRP, which is conducted biennially, collects an individual record on each juvenile held in the residential facility to provide a detailed picture of juveniles in custody. The CJRP asked juvenile residential custody facilities in the United States to describe each youth assigned a bed in the facility on a specified reference date. In 2003, the reference date was the fourth Wednesday in October. Characteristics of the facility, treatment services, and facility population were also collected. Each record in the data that provides information about a juvenile also includes the characteristics of the facility in which the juvenile was held. Therefore, the CJRP data can be analyzed at the juvenile or facility level. Some state and regional agencies provide CJRP data for more than one facility under their jurisdiction. The census was not sent to adult facilities or to facilities exclusively for drug or mental health treatment or for abused or neglected children.
Curated
Restricted
Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement, 2006 [United States] (ICPSR 24300)
Released/updated on: 2016-08-10
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Indiana, Wyoming, Utah, Arizona, Montana, Kentucky, California, Kansas, Florida, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Mississippi, Iowa, Illinois, Texas, Connecticut, Georgia, Virginia, Maryland, Idaho, Oregon, Vermont, United States, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Maine, Alabama, Arkansas, Washington, South Carolina, Nebraska, West Virginia, Massachusetts, Colorado, Missouri, Alaska, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Nevada, District of Columbia, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Hawaii, Minnesota, New York (state), New Jersey, Michigan, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Louisiana, Ohio
Time period: 2006-02-23--2006-12-12
The Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement (CJRP) was administered for the first time in 1997 by the United States Bureau of the Census, for the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP). CJRP replaced the Census of Public and Private Juvenile Detention, Correctional, and Shelter Facilities, also known as the Children in Custody (CIC) census, which had been conducted since the early 1970s. The CJRP differs fundamentally from CIC in that the CIC collected aggregate data on juveniles held in each facility (e.g., number of juveniles in the facility) and the CJRP, which is conducted biennially, collects an individual record on each juvenile held in the residential facility to provide a detailed picture of juveniles in custody. The CJRP asked juvenile residential custody facilities in the United States to describe each youth assigned a bed in the facility on a specified reference date. In 2006, the reference date was the fourth Wednesday in February. Characteristics of the facility, treatment services, and facility population were also collected. Each record in the data that provides information about a juvenile also includes the characteristics of the facility in which the juvenile was held. Therefore, the CJRP data can be analyzed at the juvenile or facility level. Some state and regional agencies provide CJRP data for more than one facility under their jurisdiction. The census was not sent to adult facilities or to facilities exclusively for drug or mental health treatment or for abused or neglected children.
Curated
Restricted
Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement, 2007 [United States] (ICPSR 34401)
Released/updated on: 2016-08-10
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Indiana, Wyoming, Utah, Arizona, Montana, Kentucky, California, Kansas, Florida, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Mississippi, Iowa, Illinois, Texas, Connecticut, Georgia, Virginia, Maryland, Idaho, Oregon, Vermont, United States, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Maine, Alabama, Arkansas, Washington, South Carolina, Nebraska, West Virginia, Massachusetts, Colorado, Missouri, Alaska, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Nevada, District of Columbia, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Hawaii, Minnesota, New York (state), New Jersey, Michigan, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Louisiana, Ohio
Time period: 2007-10-22--2008-06-30
The Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement (CJRP) was administered for the first time in 1997 by the United States Bureau of the Census, for the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP). CJRP replaced the Census of Public and Private Juvenile Detention, Correctional, and Shelter Facilities, also known as the Children in Custody (CIC) census, which had been conducted since the early 1970s. The CJRP differs fundamentally from CIC in that the CIC collected aggregate data on juveniles held in each facility (e.g., number of juveniles in the facility) and the CJRP, which is conducted biennially, collects an individual record on each juvenile held in the residential facility to provide a detailed picture of juveniles in custody. The CJRP asked juvenile residential custody facilities in the United States to describe each youth assigned a bed in the facility on a specified reference date. In 2007, the reference date was the fourth Wednesday in October. Characteristics of the facility, treatment services, and facility population were also collected. Each record in the data that provides information about a juvenile also includes the characteristics of the facility in which the juvenile was held. Therefore, the CJRP data can be analyzed at the juvenile or facility level. Some state and regional agencies provide CJRP data for more than one facility under their jurisdiction. The census was not sent to adult facilities or to facilities exclusively for drug or mental health treatment or for abused or neglected children.
Curated
Restricted
Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement, 2010 [United States] (ICPSR 34448)
Released/updated on: 2016-08-10
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Indiana, Wyoming, Northern Mariana Islands, Utah, Virgin Islands of the United States, Arizona, Montana, Kentucky, California, Kansas, Florida, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Mississippi, Iowa, Illinois, Texas, Connecticut, Georgia, Virginia, Maryland, Idaho, Oregon, Vermont, Puerto Rico, United States, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Maine, Alabama, Arkansas, Washington, South Carolina, Nebraska, West Virginia, Massachusetts, Colorado, Missouri, Alaska, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Nevada, District of Columbia, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Hawaii, Minnesota, New York (state), New Jersey, Michigan, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Louisiana, Ohio
Time period: 2010-02-26--2010-09-09
The Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement (CJRP) was administered for the first time in 1997 by the United States Bureau of the Census, for the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP). CJRP replaced the Census of Public and Private Juvenile Detention, Correctional, and Shelter Facilities, also known as the Children in Custody (CIC) census, which had been conducted since the early 1970s. The CJRP differs fundamentally from CIC in that the CIC collected aggregate data on juveniles held in each facility (e.g., number of juveniles in the facility) and the CJRP, which is conducted biennially, collects an individual record on each juvenile held in the residential facility to provide a detailed picture of juveniles in custody. The CJRP asked juvenile residential custody facilities in the United States to describe each youth assigned a bed in the facility on a specified reference date. In 2010, the reference date was the fourth Wednesday in February. Characteristics of the facility, treatment services, and facility population were also collected. Each record in the data that provides information about a juvenile also includes the characteristics of the facility in which the juvenile was held. Therefore, the CJRP data can be analyzed at the juvenile or facility level. Some state and regional agencies provide CJRP data for more than one facility under their jurisdiction. The census was not sent to adult facilities or to facilities exclusively for drug or mental health treatment or for abused or neglected children.
Curated
Restricted
Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement, 2011 [United States] (ICPSR 36436)
Released/updated on: 2016-09-12
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Indiana, Wyoming, Northern Mariana Islands, Utah, Virgin Islands of the United States, Arizona, Montana, Kentucky, California, Kansas, Florida, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Mississippi, Iowa, Illinois, Texas, Connecticut, Georgia, Virginia, Maryland, Idaho, Oregon, Vermont, Puerto Rico, United States, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Maine, Alabama, Arkansas, Washington, South Carolina, Nebraska, West Virginia, Massachusetts, Colorado, Missouri, Alaska, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Nevada, District of Columbia, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Hawaii, Minnesota, New York (state), New Jersey, Michigan, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Louisiana, Ohio
Time period: 2011-10-28--2012-05-28
The Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement (CJRP), conducted every other year, asks juvenile residential custody facilities in the United States to describe all youth assigned a bed in the facility on a specified reference date. In 2011, the reference date was Wednesday, October 26 (the last Wednesday in October).
Each record in the data provides information on a juvenile in a residential facility on the reference date, including information on placement (e.g. placing agency), the judicial process (e.g. court adjudication status), and demographics (e.g. age). Each record that provides information about a juvenile also includes information about institutional characteristics (e.g. facility type, use of locked doors or gates), treatment services, and population of the facility in which the juvenile was held. Therefore, CJRP data can be analyzed at the individual or facility level.
Some state and regional agencies provide CJRP data for more than one facility under their jurisdiction. The census was not sent to adult facilities or to facilities exclusively for drug or mental health treatment or for abused or neglected children.
Curated
Restricted
Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement, 2013 [United States] (ICPSR 36463)
Released/updated on: 2016-08-04
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Indiana, Wyoming, Northern Mariana Islands, Utah, Virgin Islands of the United States, Arizona, Montana, Kentucky, California, Kansas, Florida, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Mississippi, Iowa, Illinois, Texas, Connecticut, Georgia, Virginia, Maryland, Idaho, Oregon, Vermont, Puerto Rico, United States, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Maine, Alabama, Arkansas, Washington, South Carolina, Nebraska, West Virginia, Massachusetts, Colorado, Missouri, Alaska, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Nevada, District of Columbia, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Hawaii, Minnesota, New York (state), New Jersey, Michigan, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Louisiana, Ohio
Time period: 2013-11-01--2014-07-26
The Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement (CJRP), conducted every other year, asks juvenile residential custody facilities in the United States to describe all youth assigned a bed in the facility on a specified reference date. In 2013, the reference date was Wednesday, October 23 (the fourth Wednesday in October).
Each record in the data provides information on a juvenile in a residential facility on the reference date, including information on placement (e.g. placing agency), the judicial process (e.g. court adjudication status), and demographics (e.g. age). Each record that provides information about a juvenile also includes information about institutional characteristics (e.g. facility type, use of locked doors or gates), treatment services, and population of the facility in which the juvenile was held. Therefore, CJRP data can be analyzed at the individual or facility level.
The census was not sent to adult facilities or to facilities exclusively for drug or mental health treatment or for abused or neglected children. Some state and regional agencies provide CJRP data for more than one facility under their jurisdiction.
Curated
Restricted
Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement, 2015 [United States] (ICPSR 36871)
Released/updated on: 2018-01-25
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Indiana, Wyoming, Northern Mariana Islands, Utah, Virgin Islands of the United States, Arizona, Montana, Kentucky, California, Kansas, Florida, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Mississippi, Iowa, Illinois, Texas, Connecticut, Georgia, Virginia, Maryland, Idaho, Oregon, Vermont, Puerto Rico, United States, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Maine, Alabama, Arkansas, Washington, South Carolina, Nebraska, West Virginia, Massachusetts, Colorado, Missouri, Alaska, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Nevada, District of Columbia, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Hawaii, Minnesota, New York (state), New Jersey, Michigan, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Louisiana, Ohio
Time period: 2015-10-29--2016-05-19
The Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement (CJRP), conducted every other year, asks juvenile residential custody facilities in the United States to describe all youth assigned a bed in the facility on a specified reference date. In 2015, the reference date was Wednesday, October 28 (the fourth Wednesday in October).
Each record in the data provides information on a juvenile in a residential facility on the reference date, including information on placement (e.g. placing agency), the judicial process (e.g. court adjudication status), and demographics (e.g. age). Each record that provides information about a juvenile also includes information about institutional characteristics (e.g. facility type, use of locked doors or gates), treatment services, and population of the facility in which the juvenile was held. Therefore, CJRP data can be analyzed at the individual or facility level.
The census was not sent to adult facilities or to facilities exclusively for drug or mental health treatment or for abused or neglected children. Some state and regional agencies provide CJRP data for more than one facility under their jurisdiction.
Curated
Restricted
Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement, 2017 [United States] (ICPSR 37952)
Released/updated on: 2021-07-29
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Indiana, Wyoming, Northern Mariana Islands, Utah, Virgin Islands of the United States, Arizona, Montana, Kentucky, California, Kansas, Florida, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Mississippi, Iowa, Illinois, Texas, Connecticut, Georgia, Virginia, Maryland, Idaho, Oregon, Vermont, Puerto Rico, United States, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Maine, Alabama, Arkansas, Washington, South Carolina, Nebraska, West Virginia, Massachusetts, Colorado, Missouri, Alaska, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Nevada, District of Columbia, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Hawaii, Minnesota, New York (state), New Jersey, Michigan, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Louisiana, Ohio
Time period: 2017-01-01--2018-12-31
The Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement (CJRP), conducted every other year, asks juvenile residential custody facilities in the United States to describe all youth assigned a bed in the facility on a specified reference date. In 2017, the reference date was Wednesday, October 25 (the fourth Wednesday in October).
Each record in the data provides information on a juvenile in a residential facility on the reference date, including information on placement (e.g. placing agency), the judicial process (e.g. court adjudication status), and demographics (e.g. age). Each record that provides information about a juvenile also includes information about institutional characteristics (e.g. facility type, use of locked doors or gates), treatment services, and population of the facility in which the juvenile was held. Therefore, CJRP data can be analyzed at the individual or facility level.
The census was not sent to adult facilities or to facilities exclusively for drug or mental health treatment or for abused or neglected children. Some state and regional agencies provide CJRP data for more than one facility under their jurisdiction.
Curated
Partially restricted
Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement, 2019 [United States] (ICPSR 38915)
Released/updated on: 2024-06-04
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Indiana, Wyoming, Northern Mariana Islands, Utah, Guam, Virgin Islands of the United States, Arizona, Montana, Kentucky, California, Kansas, Florida, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Mississippi, Iowa, Illinois, Texas, Connecticut, Georgia, Virginia, Maryland, Idaho, Oregon, Vermont, Puerto Rico, United States, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Maine, American Samoa, Alabama, Arkansas, South Carolina, Nebraska, West Virginia, Massachusetts, Colorado, Missouri, Alaska, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Nevada, District of Columbia, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Hawaii, Minnesota, New York (state), New Jersey, Michigan, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Louisiana, Ohio
The Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement (CJRP), conducted every other year, asks juvenile residential custody facilities in the United States to describe all youth assigned to a bed in the facility on a specified reference date. In 2019, the reference date was Wednesday, October 23 (the fourth Wednesday in October).
Each record in the data provides information on a juvenile in a residential facility on the reference date, including information on placement (e.g., placing agency), the judicial process (e.g., court adjudication status), and demographics (e.g., age). Each record that provides information about a juvenile also includes information about institutional characteristics (e.g., facility type, use of locked doors or gates), treatment services, and population of the facility in which the juvenile was held. Therefore, CJRP data can be analyzed at the individual or facility level.
The census was not sent to adult facilities or to facilities exclusively for drug or mental health treatment or for abused or neglected children. Some state and regional agencies provide CJRP data for more than one facility under their jurisdiction.
Curated
Restricted
Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement, 2021 [United States] (ICPSR 38916)
Released/updated on: 2024-06-04
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Indiana, Wyoming, Northern Mariana Islands, Utah, Virgin Islands of the United States, Arizona, Montana, Kentucky, California, Kansas, Florida, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Mississippi, Iowa, Illinois, Texas, Connecticut, Georgia, Virginia, Maryland, Idaho, Oregon, Vermont, Puerto Rico, United States, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Maine, Alabama, Arkansas, Washington, South Carolina, Nebraska, West Virginia, Massachusetts, Colorado, Missouri, Alaska, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Nevada, District of Columbia, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Hawaii, Minnesota, New York (state), New Jersey, Michigan, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Louisiana, Ohio
The Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement (CJRP), conducted every other year, asks juvenile residential custody facilities in the United States to describe all youth assigned a bed in the facility on a specified reference date. In 2021, the reference date was Wednesday, October 27 (the fourth Wednesday in October).
Each record in the data provides information on a juvenile in a residential facility on the reference date, including information on placement (e.g. placing agency), the judicial process (e.g. court adjudication status), and demographics (e.g. age). Each record that provides information about a juvenile also includes information about institutional characteristics (e.g. facility type, use of locked doors or gates), treatment services, and population of the facility in which the juvenile was held. Therefore, CJRP data can be analyzed at the individual or facility level.
The census was not sent to adult facilities or to facilities exclusively for drug or mental health treatment or for abused or neglected children. Some state and regional agencies provide CJRP data for more than one facility under their jurisdiction.
Curated
Restricted
Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement and Juvenile Residential Facility Census, 1997-2010 -- Concatenated Matched Data [United States] (ICPSR 27543)
Released/updated on: 2013-03-08
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Indiana, Wyoming, Utah, Arizona, Montana, Kentucky, California, Kansas, Florida, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Mississippi, Iowa, Illinois, Texas, Connecticut, Georgia, Virginia, Maryland, Idaho, Oregon, Vermont, United States, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Maine, Alabama, Arkansas, Washington, South Carolina, Nebraska, West Virginia, Massachusetts, Colorado, Missouri, Alaska, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Nevada, District of Columbia, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Hawaii, Minnesota, New York (state), New Jersey, Michigan, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Louisiana, Ohio
This collection includes data from the CENSUS OF JUVENILES IN RESIDENTIAL PLACEMENT (CJRP), 1997-2010 -- CONCATENATED DATA [UNITED STATES] (ICPSR 27541) and the JUVENILE RESIDENTIAL FACILITY CENSUS (JRFC), 2000-2010 -- CONCATENATED DATA [UNITED STATES] (ICPSR 27542) that were matched on the facility identifier to create one data file. The CJRP asked juvenile residential custody facilities in the United States to describe each youth assigned a bed in the facility on a specified reference date. For 1997, the reference date was the fifth Wednesday in October. For 1999-2003 and 2007, the reference date was the fourth Wednesday in October. For 2006 and 2010, the reference date was the fourth Wednesday in February. Characteristics of the facility, treatment services, and facility population were also collected in the CJRP. The JRFC collected information on facility characteristics, including size, structure, security arrangements, ownership, and use of bed space in the facility. The JRFC used four modules to collect information on the physical health services, educational services, substance abuse treatment, and mental health treatment provided to youth in these facilities. These four modules were not always collected each year. The JRFC also identified the type of facility, which was complemented with a series of questions about other residential services provided by the facility, such as independent living, foster care, or other arrangements. The JRFC has been administered biennially since 2000, in even-numbered years. The JRFC census reference date is the fourth Wednesday in October. Each record in the concatenated matched data file provides information about the juvenile and also includes the characteristics of the facility in which the juvenile was held from both the CJRP and JRFC collections. Therefore, these data can be analyzed at the juvenile or facility level. Only facilities that held at least one juvenile for an offense on the CJRP census reference date are included in this file, i.e., all facilities in the biennial JRFC data may not be included in this concatenated matched file. Data were harmonized so that variables present across years are identically named to facilitate analysis.
Curated
Restricted
Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement and Juvenile Residential Facility Census, 1997-2010 -- Concatenated Matched Facility-Level Data [United States] (ICPSR 27544)
Released/updated on: 2013-03-08
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Indiana, Wyoming, Utah, Arizona, Montana, Kentucky, California, Kansas, Florida, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Mississippi, Iowa, Illinois, Texas, Connecticut, Georgia, Virginia, Maryland, Idaho, Oregon, Vermont, United States, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Maine, Alabama, Arkansas, Washington, South Carolina, Nebraska, West Virginia, Massachusetts, Colorado, Missouri, Alaska, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Nevada, District of Columbia, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Hawaii, Minnesota, New York (state), New Jersey, Michigan, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Louisiana, Ohio
This collection includes data from the CENSUS OF JUVENILES IN RESIDENTIAL PLACEMENT (CJRP) AND JUVENILE RESIDENTIAL FACILITY CENSUS (JRFC), 1997-2010 -- CONCATENATED MATCHED DATA [UNITED STATES] (ICPSR 27543) that were aggregated to the facility level. The CJRP asked juvenile residential custody facilities in the United States to describe each youth assigned a bed in the facility on a specified reference date. For 1997, the reference date was the fifth Wednesday in October. For 1999-2003 and 2007, the reference date was the fourth Wednesday in October. For 2006 and 2010, the reference date was the fourth Wednesday in February. Characteristics of the facility, treatment services, and facility population were also collected in the CJRP. The JRFC collected information on facility characteristics, including size, structure, security arrangements, ownership, and use of bed space in the facility. The JRFC used four modules to collect information on the physical health services, educational services, substance abuse treatment, and mental health treatment provided to youth in these facilities. These four modules were not always collected each year. The JRFC also identified the type of facility, which was complemented with a series of questions about other residential services provided by the facility, such as independent living, foster care, or other arrangements. The JRFC has been administered biennially since 2000, in even-numbered years. The JRFC census reference date is the fourth Wednesday in October. Records in the concatenated matched data file (ICPSR 27543) were aggregated to the facility level. Therefore, the CJRP/JRFC concatenated matched facility-level data provide information about the characteristics of the facility from both the CJRP and JRFC collections and the juvenile population held in that facility from the CJRP collection. Only facilities that held at least one juvenile for an offense on the CJRP census reference date are included in this file, i.e., all facilities in the biennial JRFC data may not be included in this concatenated matched facility-level file. Data were harmonized so that variables present across years are identically named to facilitate analysis.
Curated
Restricted
Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement and Juvenile Residential Facility Census, 1997-2010 -- Concatenated Matched State-Level Data [United States] (ICPSR 27545)
Released/updated on: 2013-03-08
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Indiana, Wyoming, Utah, Arizona, Montana, Kentucky, California, Kansas, Florida, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Mississippi, Iowa, Illinois, Texas, Connecticut, Georgia, Virginia, Maryland, Idaho, Oregon, Vermont, United States, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Maine, Alabama, Arkansas, Washington, South Carolina, Nebraska, West Virginia, Massachusetts, Colorado, Missouri, Alaska, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Nevada, District of Columbia, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Hawaii, Minnesota, New York (state), New Jersey, Michigan, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Louisiana, Ohio
This collection includes data from the CENSUS OF JUVENILES IN RESIDENTIAL PLACEMENT (CJRP) AND JUVENILE RESIDENTIAL FACILITY CENSUS (JRFC), 1997-2010 -- CONCATENATED MATCHED DATA [UNITED STATES] (ICPSR 27543) that were aggregated to the state level. The CJRP asked juvenile residential custody facilities in the United States to describe each youth assigned a bed in the facility on a specified reference date. For 1997, the reference date was the fifth Wednesday in October. For 1999-2003 and 2007, the reference date was the fourth Wednesday in October. For 2006 and 2010, the reference date was the fourth Wednesday in February. Characteristics of the facility, treatment services, and facility population were also collected in the CJRP. The JRFC collected information on facility characteristics, including size, structure, security arrangements, ownership, and use of bed space in the facility. The JRFC used four modules to collect information on the physical health services, educational services, substance abuse treatment, and mental health treatment provided to youth in these facilities. These four modules were not always collected each year. The JRFC also identified the type of facility, which was complemented with a series of questions about other residential services provided by the facility, such as independent living, foster care, or other arrangements. The JRFC has been administered biennially since 2000, in even-numbered years. The JRFC census reference date is the fourth Wednesday in October. Records in the concatenated matched data file (ICPSR 27543) were aggregated to the state level. Therefore, the CJRP/JRFC concatenated matched state-level data provide information about the characteristics of juvenile residential facilities in the state from both the CJRP and JRFC collections and the juvenile population held in these facilities from the CJRP collection. Only facilities that held at least one juvenile for an offense on the CJRP census reference date were included in the concatenated matched file, i.e., all facilities in the biennial JRFC data may not have been included in the file used for the aggregation. Variables providing United States Census population data and upper age of juvenile court jurisdiction were also added. Data were harmonized so that variables present across years are identically named to facilitate analysis.
Curated
Restricted
A Comprehensive Evaluation of a Drug Market Intervention Training Cohort in Roanoke, Virginia; Jacksonville, Florida; and Guntersville, Alabama, 2011-2013. (ICPSR 36322)
Released/updated on: 2016-09-27
Geographic coverage: United States, Guntersville, Alabama, Florida, Roanoke, Virginia, Jacksonville
Time period: 2011-01-01--2012-01-01, 2011-01-01--2012-01-01
The Drug Market Intervention (DMI) has been identified as a promising practice for disrupting overt-drug markets, reducing the crime and disorder associated with drug sales, and improving police-community relations. Montgomery County, Maryland; Flint, Michigan; Guntersville, Alabama; Lake County, Indiana; Jacksonville, Florida; New Orleans, Louisiana; and Roanoke, Virginia applied for and received DMI training and technical assistance from Michigan State University in 2010 and 2011. This study followed the seven sites that were trained in the program to determine how the program was implemented, how the DMI affected the targeted drug market, whether the program affected crime and disorder, whether the program improved police-community relations, and how much the program cost.
Curated
Crime Control Effects of Sentencing in Essex County, New Jersey, 1976-1997 (ICPSR 2857)
Released/updated on: 2005-11-04
Geographic coverage: United States, New Jersey
Time period: 1976-01-01--1997-01-01
This study was undertaken to examine the ways in which different felony sanctions impact the future behavior of felony offenders. The study sought to determine whether the following made a difference in subsequent criminal behavior: (1) sentences of confinement, (2) the length of sentence (both the sentence imposed and that which was actually served), and (3) sentences of probation combined with jail ("split" sentences), or combined with fines, restitution, or other alternative sanctions. Data were collected from questionnaires completed by 18 judges of the Essex County, New Jersey, courts and by probation staff. Follow-up data were collected from official records provided by probation, jail, prison, and parole case files. Follow-up data were also collected from the following official records: (1) the New Jersey Offender-Based Transaction System Computerized Criminal History, (2) the New Jersey Department of Corrections Offender-Based Correctional Information System, (3) the United States Department of Justice Interstate Identification Index, (4) the National Crime Information Center Wanted Persons File, (5) the New Jersey PROMIS/GAVEL Prosecutors Case Tracking System, and (6) administrative record files of the New Jersey Department of Corrections. Variables in the data file include the most serious offense charge, most serious offense of conviction, dimension of conviction, offense type (person, property, social order, fraud, or drug offense), number of prior probations, number of probation revocations, number of prior jail and prison terms, mitigating and aggravating factors affecting the sentence, type of sentence, special conditions of probation, fines and restitutions imposed, minimum and maximum incarceration terms (in months), history of drug offenses, type of drugs used, probation and parole violations, total number of prior arrests and prior convictions, and longest arrest-free period after first arrest. The type of post-sentence offense, dimension, disposition charge, sentence, and date of arrest are provided for arresting events and charge episodes 1 through 108 for any offender. For up to 43 arrest events (for any offender), the date of lockup and date of exit from confinement are provided. The file also includes recommendations made by prosecutors and probation officers, and judges' ratings (on a scale of one to nine) with respect to the likelihood of an offender committing future property crimes, crimes against persons, or any crime. Judges also rated the arrest record length, conviction record length, and social stability of each offender. Retribution points, incapacitation points, and specific deterrence points assigned by the judges complete the file. Demographic variables include the race and sex of each convicted offender, and the age of the offender at first conviction.
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--1991-01-01
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
Cross-Border Multi-Jurisdictional Task Force Evaluation, San Diego and Imperial Counties, California, 2007-2012 (ICPSR 34904)
Released/updated on: 2016-11-30
Geographic coverage: San Diego County, California, Imperial County, California
Time period: 2007-01-01--2012-01-01, 2007-01-01--2012-01-01, 2011-10-01--2012-04-01, 2007-01-01--2012-01-01
These data are part of NACJD's Fast Track Release and are distributed as they were received from the data depositor. The files have been zipped by NACJD for release, but not checked or processed except for the removal of direct identifiers. Users should refer to the accompanying readme file for a brief description of the files available with this collection and consult the investigator(s) if further information is needed.
The study involved a three-year evaluation of two efforts to target crime stemming from the Southern Border of the United States - one which funded greater participation by local officers on four FBI-led multi-jurisdictional task forces (MJTFs) and another that created a new multi-jurisdictional team. As part of this evaluation, researchers documented the level of inter-agency collaboration and communication when the project began, gathered information regarding the benefits and challenges of MJTF participation, measured the level of communication and collaboration, and tracked a variety of outcomes specific to the funded MJTFs, as well as three comparison MJTFs. Multiple methodologies were used to achieve these goals including surveys of task forces, law enforcement stakeholders, and community residents; law enforcement focus groups; program observations; and analysis of archival data related to staffing costs; task force activities; task force target criminal history; and prosecution outcomes.
The study is comprised of several data files in SPSS format:
- Imperial County Law Enforcement Stakeholder Survey Data (35 cases and 199 variables)
- Imperial County Resident Survey (402 cases and 70 variables)
- Imperial Task Force Survey (6 cases and 84 variables)
- Prosecution Outcome Data (1,973 cases and 115 variables)
- San Diego County Resident Survey (402 cases and 69 variables)
- San Diego Law Enforcement Stakeholder Survey (460 cases and 353 variables)
- San Diego Task Force Survey (18 cases and 101 variables)
- Staff and Cost Measures Data (7 cases and 61 variables)
- Criminal Activity Data (110 cases and 50 variables)
Additionally, Calls for Service Data, Countywide Arrest Data, and Data used for Social Network Analysis are available in Excel format.
Curated
Differences in the Validity of Self-Reported Drug Use Across Five Factors in Indianapolis, Fort Lauderdale, Phoenix, and Dallas, 1994 (ICPSR 2706)
Released/updated on: 2000-09-11
Geographic coverage: Indiana, United States, Texas, Fort Lauderdale, Phoenix, Florida, Dallas, Arizona, Indianapolis
This study investigated the accuracy of self-reported drug use in three ways. First, the researchers examined differences in the accuracy of self-reported drug use across five factors: gender, race, age, type of drug, and offense seriousness. Second, an attempt was made to determine the specific sources of inaccurate self-reports in terms of differences in underreporting and overreporting. Third, the researchers sought to explain differences in underreporting and overreporting in terms of true differences or differences in opportunity to underreport or overreport. This study used data collected in 1994 as part of the Drug Use Forecasting (DUF) Program [DRUG USE FORECASTING IN 24 CITIES IN THE UNITED STATES, 1987-1997 (ICPSR 9477)]. The DUF drug testing and measurement methodology allows the accuracy of self-reported drug use to be checked with a biological criterion, namely urine tests. The sample for this study consisted of 4,752 white and Black adults from Indianapolis, Ft. Lauderdale, Phoenix, and Dallas. The five exogenous measures included in this study were type of drug (marijuana vs. crack/cocaine), age (18 through 30 vs. 31 or over), offense seriousness (misdemeanor vs. felony), race (Black vs. white), and gender (male vs. female). The endogenous measures were accuracy (self-report and drug test both positive or both negative vs. otherwise), underreporting (self-report negative but drug test positive vs. otherwise), and overreporting (self-report positive but drug test negative vs. otherwise). Variables include result of marijuana urine test, result of cocaine/crack urine test, marijuana self-report, cocaine/crack self-report, age group, sex, race, offense category, and ethnic/gender group.
Curated
Drug Offending in Cleveland, Ohio Neighborhoods, 1990-1997 and 1999-2001 (ICPSR 3929)
Released/updated on: 2004-06-17
Geographic coverage: United States, Ohio, Cleveland
This study investigated changes in the geographic concentration of drug crimes in Cleveland from 1990 to 2001. The study looked at both the locations of drug incidents and where drug offenders lived in order to explore factors that bring residents from one neighborhood into other neighborhoods to engage in drug-related activities. This study was based on data collected for the 224 census tracts in Cleveland, Ohio, in the 1990 decennial Census for the years 1990 to 1997 and 1999 to 2001. Data on drug crimes for 1990 to 1997 and 1999 to 2001 were obtained from Cleveland Police Department (CPD) arrest records and used to produce counts of the number of drug offenses that occurred in each tract in each year and the number of arrestees for drug offenses who lived in each tract. Other variables include counts and rates of other crimes committed in each census tract in each year, the social characteristics and housing conditions of each census tract, and net migration for each census tract.
Curated
Drugs and Police Response: Survey of Public Housing Residents in Denver, Colorado, 1989-1990 (ICPSR 6482)
Released/updated on: 1995-08-16
Geographic coverage: United States, Colorado, Denver
Time period: 1989-01-01--1990-01-01
This data collection is the result of an evaluation of the NEPHU program, conducted by the Police Foundation under the sponsorship of the National Institute of Justice (NIJ). In August 1989, the Bureau of Justice Assistance supported a grant in Denver, Colorado, to establish a special Narcotics Enforcement in Public Housing Unit (NEPHU) within the Denver Police Department. The goal of the Denver NEPHU was to reduce the availability of narcotics in and around the city's public housing areas by increasing drug arrests. NEPHU's six full-time officers made investigations and gathered intelligence leading to on-street arrests and search warrants. The unit also operated a special telephone Drug Hotline and met regularly with tenant councils in the developments to improve community relations. The program worked in cooperation with the Denver Housing Authority and the uniformed patrol division of the Denver Police Department, which increased levels of uniformed patrols to maintain high visibility in the project areas to deter conventional crime. Using a panel design, survey interviews were conducted with residents in the Quigg Newton and Curtis Park public housing units, focusing on events that occurred during the past six months. Respondents were interviewed during three time periods to examine the onset and persistence of any apparent program effects. In December 1989, interviews were completed with residents in 521 households. In June 1990, 422 respondents were interviewed in Wave 2. Wave 3 was conducted in December 1990 and included 423 respondents. In all, 642 individuals were interviewed, 283 of whom were interviewed for all three waves. Because of the evaluation's design, the data can be analyzed to reveal individual-level changes for the 283 respondents who were interviewed on all three occasions, and the data can also be used to determine a cross-section representation of the residents by including the 359 "new" persons interviewed during the course of the evaluation. Information collected includes years and months lived in the development, assessments of changes in the neighborhood, whether the respondent planned to stay in the development, interactions among residents, awareness of anti-drug programs, ranking of various problems in the development, concerns and reports of being a victim of various crimes, perceived safety of the development, assessment of drug use and availability, assessment of police activity and visibility, and personal contacts with police. The unit of analysis is the individual.
Curated
Drug Testing of Juvenile Detainees to Identify High-Risk Youth in Florida, 1986-1987 (ICPSR 9686)
Released/updated on: 2002-06-07
Geographic coverage: United States, Florida, Tampa
This data collection examines the interrelationships among drug/alcohol use, childhood sexual or physical abuse, and encounters with the juvenile justice system. To identify high-risk individuals, youths in a Tampa juvenile detention center were given urine tests and were asked a series of questions about past sexual and/or physical abuse. Official record searches were also conducted 6, 12, and 18 months afterward to measure later encounters with the juvenile or criminal justice systems. The investigators used the youths' urine test results as the primary measure of drug use. On the basis of their review of Florida's statutes, the investigators developed outcome measures for the following offense categories: violent felonies (murder/manslaughter, robbery, sex offenses, aggravated assault), property felonies (arson, burglary, auto theft, larceny/theft, stolen property offenses, damaging property offenses), drug felonies (drug offenses), violent misdemeanors (sex offenses, nonaggravated assault), property misdemeanors (larceny/theft, stolen property offenses, damaging property offenses), drug misdemeanors (drug offenses), and public disorder misdemeanors (public disorder offenses, trespassing offenses). Other variables measured physical and sexual abuse, emotional and psychological functioning, and prior drug use. Demographic variables on sex, race, age, and education are also contained in the data. The individual is the unit of analysis.
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--1997-12-01
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
Effects of Legal Supervision of Chronic Addict Offenders in Southern California, 1974-1981 (ICPSR 9974)
Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: United States, California
Time period: 1974-01-01--1981-01-01
This study examined the effects of timing and level of legal supervision in controlling antisocial behavior and promoting prosocial behavior in chronic addict offenders. The study sought to answer several questions: (1) What is the effect of legal supervision on the criminal behavior of addicts? (2) Does legal supervision have time-course effects? (3) What are the differential effects of varying types of legal supervision (e.g., probation, parole, urinalysis, higher or lower number of contacts per month)? Data were obtained by conducting retrospective interviews with four separate groups of subjects from four distinct research projects previously conducted in Southern California (McGlothlin, Anglin, and Wilson, 1977, Anglin, McGlothlin, and Speckart, 1981, Anglin, McGlothlin, Speckart, and Ryan, 1982, and McGlothlin and Anglin, 1981). The first group were male patients in the California Civil Addict Program, admitted in 1962-1964, who were interviewed for this survey in 1974-1975. The second group was a sample of addicts drawn from male first admissions between the years 1971-1973 from Los Angeles, San Bernardino, and Orange County methadone maintenance programs. These respondents were interviewed during the years 1978-1979, an average of 6.6 years after admission. The third group consisted of male and female methadone maintenance patients selected from rosters of clients active on June 30, 1976, at clinics in Bakersfield and Tulare, California. These subjects were interviewed during 1978 and 1979, an average of 3.5 years after admission. The fourth group of subjects consisted of males and females who were active on September 30, 1978, at San Diego, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Orange County clinics and were interviewed during the years 1980-1981, an average of six years after their admission. Subjects included Anglo-American and Mexican-American males and females. The samples were generally representative of California methadone maintenance patients except for the second sample, which had been selected to study the impact of civil commitment parole status on the behavior of patients receiving methadone and was not necessarily representative of the overall population of admitted patients receiving methodone. Before the interview, a schematic time line on each offender was prepared, which included all known arrests and intervals of incarceration, legal supervision, and methadone treatment, based on criminal justice system and treatment program records. In discussion with the subject, the interviewer established the date of the first narcotics use on the time line, then proceeded chronologically through the time line, marking a change in narcotics use from less-than-daily use to daily use (or vice versa), or a change in the respondent's legal or treatment status, as a time interval. The interviewer repeated this process for successive intervals up through the date of the interview. Parts 1-8 consist of the interview data, with Forms 2 and 3 corresponding to the various intervals. There can be multiple intervals for each individual. Variables cover drug use, employment, criminal behavior, legal status, conditions of parole or probation, and drug treatment enrollment. Form 1 data contain background information on offenders, such as family and substance abuse history, and Form 4 data include other personal information as well as self-reported arrest and treatment histories. Parts 9 and 10, Master Data, were created from selected variables from the interview data. Parts 11 and 12, Arrest Data, were collected from official criminal justice records and describe each offender's arrests, such as month and year of arrest, charge, disposition, and arrest category. The datasets are split between the Southern California (Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Orange County, Bakersfield, Tulare, and Riverside) and San Diego clinic locations.
Curated
Effects of Prior Record in Sentencing Research in a Large Northeastern City, 1968-1979: [United States] (ICPSR 8929)
Released/updated on: 1992-02-16
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1968-01-01--1979-01-01
This data collection examines the impact of defendants' prior criminal records on the sentencing of male and female defendants committing violent and non-violent crimes. The collection also provides data on which types of prior records most influenced the sentencing judges. Variables deal specifically with the defendant, the judge and the characteristics of the current case. Only cases that fell into one of 14 categories of common offenses were included. These offenses were murder, manslaughter, rape, robbery, assault, minor assault, burglary, auto theft, embezzlement, receiving stolen property, forgery, sex offenses other than rape, drug possession, and driving while intoxicated.
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--1991-01-01
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
Restricted
Estimating the Flow of Methamphetamine and Other Synthetic Drugs from Quebec, Canada, 1999-2009 (ICPSR 35295)
Released/updated on: 2017-06-16
Geographic coverage: Canada, Quebec (province)
Time period: 1999-01-01--2009-01-01, 2007-06-01--2008-06-01
These data are part of NACJD's Fast Track Release and are distributed as they were received from the data depositor. The files have been zipped by NACJD for release, but not checked or processed except for the removal of direct identifiers. Users should refer to the accompanying readme file for a brief description of the files available with this collection and consult the investigator(s) if further information is needed.
In this study, researchers used capture-recapture sampling and multiple data sources to gauge the impact of drug trafficking in Quebec, Canada on the United States drug market. The main analyses were based on arrest data that were obtained for Quebec. In addition, analysis of the chemical composition and price assessments of the Quebec synthetic drugs was done.
The study includes one SPSS data file (Quebec Arrest Data (Synthetic Drugs Cases, September 2014; n=20261)-ICPSR.sav ; n=20,261 ; 13 variables) and one Excel data file (Chemical composition of seized synthetic drugs.xls ; n=365 ; 14 variables).
Spatial analyses of border seizure data was performed by the researchers, but these data are not available at this time. The data used for these analyses concerned synthetic drug seizures at Canadian borders from 2007 to 2012. The dataset was provided by the Canadian Border Services Agency (CBSA). For each seizure, the specific border crossing where the seizure was made was provided, as well as the value of the seizure (except for precursors), the country of origin and the type of drug seized. The types of drugs were classified into five types: (1) Precursors, (2) MDMA, (3) Amphetamine, (4) Methamphetamine and (5) Others. Most of the seizures (86.6 percent) were classified in this last category. The country of origin of the seizure was also provided.
Curated
Restricted
Evidence-Based Screening and Assessment: A Randomized Trial of a Validated Assessment Tool in Three New York City Drug Courts, 2011-2015 (ICPSR 36310)
Released/updated on: 2022-07-28
Geographic coverage: New York City, United States, New York (state)
Time period: 2011-04-01--2015-04-30
With funding from the National Institute of Justice, the Center for Court Innovation examined the impact of introducing an evidence-based risk-need assessment and treatment matching protocol into three New York City drug courts. Preexisting practice in all three sites involved administration of a non-validated bio-psychosocial assessment, whose results informed the professional judgment of court-employed case managers, but without the aid of a structured decision making system.
Curated
Examination of Crime Guns and Homicide in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 1987-1998 (ICPSR 2895)
Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: United States, Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh
This study examined spatial and temporal features of crime guns in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, in order to ascertain how gun availability affected criminal behavior among youth, whether the effects differed between young adults and juveniles, and whether that relationship changed over time. Rather than investigating the general prevalence of guns, this study focused only on those firearms used in the commission of crimes. Crime guns were defined specifically as those used in murders, assaults, robberies, weapons offenses, and drug offenses. The emphasis of the project was on the attributes of crime guns and those who possess them, the geographic sources of those guns, the distribution of crime guns over neighborhoods in a city, and the relationship between the prevalence of crime guns and the incidence of homicide. Data for Part 1, Traced Guns Data, came from the City of Pittsburgh Bureau of Police. Gun trace data provided a detailed view of crime guns recovered by police during a two-year period, from 1995 to 1997. These data identified the original source of each crime gun (first sale to a non-FFL, i.e., a person not holding a Federal Firearms License) as well as attributes of the gun and the person possessing the gun at the time of the precipitating crime, and the ZIP-code location where the gun was recovered. For Part 2, Crime Laboratory Data, data were gathered from the local county crime laboratory on guns submitted by Pittsburgh police for forensic testing. These data were from 1993 to 1998 and provided a longer time series for examining changes in crime guns over time than the data in Part 1. In Parts 3 and 4, Stolen Guns by ZIP-Code Data and Stolen Guns by Census Tract Data, data on stolen guns came from the local police. These data included the attributes of the guns and residential neighborhoods of owners. Part 3 contains data from 1987 to 1996 organized by ZIP code, whereas Part 4 contains data from 1993 to 1996 organized by census tract. Part 5, Shots Fired Data, contains the final indicator of crime gun prevalence for this study, which was 911 calls of incidents involving shots fired. These data provided vital information on both the geographic location and timing of these incidents. Shots-fired incidents not only captured varying levels of access to crime guns, but also variations in the willingness to actually use crime guns in a criminal manner. Part 6, Homicide Data, contains homicide data for the city of Pittsburgh from 1990 to 1995. These data were used to examine the relationship between varying levels of crime gun prevalence and levels of homicide, especially youth homicide, in the same city. Part 7, Pilot Mapping Application, is a pilot application illustrating the potential uses of mapping tools in police investigations of crime guns traced back to original point of sale. NTC. It consists of two ArcView 3.1 project files and 90 supporting data and mapping files. Variables in Part 1 include date of manufacture and sale of the crime gun, weapon type, gun model, caliber, firing mechanism, dealer location (ZIP code and state), recovery date and location (ZIP code and state), age and state of residence of purchaser and possessor, and possessor role. Part 2 also contains gun type and model, as well as gun make, precipitating offense, police zone submitting the gun, and year the gun was submitted to the crime lab. Variables in Parts 3 and 4 include month and year the gun was stolen, gun type, make, and caliber, and owner residence. Residence locations are limited to owner ZIP code in Part 3, and 1990 Census tract number and neighborhood name in Part 4. Part 5 contains the date, time, census tract and police zone of 911 calls relating to shots fired. Part 6 contains the date and census tract of the homicide incident, drug involvement, gang involvement, weapon, and victim and offender ages. Data in Part 7 include state, county, and ZIP code of traced guns, population figures, and counts of crime guns recovered at various geographic locations (states, counties, and ZIP codes) where the traced guns first originated in sales by an FFL to a non-FFL individual. Data for individual guns are not provided in Part 7.
Curated
Impact of Sentencing Guidelines on the Use of Incarceration in Federal Criminal Courts in the United States, 1984-1990 (ICPSR 9845)
Released/updated on: 2000-06-05
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1984-07-01--1990-08-01
The primary purpose of this data collection was to examine the impact of the implementation of sentencing guidelines on the rate of incarcerative and nonincarcerative sentences imposed and on the average length of expected time to be served in incarceration for all offenses as well as for select groups of offenses. The measure of sentence length, "expected time to be served," was used to allow for assumed good time and parole reductions. This term represents the amount of time an offender can expect to spend in prison at the time of sentencing, a roughly equivalent standard that can be measured before and after the implementation of federal criminal sentencing guidelines in 1987. Three broad offense categories were studied: drug offenses, robbery, and economic crimes. Drug offenses include a wide range of illegal activities involving marijuana, heroin, and cocaine. Robbery includes bank and postal robbery (both armed and unarmed) as well as other types of robbery offenses that appear less frequently in the federal system, such as carrying a firearm during the commission of a robbery. Economic offenses include fraud (bank, postal, and other), embezzlement (bank, postal, and other), and tax evasion. Other monthly data are provided on the number of prison and probation sentences for all offenses and by offense categories.
Curated
Impact of State Sentencing Policies on Incarceration Rates in the United States, 1975-2002 (ICPSR 4456)
Released/updated on: 2007-09-27
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1975-01-01--2002-01-01
In order to assess the impacts of state-level sentencing and corrections policies in the United States implemented between 1975 and 2002 on state incarceration rates during that same time period, researchers conducted a two-phase study between November 2002 and March 2004. The first phase of the research involved building a framework for understanding the types of state-level sentencing and corrections policies in use between 1975 and 2002. Phase two of the project consisted of state-level data collection for all 50 states for all study years, 1975 to 2002. The researchers produced a dataset containing outcome variables that focus on the change and growth in state incarceration rates, non-policy control variables that were found in previous studies to be associated with changes in incarceration rates, and policy variables regarding sentencing structure, drug policy, time served requirements, habitual offender laws (HOL), and mandatory sentences.
Curated
Modern Policing and the Control of Illegal Drugs: Testing New Strategies in Oakland, California, and Birmingham, Alabama, 1987-1989 (ICPSR 9962)
Released/updated on: 2005-11-04
Geographic coverage: California, Alabama, Oakland, Birmingham
Time period: 1987-01-01--1989-01-01
These data were collected in Oakland, California, and Birmingham, Alabama, to examine the effectiveness of alternative drug enforcement strategies. A further objective was to compare the relative effectiveness of strategies drawn from professional- versus community-oriented models of policing. The professional model emphasizes police responsibility for crime control, whereas the community model stresses the importance of a police-citizen partnership in crime control. At each site, experimental treatments were applied to selected police beats. The Oakland Police Department implemented a high-visibility enforcement effort consisting of undercover buy-bust operations, aggressive patrols, and motor vehicle stops, while the Birmingham Police Department engaged in somewhat less visible buy-busts and sting operations. Both departments attempted a community-oriented approach involving door-to-door contacts with residents. In Oakland, four beats were studied: one beat used a special drug enforcement unit, another used a door-to-door community policing strategy, a third used a combination of these approaches, and the fourth beat served as a control group. In Birmingham, three beats were chosen: Drug enforcement was conducted by the narcotics unit in one beat, door-to-door policing, as in Oakland, was used in another beat, and a police substation was established in the third beat. To evaluate the effectiveness of these alternative strategies, data were collected from three sources. First, a panel survey was administered in two waves on a pre-test/post-test basis. The panel survey data addressed the ways in which citizens' perceptions of drug activity, crime problems, neighborhood safety, and police service were affected by the various policing strategies. Second, structured observations of police and citizen encounters were made in Oakland during the periods the treatments were in effect. Observers trained by the researchers recorded information regarding the roles and behaviors of police and citizens as well as police compliance with the experiment's procedures. And third, to assess the impact of the alternative strategies on crime rates, reported crime data were collected for time periods before and during the experimental treatment periods, both in the targeted beats and city-wide.
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--2002-01-01
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
Multi-Site Adult Drug Court Evaluation (MADCE), 2003-2009 (ICPSR 30983)
Released/updated on: 2012-11-05
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, New York, United States, Illinois, Georgia, Florida, Washington, South Carolina, Pennsylvania
Time period: 2004-02-01--2004-06-01, 2005-03-01--2006-06-01, 2005-08-01--2006-12-01, 2006-09-01--2008-01-01, 2006-09-01--2008-01-01
The Multi-Site Adult Drug Court Evaluation (MADCE) study included 23 drug courts and 6 comparison sites selected from 8 states across the country. The purpose of the study was to: (1) Test whether drug courts reduce drug use, crime, and multiple other problems associated with drug abuse, in comparision with similar offenders not exposed to drug courts, (2) address how drug courts work and for whom by isolating key individual and program factors that make drug courts more or less effective in achieving their desired outcomes, (3) explain how offender attitudes and behaviors change when they are exposed to drug courts and how these changes help explain the effectiveness of drug court programs, and (4) examine whether drug courts generate cost savings.
Offenders in all 29 sites were surveyed in 3 waves, at baseline, 6 months later, and 18 months after enrollment. The research comprises three major components: process evaluation, impact evaluation, and a cost-benefit analysis. The process evaluation describes how the 23 drug court sites vary in program eligibility, supervision, treatment, team collaboration, and other key policies and practices. The impact evaluation examines whether drug courts produce better outcomes than comparison sites and tests which court policies and offender attitudes might explain those effects. The cost-benefit analysis evaluates drug court costs and benefits.
Curated
Restricted
National Judicial Reporting Program, 1986 (ICPSR 9073)
Released/updated on: 2011-03-08
Geographic coverage: United States
This data collection tabulates the number of persons convicted of felonies in state courts and describes the sentences these individuals received. Data were collected from state courts and state prosecutors in 100 counties of the United States. Sociodemographic information includes age, race, and sex of felon. Types of offenses committed include homicide, rape, and robbery. Adjudication variables referring to the process between arrest and sentencing are also a part of this dataset. Data can be analyzed on a national level or by the individual counties.
Curated
Restricted
National Judicial Reporting Program, 1988 (ICPSR 9449)
Released/updated on: 2012-12-07
Geographic coverage: United States
This data collection tabulates the number of persons convicted of felonies in state courts and describes the sentences these individuals received. Data were collected from state courts and state prosecutors in 100 counties of the United States. The collection contains sociodemographic information such as age, race, and sex of the felon. Types of offenses committed include homicide, rape, and robbery. Adjudication variables referring to the process between arrest and sentencing are also a part of this dataset. Data can be analyzed on a national level or by the individual counties.
Curated
Restricted
National Judicial Reporting Program, 1990 (ICPSR 6038)
Released/updated on: 2011-04-14
Geographic coverage: United States
This data collection tabulates the number of persons convicted of felonies in state courts and describes their sentences. Data were collected from state courts and state prosecutors in 100 counties of the United States. The collection contains sociodemographic information such as age, race, and sex of the felon. Types of offenses committed include homicide, rape, and robbery. Adjudication variables referring to the process between arrest and sentencing are also a part of this dataset. Data can be analyzed at the national level or by the individual counties.
Curated
Restricted
National Judicial Reporting Program, 1992 (ICPSR 6509)
Released/updated on: 2011-04-14
Geographic coverage: United States
This data collection tabulates the number of persons convicted of felonies in state courts and describes their sentences. Data were collected from state courts and state prosecutors in 100 counties of the United States. The collection contains sociodemographic information such as age, race, and sex of the felon. Types of offenses committed include homicide, rape, and robbery. Adjudication variables referring to the process between arrest and sentencing are also a part of this dataset. Data can be analyzed at the national level or by the individual counties.
Curated
Restricted
National Judicial Reporting Program, 1994 (ICPSR 6855)
Released/updated on: 2012-11-06
Geographic coverage: United States
This data collection tabulates the number of persons convicted of felonies in state courts and describes their sentences. Data were collected from state courts and state prosecutors in 100 counties of the United States. The collection contains sociodemographic information such as age, race, and sex of the felon. Types of offenses committed include homicide, rape, and robbery. Adjudication variables referring to the process between arrest and sentencing are also a part of this dataset. Data can be analyzed at the national level or by individual counties.
Curated
Restricted
National Judicial Reporting Program, 1996 (ICPSR 2660)
Released/updated on: 2011-04-08
Geographic coverage: United States
This data collection tabulates the number of persons convicted of felonies in state courts and describes their sentences. Data were collected from state courts and state prosecutors in 344 counties of the United States. The collection contains sociodemographic information such as age, race, and sex of the felon. Types of offenses committed include homicide, rape, and robbery. Adjudication variables referring to the process between arrest and sentencing are also a part of this dataset. Data can be analyzed at the national level or by individual counties.
Curated
Restricted
National Judicial Reporting Program, 1998 (ICPSR 3316)
Released/updated on: 2011-04-11
Geographic coverage: United States
This data collection tabulates the number of persons convicted of felonies in state courts and describes their sentences. Data were collected from state courts and state prosecutors in 344 counties of the United States. The collection contains sociodemographic information such as age, race, and sex of the felon. Types of offenses committed include homicide, rape, and robbery. Adjudication variables referring to the process between arrest and sentencing are also a part of this dataset. Data can be analyzed at the national level or by individual counties.
Curated
Restricted
National Judicial Reporting Program, 2000 (ICPSR 3802)
Released/updated on: 2011-04-11
Geographic coverage: United States
This data collection provides detailed information on the sentences and characteristics of convicted felons based on data collected from state courts. The 2000 survey was based on a sample of 344 counties selected to be nationally representative. The collection contains sociodemographic information such as age, race, and sex of the felon. Types of offenses committed include homicide, rape, and robbery. Adjudication variables referring to the process between arrest and sentencing are also a part of this dataset. Data can be analyzed at the national level or by individual counties.
Curated
Restricted
National Judicial Reporting Program, 2002: [United States] (ICPSR 4203)
Released/updated on: 2011-03-08
Geographic coverage: United States
This data collection provides detailed information on the sentences and characteristics of convicted felons based on data collected from state courts. The 2002 survey was based on a sample of 300 counties selected to be nationally representative. The collection contains sociodemographic information such as age, race, and sex of the felon. Types of offenses committed include homicide, rape, and robbery. Data can be analyzed at the national level or by individual counties.
Curated
Restricted
National Judicial Reporting Program, 2004 (ICPSR 20760)
Released/updated on: 2011-03-08
Geographic coverage: United States
This data collection provides detailed information on the sentences and characteristics of convicted felons based on data collected from state courts. The 2004 survey was based on a sample of 300 counties selected to be nationally representative. The collection contains sociodemographic information such as age, race, and sex of the felon. Types of offenses committed include homicide, rape, and robbery. Data can be analyzed at the national level or by individual counties.