Showing 1 – 10 of 10 results.
Curated
Classification of Rapists in Massachusetts, 1980-1990 (ICPSR 9976)
Released/updated on: 1995-03-27
Geographic coverage: United States, Massachusetts
Time period: 1980-01-01--1990-01-01
The purpose of this study was to apply the latest version of a typological system for rapists (MTC:R3) developed at the Massachusetts Treatment Center for Sexually Dangerous Persons (MTC) to a large sample of offenders currently or previously incarcerated at MTC and to examine the system's reliability and concurrent and predictive validity. Data are available from two of the project's components. In the first component, 201 rapists who were committed to MTC between 1958 and 1981 were classified. This sample was used to revise the previous classification system (R2), upon which the development of the current system rests. Of these 201 men, 94 were in residence at the time of the study and 107 had been released. The second component classified a sample of 54 rapists who were committed after 1981. This sample was not used to develop the criteria for the typology. As an overview, this project had two missions: (1) to subtype about 250 rapists using MTC:R3 criteria, and (2) to utilize an archivally-derived database to examine the concurrent and predictive validity of the system. In addition to the subtype assignments, the primary source of data was the detailed institutional files that were used to code a 1,500-variable questionnaire.
Curated
Integrated Approaches to Manage Multi-Case Families in the Criminal Justice System in Maricopa County, Arizona, and Deschutes and Jackson Counties, Oregon, 1999-2005 (ICPSR 20358)
Released/updated on: 2009-07-31
Geographic coverage: Oregon, United States, Arizona
Time period: 1999-01-01--2005-01-01
The project goal was to collect data on approximately 100 Unified Family Court (UFC) cases at each of the three selected jurisdictions -- Maricopa County, Arizona, Deschutes County, Oregon, and Jackson County, Oregon -- that have developed systems to address the special needs of families with multiple court cases. The purpose of the study was to examine research questions related to: (1) dependency case processing and outcomes, (2) delinquency case processing and outcomes, (3) domestic relations/probate case processing and outcomes, and (4) criminal case processing and outcomes. The data used in this study were generated from a review of the court records of 602 families including 406 families served by the UFC as well as comparison groups of 196 non-UFC multi-case families. During the study's planning phase, an instrument was drafted for use in extracting this information. Data collectors were recruited from former UFC staff and current and former non-UFC court staff. All data collectors were trained by the principal investigator in the use of the data collection form. The vast majority of all data extraction required a manual review of paper files. Variables in this dataset are organized into the following categories: background variables, items from dependency/abuse and neglect filings, delinquency filings, domestic relations/probate filings, civil domestic violence/protection order filings, criminal domestic violence filings, criminal child abuse filings, other criminal filings, and variables from a summary across cases.
Curated
Justice Systems Processing of Child Abuse and Neglect Cases in a Local Jurisdiction (County) in the United States, 1993-1994 (ICPSR 2310)
Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1993-01-01--1994-08-25
The purpose of this study was to provide a comprehensive, case-level examination of the full spectrum of case processing of serious child abuse and neglect cases as they flowed through the justice process, from initial receipt of a report to final disposition in the criminal and/or civil court. This was accomplished by in-depth, detailed tracking, from a single jurisdiction, of both prospective and retrospective samples of serious child abuse cases reported to child protective services and law enforcement agencies. The four agencies that participated directly by providing case samples and case files for tracking were: (1) Child Protective Services (CPS), (2) the sheriff's office, (3) Dependency Court Legal Services (DCLS), and (4) the county prosecutor's office. Each case was abstracted at the point of sampling and then tracked throughout the other participating agencies. Data were collected over a nine-month period. Part 1, Maltreatment Abstract, Person Roster, and CPS Abstract Data, contains three types of data. First, information is provided on each maltreatment incident committed by each perpetrator, background of the perpetrator and the victim, and characteristics of the incident. The data continue with a roster of persons, which covers the relationships among the individuals in the case and whether any of these individuals were living together at the time of the maltreatment. Data from the CPS abstract include which source brought the case to the attention of Protective Services, the dates, priority, and investigation level of the report, if any prior allegations of maltreatment had occurred that involved either the same victims and/or perpetrators and, if so, information on those reports, and the perpetrator's response to the incident and level of cooperation with the investigation. For each victim, information is given on medical findings, if applicable, whether photographs were taken, whether a guardian was appointed, whether the victim was assigned an interim placement, and the CPS disposition of the case. Part 1 concludes with information on interviews with the victim, where the case was referred, the assessment of risk in the case, and whether the victim was placed in foster care. Part 2, Dependency Court Abstract Data, provides information on the case, the reason the case was closed, and the outcome as determined by the court. Part 3, Juvenile Court Schedule of Hearings Data, focuses on the schedule of hearings, such as who was present and if they were represented by an attorney, whether the hearing took place, and, if not, the reason for delay. Part 4, Law Enforcement Abstract Data, contains dates of incidents, reports, and arrests, details of the case, and how the case was handled. Part 5, State Attorney's Office Abstract Data, offers data on the case closing, charges, and sentencing, as well as information on the type of defense attorney representing the perpetrator, if a juvenile, how the defendant was referred to adult court, whether the state attorney filed cases on other perpetrators in the case, whether the victim was interviewed by the prosecutor prior to filing, and whether the victim was deposed by the state attorney after the case was filed. Part 6, Criminal Court Schedule of Hearings Data, contains information on date of arrest, filing, and court hearing, whether a public defender was assigned, number of hearings, type of hearing, and coded remarks about the hearing. Part 7, State Attorney Addendum Data, provides "no-file" data from the State Attorney Questionnaire Addendum, including if the no-file was a warrant or arrest, date of the no-file, and reason for the no-file.
Curated
Learning Deficiencies Among Adult Inmates, 1982: Louisiana, Pennsylvania, and Washington (ICPSR 8359)
Released/updated on: 1992-02-16
Geographic coverage: United States, Louisiana, Washington, Pennsylvania
The National Institute of Justice sponsored this study of 1,065 prison inmates in Louisiana, Pennsylvania, and Washington. Respondents were administered an academic achievement test, the Tests of Adult Basic Education, and an individual intelligence test, the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Revised (WAIS-R). Other screening tests were also given to certain respondents, including the Mann-Suiter Disabilities Screening Test and the Adaptive Behavior Checklist. Data for each inmate includes offenses committed, prior institutionalization, juvenile adjudication, years of formal education, academic and vocational participation while incarcerated, previous diagnoses, childhood home situation, death of parents, number of siblings, and any childhood problems. Information on demographic characteristics, such as age, sex, race, employment history, and physical condition, is available for each respondent.
Curated
Longitudinal Study of Violent Criminal Behavior in the United States, 1970-1984 (ICPSR 6103)
Released/updated on: 2005-11-04
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1970-01-01--1984-01-01
The primary objective of this project was to explore the familial, physical, psychological, social, and cultural antecedents and correlates of violent criminal offending. This research used an extensive longitudinal database collected on 1,345 young adult male offenders admitted to the Federal Correctional Institution (FCI) in Tallahassee, Florida, from November 3, 1970, to November 2, 1972. Using FBI arrest records ("rap sheets"), each inmate was classified on the basis of the National Crime Information Center Uniform Offense Codes into one of four distinct categories: (1) "angry violent," in which the apparent goal was to injure the victim, (2) "instrumentally violent," in which the aggressive behavior was a means to an end (as in a robbery), (3) "potentially violent," as evidenced by making threats or carrying weapons but in which the offender was not accused of any violent offenses, and (4) "nonviolent," in which the offender had not been charged with violent criminal behavior. Violent offenders were also subdivided into those who had been repetitively violent and those who had been charged with just one violent offense. As part of the classification process, each inmate was administered an extensive battery of tests by the research project staff. The two primary personality assessment instruments utilized were the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) and the California Psychological Inventory (CPI). Each inmate's caseworker filled out a series of of standard Bureau of Prisons forms recording the results of the medical, educational, and psychological evaluations, as well as salient aspects of the case and criminal history. The researchers also obtained copies of each offender's Presentence Investigation Report (PSI) that had been prepared by the federal probation officer, and then devised a series of scales to quantify the PSI data. In addition, an hour-long structured intake interview was administered to each inmate by his team psychologist. Global scales were constructed from these intake interviews. After each interview, the psychologists performed an evaluative Q-sort. Nine scales were later constructed based on these Q-sorts. Also, every dormitory officer and every work supervisor completed scales assessing each subject's interpersonal adjustment and work performance at 90-day intervals. Immediately prior to release, as many inmates as possible were reinterviewed and retested on the MMPI and the CPI. Follow-ups using FBI rap sheets were conducted in 1976 and 1984. Variables obtained from the Bureau of Prisons forms include age upon entry, race, marital status, age at first arrest, number of prior adult convictions, commitment offense(s), highest school grade completed, drug dependency, and alcoholism. Scales developed from the PSIs provide data on father, mother, and siblings, family incohesiveness, adequacy of childhood dwelling, social deviance of family, school problems, employment problems, achievement motivation, problems with interpersonal relations, authority conflicts, childhood and adolescent or adult maladjustment and deviance, poor physical health, juvenile conviction record, adult arrest and conviction record, violence of offense, group influence on illegal behavior, and prior prison adjustment. The intake interview inquired about the developmental family history and the child's development, the inmate's marriage, educational, and work history and attitudes, attitudes toward sex, military service and attitudes, self-reported use of alcohol and other substances, religious preferences and practices, and problems during any previous confinements. Scales based on the psychologists' Q-sorts evaluated aggression, hostility avoidance, authority conflict, sociability, social withdrawal, social/emotional constriction, passivity, dominance, and adaptation to the environment. Data are also provided on global dorm adjustment and the number of shots, cell house days, sick calls, and infractions for the offenders' first and second 90-day periods at the FCI.
Curated
Pathways From Dependency and Neglect to Delinquency in a Mid-South County in the United States, 1984-1985 and 2000-2001 (ICPSR 21185)
Released/updated on: 2010-01-29
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1984-01-01--1985-01-01, 2000-01-01--2001-01-01
The purpose of this study was to examine two sets of children -- those alleged dependent and neglected and those alleged delinquent -- in order to better understand the influence of maltreatment on delinquent conduct. Data were collected from official court records. The first group of children was selected from the dependency and neglected cases filed with the Juvenile Court in 1984 and 1985. The 1984-1985 Non-Pooled Dependency and Neglect Cohort Data (Part 1) contains a total of 1,062 cases, representing 1,062 alleged dependent and neglected children and their siblings. The 1984-1985 Pooled Dependency and Neglect Cohort Data (Part 3) includes 4,474 cases which correspond to up to 20 complaints for each of the 1,062 alleged dependent and neglected children. The second group was selected from delinquency petitions of children 16 and 17 years old filed in the years 2000 and 2001. The 2000-2001 Non-Pooled Delinquency Cohort Data (Part 2) contains a total of 549 cases, representing 549 delinquent children. The 2000-2001 Pooled Delinquency Cohort Data (Part 4) includes 2,076 cases which correspond to up to 20 complaints for each of the 549 delinquent children. Part 1 contains a total of 11 and Part 2 contains a total of 10 demographics and summary count information variables. Part 3 and Part 4 contain a total of 68 and 58 variables, respectively, including demographics and information on delinquent charges, complaints of maltreatment, placements, and dispositions for each child.
Curated
Problem Behaviors in Maltreated Children and Youth: Influential Child, Peer, and Caregiver Characteristics, 1999-2000 [United States] (ICPSR 4258)
Released/updated on: 2005-07-06
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1999-09-01--2000-12-01
This project examined the problem behaviors of maltreated children and adolescents and the predictors of changes in behavior over an 18-month period. Problem behaviors included aggression, delinquency, risky sexual practices, substance abuse, and suicidal behaviors. The project used data from the National Survey of Child and Adolescent Well-Being (NSCAW), a national probability survey of children assessed following a child maltreatment report. This collection consists of SAS code used to produce subsets of the NSCAW data and the analyses for three chapters of the project's final report. Chapter 2 examined aggression and changes in behavior over 18 months for children aged six to ten years at the time of the baseline interview. Chapter 3 examined self-reported delinquency and caregiver-reported aggressive and delinquent behavior and changes in behavior over 18 months for youth aged 11 to 15 years at the time of the baseline interview. Chapter 4 examined risky behavior changes (risky sexual behavior, substance abuse, and suicidal risk behavior) over 18 months for youth aged 11 to 15 years at the time of the baseline interview.
Curated
Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods (PHDCN): Addendum (Primary Caregiver), Wave 3, 2000-2002 (ICPSR 13670)
Released/updated on: 2007-03-02
Geographic coverage: United States, Chicago, Illinois
Time period: 2000-01-01--2002-01-01
The Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods (PHDCN) was a large-scale, interdisciplinary study of how families, schools, and neighborhoods affect child and adolescent development. One component of the PHDCN was the Longitudinal Cohort Study, which was a series of coordinated longitudinal studies that followed over 6,000 randomly selected children, adolescents, and young adults, and their primary caregivers over time to examine the changing circumstances of their lives, as well as the personal characteristics, that might lead them toward or away from a variety of antisocial behaviors. Numerous measures were administered to respondents to gauge various aspects of human development, including individual differences, as well as family, peer, and school influences. For primary caregivers included in Wave 3 but not in Wave 2, an addendum interview was administered consisting of measures or portions of measures from the Wave 2 interview. This included questions from PROJECT ON HUMAN DEVELOPMENT IN CHICAGO NEIGHBORHOODS (PHDCN): DEMOGRAPHIC FILE, WAVE 2, 1997-2000 (ICPSR 13609), PROJECT ON HUMAN DEVELOPMENT IN CHICAGO NEIGHBORHOODS (PHDCN): MY CHILD'S EXPOSURE TO VIOLENCE, WAVE 2, 1997-2000 (ICPSR 13619), PROJECT ON HUMAN DEVELOPMENT IN CHICAGO NEIGHBORHOODS (PHDCN): FAMILY SUICIDE INTERVIEW, WAVE 2, 1997-2000 (ICPSR 13623), PROJECT ON HUMAN DEVELOPMENT IN CHICAGO NEIGHBORHOODS (PHDCN): HOUSEHOLD COMPOSITION, WAVE 2, 1997-2000 (ICPSR 13628), PROJECT ON HUMAN DEVELOPMENT IN CHICAGO NEIGHBORHOODS (PHDCN): HEALTH SCREEN, WAVE 2, 1997-2000 (ICPSR 13629), and PROJECT ON HUMAN DEVELOPMENT IN CHICAGO NEIGHBORHOODS (PHDCN): PRENATAL AND EARLY HEALTH, WAVE 2, 1997-2000 (ICPSR 13644). It was administered to primary caregivers in Cohorts 0, 3, 6, 9, and 12.
Curated
Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods (PHDCN): Family Structure and Health History, Wave 1, 1994-1997 (ICPSR 13592)
Released/updated on: 2007-09-27
Geographic coverage: United States, Chicago, Illinois
Time period: 1994-01-01--1997-01-01
The Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods (PHDCN) was a large-scale, interdisciplinary study of how families, schools, and neighborhoods affect child and adolescent development. One component of the PHDCN was the Longitudinal Cohort Study, which was a series of coordinated longitudinal studies that followed over 6,000 randomly selected children, adolescents, and young adults, and their primary caregivers over time to examine the changing circumstances of their lives, as well as the personal characteristics, that might lead them toward or away from a variety of antisocial behaviors. Numerous measures were administered to respondents to gauge various aspects of human development, including individual differences, as well as family, peer, and school influences. One such measure was the Family Structure and Health History assessment, administered to either the primary caregivers of subjects belonging to Cohorts 0 to 15, or to the subjects belonging to Cohort 18. It obtained basic information on family structure, household composition, and health problems.
Curated
Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods (PHDCN): Family Suicide Interview, Wave 2, 1997-2000 (ICPSR 13623)
Released/updated on: 2005-11-22
Geographic coverage: United States, Chicago, Illinois
Time period: 1997-01-01--2000-01-01
The Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods (PHDCN) was a large-scale, interdisciplinary study of how families, schools, and neighborhoods affect child and adolescent development. One component of the PHDCN was the Longitudinal Cohort Study, which was a series of coordinated longitudinal studies that followed over 6,000 randomly selected children, adolescents, and young adults, and their primary caregivers over time to examine the changing circumstances of their lives, as well as the personal characteristics, that might lead them toward or away from a variety of antisocial behaviors. Numerous measures were administered to respondents to gauge various aspects of human development, including individual differences, as well as family, peer, and school influences. The Family Suicide Interview was administered to subjects' caregivers for Cohorts 0 to 15. The instrument was adapted from a section of the Major Depression Disorder module of the Diagnostic Interview Schedule for Children (DISC 4) and obtained information regarding any members of the subject's family who had committed suicide.