Showing 1 – 8 of 8 results.
Curated
Bethlehem [Pennsylvania] Police Family Group Conferencing Project, 1993-1997 (ICPSR 2679)
Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: United States, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania
Time period: 1993-01-01--1997-01-01
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the implementation of conferencing as a restorative policing practice. Family group conferencing is considered an important new development in restorative justice practice as a means of dealing more effectively with young first-time offenders by diverting them from court and involving their extended families and victims in conferences to address their wrongdoing. Cases deemed eligible for the study were property crimes including retail and other thefts, criminal mischief and trespass, and violent crimes including threats, harassment, disorderly conduct, and simple assaults. A total of 140 property crime cases and 75 violent crime cases were selected for the experiment, with two-thirds of each type randomly assigned to a diversionary conference (treatment group) and one-third of each type assigned to formal adjudication (control group). Participation in the conference was voluntary. If either party declined or if the offender did not admit responsibility for the offense, the case was processed through normal criminal justice channels. Those cases constituted a second treatment group (decline group). The Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, Police Department and the Community Service Foundation conducted a two-year study on the effectiveness of police-based family group conferencing. Beginning on November 1, 1995, 64 conferences were conducted for the study. Approximately two weeks after their cases were disposed, victims, offenders, and offenders' parents in the three experimental groups (control, conference, decline) were surveyed by mail, in-person interviews, or telephone interviews. Those who participated in conferences (Parts 4, 6, and 8) received a different questionnaire than those whose cases went through formal adjudication (Parts 5, 7, and 9), with similar questions to allow for comparison and some questions particular to the type of processing used on their case. Disposition data on cases were collected from five district magistrates in Bethlehem from January 1, 1993, to September 12, 1997. Data on recidivism and outcomes of the control and decline group cases were obtained from (1) the Bethlehem Police Department arrest database (Part 1) and (2) a database of records from the five district magistrates serving Bethlehem, drawn from a statewide magistrate court database compiled by the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts (Part 2). An attitudinal and work environment survey was administered to the Bethlehem Police Department on two occasions, just before the conferencing program commenced (pre-test) and eighteen months later (post-test) (Part 3). Part 1 variables include offender age, year of offense, charge code, amounts of fine and payments, crime type, offender crime category, and disposition. Part 2 collected disposition data on cases in the study and officers' observations on the conferences. Demographic variables include offender's age at current arrest, ethnicity, and gender. Other variables include type of charge, arrest, disposition, sentence, and recidivism, reason not conferenced, current recorded charge class, amounts of total fines, hours of community service, and conditions of sentence. Part 3 collected information on police attitudes and work environment before and after the conferencing program. Variables on organizational issues include ratings on communication, morale, co-workers, supervision, administration, amenities, equipment, and promotions. Variables on operational issues include ratings on danger, victims, frustration, external activities, complaints, workload, and driving. In Parts 4 to 9, researchers asked offenders, parents of offenders, and victims about their perceptions of how their cases were handled by the justice system and the fairness of the process, their attitudes and beliefs about the justice system, and their attitudes toward the victim and offender. Variables include whether the respondent was satisfied with the way the justice system handled the case, if the offender was held accountable for the offense, if meeting with the victim was helpful, if the respondent was surprised by anything in the conference, if the respondent told the victim/offender how he/she felt, if there was an opportunity to reach an agreement acceptable to all, if the offender/parents apologized, if the victim/parents had a better opinion of the offender after the conference, what the respondent's attitude toward the conference was, if the respondent would recommend a conference to others, if the offender was pressured to do all the talking, if the offender was treated with respect, if victim participation was insincere, if the respondent had a better understanding of how the victim was affected, if the victim only wanted to be paid back, and if conferences were responsive to needs.
Curated
Calls for Service to Police as a Means of Evaluating Crime Trends in Oklahoma City, 1986-1988 (ICPSR 9669)
Released/updated on: 2006-01-12
Geographic coverage: Oklahoma City, United States, Oklahoma
Time period: 1986-06-01--1988-06-01
In an effort to measure the effectiveness of crime deterrents and to estimate crime rates, calls for assistance placed to police in Oklahoma City over a two-year period were enumerated. This type of call was studied in order to circumvent problems such as "interviewer's effect" and sampling errors that occur with other methods. The telephone calls were stratified by police district, allowing for analysis on the neighborhood level to determine whether deterrence operates ecologically--that is, by neighbors informing one another about arrests which took place as a result of their calls to the police. In measuring deterrence, only the calls that concerned robbery were used. To estimate crime rates, calls were tallied on a monthly basis for 18 types of offenses: aggravated assault, robbery, rape, burglary, grand larceny, motor vehicle theft, simple assault, fraud, child molestation, other sex offenses, domestic disturbance, disorderly conduct, public drunkenness, vice and drugs, petty larceny, shoplifting, kidnapping/hostage taking, and suspicious activity.
Curated
Criminal Victimization Among Women in Cleveland, Ohio: Impact on Health Status and Medical Service Usage, 1986 (ICPSR 9920)
Released/updated on: 2006-01-12
Geographic coverage: United States, Ohio, Cleveland
The impact of criminal victimization on the health status of women is the focus of this data collection. The researchers examined the extent to which victimized women differed from nonvictimized women in terms of their physical and psychological well-being and differences in their use of medical services. The sample was drawn from female members of a health maintenance plan at a worksite in Cleveland, Ohio. Questions used to measure criminal victimization were taken from the National Crime Survey and focused on purse snatching, home burglary, attempted robbery, robbery with force, threatened assault, and assault. In addition, specific questions concerning rape and attempted rape were developed for the study. Health status was assessed by using a number of instruments, including the Cornell Medical Index, the Mental Health Index, and the RAND Corporation test battery for their Health Insurance Experiment. Medical service usage was assessed by reference to medical records. Demographic information includes age, race, income, and education.
Curated
Criminal Victimization and Perceptions of Community Safety in 12 United States Cities, 1998 (ICPSR 2743)
Released/updated on: 2006-01-18
Geographic coverage: Madison, District of Columbia, Savannah, United States, Chicago, Tennessee, Tucson, Kansas City (Missouri), California, New York (state), Spokane, Washington, New York City, Knoxville, San Diego, Illinois, Massachusetts, Missouri, Los Angeles, Georgia, Springfield (Massachusetts), Wisconsin, Arizona
This collection presents survey data from 12 cities in the United States regarding criminal victimization, perceptions of community safety, and satisfaction with local police. Participating cities included Chicago, IL, Kansas City, MO, Knoxville, TN, Los Angeles, CA, Madison, WI, New York, NY, San Diego, CA, Savannah, GA, Spokane, WA, Springfield, MA, Tucson, AZ, and Washington, DC. The survey used the current National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) questionnaire with a series of supplemental questions measuring the attitudes in each city. Respondents were asked about incidents that occurred within the past 12 months. Information on the following crimes was collected: violent crimes of rape, robbery, aggravated assault, and simple assault, personal crimes of theft, and household crimes of burglary, larceny, and motor vehicle theft. Part 1, Household-Level Data, covers the number of household respondents, their ages, type of housing, size of residence, number of telephone lines and numbers, and language spoken in the household. Part 2, Person-Level Data, includes information on respondents' sex, relationship to householder, age, marital status, education, race, time spent in the housing unit, personal crime and victimization experiences, perceptions of neighborhood crime, job and professional demographics, and experience and satisfaction with local police. Variables in Part 3, Incident-Level Data, concern the details of crimes in which the respondents were involved, and the police response to the crimes.
Curated
International Crime Victimization Survey (ICVS), 1989-2000 (ICPSR 3803)
Released/updated on: 2006-01-18
Geographic coverage: Cambodia, United States, Wales, England, Scotland, Portugal, Global, Russia, Netherlands, South Korea, Sweden, Mongolia, Latvia, Mozambique, Panama, Poland, Slovenia, France, Nigeria, Bulgaria, Lithuania, Lesotho, Croatia, Colombia, Argentina, Romania, Hungary, Georgia (Republic), Philippines, Ukraine, Zambia, Belarus, Northern Ireland, Switzerland, Albania, Canada, Azerbaijan, Czech Republic, Belgium, Swaziland, Namibia, Botswana, Finland, Denmark, South Africa, Uganda, Australia, Estonia
The International Crime Victim Survey (ICVS) is a far-reaching program of fully standardized surveys investigating householders' experience of crime in different countries. The data were collected in four waves: 1989, 1992, 1996, and 2000. The main focus of the ICVS is whether the respondent was a victim of theft of or from vehicles, other thefts, vandalism, robbery, pickpocketing, sexual harassment or violence, or assault. The surveys also investigated the frequency of victimization, reasons for not reporting a crime to the police, familiarity with the offender in the case of a sexual offense, physical violence, injuries, fear of crime in the respondent's local area, use of help agencies for victims, satisfaction with police behavior, preferred legal sanctions, punishment, and length of detention for offenders, safety precautions when leaving home, possession of a gun, burglar alarm, or insurance, and frequency of going out. Some of the 2000 surveys were administered nationally and some were restricted to a main city within a given country. The ICVS National Survey Data cover the following countries: Australia, Belgium, Canada, Catalonia, Denmark, England and Wales, Finland, France, Netherlands, Northern Ireland, Poland, Portugal, Scotland, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United States. The ICVS City Survey Data cover the following countries: Albania, Argentina, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Botswana, Bulgaria, Cambodia, Colombia, Croatia, Czech Republic, Estonia, Georgia, Hungary, Latvia, Lesotho, Lithuania, Mongolia, Mozambique, Namibia, Nigeria, Panama, Philippines, Poland, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russia, Slovenia, South Africa, Swaziland, Uganda, Ukraine, and Zambia.
Curated
International Crime Victim Survey (ICVS), 1989-1997 (ICPSR 2973)
Released/updated on: 2001-08-24
Geographic coverage: Chechnya, Wales, England, Paraguay, Kazakhstan, Global, Austria, Mongolia, Latvia, Yugoslavia, El Salvador, Brazil, Slovenia, Colombia, Argentina, Hungary, Georgia (Republic), Japan, Ukraine, Tanzania, Belarus, Northern Ireland, India, Albania, New Zealand, Canada, Belgium, Finland, South Africa, Italy, Macedonia, Germany, United States, Egypt, China (Peoples Republic), Scotland, Bolivia, Russia, Costa Rica, Malta, Netherlands, Sweden, Poland, Slovakia, France, Bulgaria, Lithuania, Tunisia, Kyrgyzstan, Croatia, Romania, Philippines, Switzerland, Spain, Norway, Botswana, Uganda, Zimbabwe, Australia, Indonesia, Estonia
The International Crime Victim Survey (ICVS) was a far-reaching program of standardized sample surveys that investigated householders' experiences with crime, policing, crime prevention, and perceptions of safety. The surveys were carried out in the following countries: Albania, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belarus, Belgium, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chechnia, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Egypt, England and Wales, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany (West), Hungary, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Malta, Mongolia, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Northern Ireland, Norway, Paraguay, the Philippines, Poland, Rumania, Russia, Scotland, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Tanzania, Tunisia, Uganda, Ukraine, the United States, Yugoslavia, and Zimbabwe. The data were collected in three waves: 1989, 1992-1994, and 1995-1997. The main focus of the ICVS was whether the respondent was a victim of theft of or from vehicles, other thefts, vandalism, robbery, pickpocketing, sexual harassment or violence, or assault. The surveys also investigated the frequency of victimization, reasons for not reporting a crime to the police, familiarity with the offender in the case of a sexual offense, physical violence, injuries, fear of crime in the respondent's local area, use of help agencies for victims, satisfaction with police behavior, preferred legal sanctions, punishment, and length of detention for offenders, safety precautions when leaving home, possession of a gun, burglar alarm, or insurance, and frequency of going out.
Curated
National Crime Surveys: Index of Crime Severity, 1977 (ICPSR 8295)
Released/updated on: 2006-01-18
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1977-07-01--1977-12-01
The purpose of this data collection was to determine the seriousness of criminal events. The principal investigators sought to determine and rate the relative seriousness of murder, rape, and petty theft. Information in the collection includes respondents' opinions on the severity of particular crimes as well as how that severity compared to other crimes.
Curated
Reintegrative Shaming Experiments (RISE) in Australia, 1995-1999 (ICPSR 2993)
Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: Australia
Time period: 1995-01-01--1999-01-01
The Reintegrative Shaming Experiments (RISE) project compared the effects of standard court processing with the effects of a restorative justice intervention known as conferencing for four kinds of cases: drunk driving (over .08 blood alcohol content) at any age, juvenile property offending with personal victims, juvenile shoplifting offenses detected by store security officers, and youth violent crimes (under age 30). Reintegrative shaming theory underpins the conferencing alternative. It entails offenders facing those harmed by their actions in the presence of family and friends whose opinions they care about, discussing their wrongdoing, and making repayment to society and to their victims for the costs of their crimes, both material and emotional. These conferences were facilitated by police officers and usually took around 90 minutes, compared with around ten minutes for court processing time. The researchers sought to test the hypotheses that (1) there would be less repeat offending after a conference than after a court treatment, (2) victims would be more satisfied with conferences than with court, (3) both offenders and victims would find conferences to be fairer than court, and (4) the public costs of providing a conference would be no greater than, and perhaps less than, the costs of processing offenders in court. This study contains data from ongoing experiments comparing the effects of court versus diversionary conferences for a select group of offenders. Part 1, Administrative Data for All Cases, consists of data from reports by police officers. These data include information on the offender's attitude, the police station and officer that referred the case, blood alcohol content level (drunk driving only), offense type, and RISE assigned treatment. Parts 2-5 are data from observations by trained RISE research staff of court and conference treatments to which offenders had been randomly assigned. Variables for Parts 2-5 include duration of the court or conference, if there was any violence or threat of violence in the court or conference, supports that the offender and victim had, how much reintegrative shaming was expressed, the extent to which the offender accepted guilt, if and in what form the offender apologized (e.g., verbal, handshake, hug, kiss), how defiant or sullen the offender was, how much the offender contributed to the outcome, what the outcome was (e.g., dismissed, imprisonment, fine, community service, bail release, driving license cancelled, counseling program), and what the outcome reflected (punishment, repaying community, repaying victims, preventing future offense, restoration). Data for Parts 6 and 7, Year 0 Survey Data from Non-Drunk-Driving Offenders Assigned to Court and Conferences and Year 0 Survey Data from Drunk-Driving Offenders Assigned to Court and Conferences, were taken from interviews with offenders by trained RISE interview staff after the court or conference proceedings. Variables for Parts 6 and 7 include how much the court or conference respected the respondent's rights, how much influence the respondent had over the agreement, the outcome that the respondent received, if the court or conference solved any problems, if police explained that the respondent had the right to refuse the court or conference, if the respondent was consulted about whom to invite to court or conference, how the respondent was treated, and if the respondent's respect for the justice system had gone up or down as a result of the court or conference. Additional variables focused on how nervous the respondent was about attending the court or conference, how severe the respondent felt the outcome was, how severe the respondent thought the punishment would be if he/she were caught again, if the respondent thought the court or conference would prevent him/her from breaking the law, if the respondent was bitter about the way he/she was treated, if the respondent understood what was going on in the court or conference, if the court or conference took account of what the respondent said, if the respondent felt pushed around by people with more power, if the respondent felt disadvantaged because of race, sex, age, or income, how police treated the respondent when arrested, if the respondent regretted what he/she did, if the respondent felt ashamed of what he/she did, what his/her family, friends, and other people thought of what the respondent did, and if the respondent had used drugs or alcohol the past year. Demographic variables in this data collection include offender's country of birth, gender, race, education, income, and employment.