Showing 1 – 3 of 3 results.
Curated
Crime in Boomburb Cities: 1970-2004 [United States] (ICPSR 29202)
Released/updated on: 2011-08-10
Geographic coverage: San Bernardino, United States, St. Petersburg, California, Florida, Miami, Santa Clara, San Diego, Atlanta, Orlando, Texas, Colorado, Phoenix, Denver, Georgia, Tampa, Dallas, Arizona, Las Vegas, Nevada, Houston, Riverside
Time period: 1970-01-01--2004-01-01
This study focused on the effect of economic resources and racial/ethnic composition on the change in crime rates from 1970-2004 in United States cities in metropolitan areas that experienced a large growth in population after World War II. A total of 352 cities in the following United States metropolitan areas were selected for this study: Atlanta, Dallas, Denver, Houston, Las Vegas, Miami, Orange County, Orlando, Phoenix, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, Silicon Valley (Santa Clara), and Tampa/St. Petersburg. Selection was based on the fact that these areas developed during a similar time period and followed comparable development trajectories. In particular, these 14 areas, known as the "boomburbs" for their dramatic, post-World War II population growth, all faced issues relating to the rapid growth of tract-style housing and the subsequent development of low density, urban sprawls. The study combined place-level data obtained from the United States Census with crime data from the Uniform Crime Reports for five categories of Type I crimes: aggravated assaults, robberies, murders, burglaries, and motor vehicle thefts. The dataset contains a total of 247 variables pertaining to crime, economic resources, and race/ethnic composition.
Curated
Pretrial Release Data, 1969 (ICPSR 7538)
Released/updated on: 1992-02-16
This data collection contains information gathered about pretrial release policies, procedures, and outcomes in a 1969 survey of police chiefs, judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, and bail project directors in 72 cities across the United States (with a higher proportion in Illinois). The research objectives included: (1) developing a model designed to determine the optimum percentage of defendants to hold prior to trial, (2) developing a model designed to make decisions on whether a defendant should be released or held in jail prior to trial, (3) comparing cities having bail reform projects with cities not having them, (4) comparing cities that required arrested persons to provide 10 percent of the bond with cities requiring 100 percent of the bond, and (5) determining the causes and effects of variations across cities in the percentage of defendants held in jail prior to trial. The survey focused on the processing of arrested persons prior to trial. Respondents answered questions about the organization and procedures in pretrial release, supplied approximate statistical data (e.g., percent of arraigned individuals who were released prior to their trial and failed to appear in court for their trial), estimated statistical trends in pretrial release during the previous five years, reported on attitudes in their communities toward administration of bail, rated the importance of several criteria when determining if a defendant was to be allowed pretrial release, and indicated whether their city had a bail reform program, and if so, its characteristics. Demographic data (ranging from population to income to crime rates) about the 72 cities represented in the survey are also included in the file.
Curated
Reentry Mapping Network Project in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Washington, DC, and Winston-Salem, North Carolina, 2003-2004 (ICPSR 20560)
Released/updated on: 2010-07-30
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Milwaukee, District of Columbia, United States, Winston-Salem, Wisconsin
Time period: 2003-01-01--2003-12-31, 2004-01-01--2004-12-31, 2003-01-01--2003-12-31
The Urban Institute established the Reentry Mapping Network (RMN), a group of jurisdictions applying a data-driven, spatial approach to prisoner reentry. The purpose of the study was to examine three National Institute of Justice-funded RMN sites: Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Washington, DC, and Winston-Salem, North Carolina. As members of the Reentry Mapping Network, the three sites collected local data related to incarceration, reentry, and community well-being. The Nonprofit Center of Milwaukee's Neighborhood Data Center was the lead Reentry Mapping Network partner in Milwaukee. Data on a total of 168 census tracts in Milwaukee (Part 1) during the calendar year 2003 were obtained from the Wisconsin Department of Corrections. NeighborhoodInfo DC was the lead reentry mapping network partner in Washington, DC. Data on a total of 7,286 ex-offenders in Washington, DC (Part 2) during the calendar year 2004 were obtained from the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency (CSOSA) for the District of Columbia. The Winston-Salem Reentry Mapping Network project was managed by the Center for Community Safety (CCS), a public service and research center of Winston-Salem State University. Data on a total of 2,896 ex-offenders in Forsyth County (Part 3) during the calendar year 2003 were obtained from the North Carolina Department of Corrections (DOC), the Forsyth County Sheriff's Department (Forsyth County Detention Center [FCDC]), and the North Carolina Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (DJJDP). The Milwaukee, Wisconsin Data (Part 1) contain a total of 95 variables including race, ethnicity, gender, marital status, education, job status, dependents, general risk assessment, alcohol risk, drug risk, need for alcohol treatment, and need for drug treatment. Also included are four geographic variables. The Washington, DC Data (Part 2) contain a total of 13 variables including supervision type, whether supervision began in calendar year 2004, date supervision period began, date supervision period ended, sex, marital status, ethnicity, age, education, unemployment status, state, and Census tract. The Winston-Salem, North Carolina Data (Part 3) contain a total of 14 variables including race, sex, primary offense, admittance date, date pardoned, street, city, state, status, jurisdiction, and age at admission.