Multi-level Analyses of Accuracy and Error in Digital Criminal Record Data, Minnesota and New Jersey, 2017-2019 (ICPSR 38208)
Disrupting the Pathways to Gang Violence for Youth of Color, Oregon, 2002-2022 (ICPSR 38685)
Guided by a life course perspective, this study used a mixed methodological approach (i.e., quantitative administrative data and qualitative interviews) to identify the differences in events, motivations, and experiences related to gang affiliation and the differences across (a) system-documented, gang-involved individuals, (b) system-documented gang-involved individuals who have gang-involved family members, and (c) other high-risk youth who are suspected of involvement. The overall goal of this research was to identify distinct pathways to gang activity that could inform practitioners and policymakers about useful intervention strategies. The study context was specific to Multnomah County, Oregon.
To achieve this, separate and distinct juvenile and adult systems databases were integrated to create critical linkages between juvenile services data (including risk assessments), adult community corrections data, and federal corrections data (n=2,210 individual records). This allowed for the examination of the trajectory of each individual - regardless of gang system documented gang status - from juvenile services through state adult corrections through federal adult corrections. It also permitted the investigation into the similarities or differences among different system-identified groups (i.e., gang involved, suspected gang involved, or no documentation of gang involvement). Additionally, the inclusion of familial and peer criminal justice records and system gang identification enabled the research team to control for family and peer influences while focusing on how the father's criminality and gang status might be a risk factor for youth criminal legal involvement and escalation into the adult system. Research questions for the quantitative data collection were:
- What aspects of early criminal offending and other problematic behaviors differ between gang-affiliated youth, gang-affiliated youth with gang-involved parents, and other high-risk youth?
- Are there significant differences in the likelihood of youth escalation into the adult criminal justice system and the Federal Corrections System between gang-affiliated youth, gang-affiliated youth with gang-involved parents, and other high-risk youth?
- Are there consistent age-related trends in risk as measured by the Juvenile Crime Prevention (JCP) tool? Do these trends vary by gang-affiliated youth, gang-affiliated youth with gang-involved parents, and other high-risk youth?
- What is the timing of important life events across the life course of justice-involved youth? Does the timing differ between gang-affiliated youth, gang-affiliated youth with gang-involved parents, and other high-risk youth?
- Does the close proximity of the timing of these life events increase the likelihood of youth escalation into the adult criminal justice system and the Federal Corrections System? Do these predictions differ between gang-affiliated youth, gang-affiliated youth with gang-involved parents, and other high-risk youth?
- How do parental offending and incarceration patterns predict their child's likelihood of becoming gang-affiliated and likelihood of escalation into the adult criminal justice system?
- How do the answers to the above research questions vary by youth race, ethnicity, geography, and offense type?
In addition to quantitative measures of gang pathways, semi-structured interviews were conducted with two groups: gang-affiliated and gang-involved youth supervised in the Department of Community Justice Gang Unit during the study time period (n=32), and corrections staff who had current or previous experience working with gang-affiliated or gang-involved youth (n=12). Original research questions for the qualitative data collection were:
- What are the critical transition periods for becoming gang-affiliated, and how are they experienced as an emotional event and/or a deliberate decision? How do these differ between individuals who have no criminal justice system involved family members, individuals with criminal justice involved family members, and individuals with gang-affiliated family members?
- What is the relational and emotional experience of recruiting a familial relation to gang affiliation, and of being recruited by a familial relation to gang affiliation and gang activities?
- What are the motivations for recruiting a familial relation into gang affiliation, and for allowing oneself to be successfully recruited by a family member?
- What are the methods employed by gang-affiliated individuals in recruiting their family members?
- Do the recruiter and recruited have significant or patterned differences in the event and experience of recruitment into gang affiliation and activities?
- Do the recruiter and recruited have significant or patterned differences in their views and experiences of the criminal justice system?
Qualitative data will be made available in a future update.
National Crime Surveys: Redesign Data: Peoria Record Check Study (ICPSR 8669)
National Crime Victimization Survey: Unbounded Data, 2005 [Record-Type Files] (ICPSR 22341)
National Crime Victimization Survey: Unbounded Data, 2006 [Record-Type Files] (ICPSR 24644)
Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data: Hate Crime Data (Record-Type Files), United States, 2017 (ICPSR 37854)
Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data: Hate Crime Data (Record-Type Files), United States, 2018 (ICPSR 37872)
Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data: Hate Crime Data (Record-Type Files), United States, 2016 (ICPSR 37060)
Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data: Hate Crime Data (Record-Type Files), United States, 2022 (ICPSR 39065)
Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data: Hate Crime Data (Record-Type Files), United States, 2019 (ICPSR 38782)
Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data: Hate Crime Data (Record-Type Files), United States, 2020 (ICPSR 38790)
Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data: Hate Crime Data (Record-Type Files), United States, 2021 (ICPSR 38798)
Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data: Hate Crime Data (Record-Type Files), United States, 2023 (ICPSR 39300)
Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data: Hate Crime Data (Record-Type Files), United States, 2024 (ICPSR 39663)
Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data: Hate Crime Data, 2015 [Record-Type Files] (ICPSR 36835)
Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data: Hate Crime Data, 2014 [Record-Type Files] (ICPSR 36397)
Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data: Hate Crime Data, 2013 [Record-Type Files] (ICPSR 36118)
Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data: Hate Crime Data, 2010 [Record-Type Files] (ICPSR 33524)
Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data: Hate Crime Data, 2011 [Record-Type Files] (ICPSR 34583)
Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data: Hate Crime Data, 2012 [Record-Type Files] (ICPSR 35086)
Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data: Hate Crime Data, 2009 [Record-Type Files] (ICPSR 30764)
Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data [United States]: Hate Crime Data, 2008 [Record-Type Files] (ICPSR 27645)
Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data [United States]: Hate Crime Data, 1993 [Record-Type Files] (ICPSR 24240)
Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data [United States]: Hate Crime Data, 1992 [Record-Type Files] (ICPSR 24282)
Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data [United States]: Hate Crime Data, 2006 [Record-Type Files] (ICPSR 22406)
Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data [United States]: Hate Crime Data, 2001 [Record-Type Files] (ICPSR 23781)
Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data [United States]: Hate Crime Data, 2000 [Record-Type Files] (ICPSR 23783)
Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data [United States]: Hate Crime Data, 1999 [Record-Type Files] (ICPSR 23800)
Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data [United States]: Hate Crime Data, 1998 [Record-Type Files] (ICPSR 23821)
Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data [United States]: Hate Crime Data, 1997 [Record-Type Files] (ICPSR 23840)
Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data [United States]: Hate Crime Data, 1996 [Record-Type Files] (ICPSR 23841)
Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data [United States]: Hate Crime Data, 1995 [Record-Type Files] (ICPSR 23940)
Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data [United States]: Hate Crime Data, 1994 [Record-Type Files] (ICPSR 23960)
Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data [United States]: Hate Crime Data, 2005 [Record-Type Files] (ICPSR 23441)
Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data [United States]: Hate Crime Data, 2004 [Record-Type Files] (ICPSR 23544)
Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data [United States]: Hate Crime Data, 2003 [Record-Type Files] (ICPSR 23600)
Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data [United States]: Hate Crime Data, 2002 [Record-Type Files] (ICPSR 23625)
Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data [United States]: Hate Crime Data, 2007 [Record-Type Files] (ICPSR 25107)
Evaluation of Adult Community Supervision Strategies in Multnomah County, Oregon, 1995, 1998, and 2000 Cohorts (ICPSR 3584)
Experimental Comparison of Telepsychiatry and Conventional Psychiatry for Mentally Ill Parolees in California, 2011-2015 (ICPSR 36111)
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 main goal of the study was to empirically measure the effectiveness of Telepsychiatry for mentally ill parolees.Parolees enrolled in the study were assigned to either face-to-face sessions with their psychiatrists for the duration of their treatment or telepsychiatry sessions with their psychiatrist, in which the parolees interacted with their assigned psychiatrist via a web-based screen interface. Administrative records data on recidivism was collected for everyone who consented to be randomized in this study.
Understanding the Causes and Consequences of Inmate Misconduct Within and Across Correctional Facilities in Kentucky and Ohio, 2007-2009 (ICPSR 34317)
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.
This study involved an examination of the relative effects of measures of inmate characteristics, features of facility environments, and managerial practices, including the perceived legitimacy of the correctional staff, on both the prevalence and incidence of violent, drug, and other nonviolent misconduct.Inmate, officer, and facility data were collected from each of the 33 facilities for adults in Ohio and each of the 13 state operated facilities for adults in Kentucky. The inmate data (Inmate Level Data, n=5,640) includes information on inmates collected through on-site surveys, and then supplemented with information from administrative records. The officer data (Correctional Officer Data, n=1,841) includes information on correctional officers collected through a mail survey, and then supplemented with information retrieved from administrative records. Facility data (Facility Level Data, n=46) were derived from aggregating responses to the inmate survey, from administrative records and from semi-structured interviews conducted with the wardens of each facility.
Evaluation of the Reasoning and Rehabilitation Cognitive Skills Development Program Implemented in Juvenile Intensive Supervision Probation in Colorado, 1994-1995 (ICPSR 2028)
Substance-Free Transitional Housing and Community Corrections in Washington County, Oregon, 2005-2008 (ICPSR 25942)
Revictimization and Victim Satisfaction in Domestic Violence Cases Processed in the Quincy, Massachusetts, District Court, 1995-1997 (ICPSR 3790)
Modeling Impacts of Policing Initiatives on Drug and Criminal Careers of Arrestees in New York City, New York, 1999 (ICPSR 3604)
Link for Schools: A System to Prevent Violence and Its Adverse Impacts, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, 2017-2021 (ICPSR 38301)
The Link for Schools project was a longitudinal study evaluating the implementation and administration of a school-based violence prevention program, Link for Schools (also referred to as Link), in a high-risk school district in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. Study populations consisted of school staff and community members who participated in a two-tiered training program aimed at preventing and intervening with violence, and a sample of children in grades 1-8 who attended a school where the program was implemented. Study procedures took place during three academic years, starting in 2017 and ending in 2020.
The Link program was built upon the principles of trauma-informed care (TIC) and psychological first aid (PFA) based in motivational interviewing to identify and intervene on mental health and behavioral precursors of violence, and to mitigate the immediate impacts of violence among exposed youth. TIC training for the entire school community served as the first tier of support, then a safety net of staff trained in PFA and screening for non-specific stress and referral (referred to as Link interventionists) served as a second tier. Students whose needs exceeded the existing school resources were directly referred to appropriate care.
This collection contains the following data types:
- Case management records for each encounter interventionists had with students during the study time period (DS1) and linkages to other supports (DS2)
- Pre- and post-program survey data from school staff (DS4, DS7)
- Post-training survey data from school staff or parents who completed trauma-informed care (TIC) training (DS3), and staff who completed Link interventionist trainings (DS5, DS6)
- Costs of program administration, implementation, and training to estimate cost effectiveness (DS8)
- Student administrative records shared by the school district to determine initial eligibility for the intervention and track outcomes related to disciplinary action (DS9)
Mapping the School to Prison Pipeline in North Carolina, 1972-2016 (ICPSR 38141)
This project was centered on the apparent tension between keeping schools safe and keeping students attached to school. The project used comprehensive administrative data from the North Carolina public school system available through the North Carolina Education Research Data Center (NCERDC).
This dataset, along with juvenile court record data and publicly-available data from the North Carolina adult criminal justice system, linked administrative information from the same individuals in both school disciplinary records and the juvenile and adult criminal justice systems. The ultimate goal of this project was to determine if different policy choices by schools causally decrease rates of in-school violence in the short run and/or increase rates of conviction and incarceration in the long term.
Prosecutor's Management Information System (Promis) Data, 1974-1975 (ICPSR 7643)
A Roadmap to Evidence-Based School Safety: Safe Communities Safe Schools, Colorado, 2016-2020 (ICPSR 37913)
Researchers from the University of Colorado Boulder's Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence (CSPV) partnered with educators in 46 middle schools to implement Safe Communities Safe Schools (SCSS). SCSS seeks to prevent and reduce behavioral incidents, address mental and behavioral health concerns, and increase prosocial behavior in the school setting through three core program components: developing a functioning multidisciplinary school team, building capacity around data use, and selecting and implementing evidence-based programs. The study explored research questions in three areas: readiness (whether schools met baseline criteria and experienced changes in readiness over time), implementation (whether the SCSS model was implemented as intended; whether it is feasible, acceptable, and effective when implemented schoolwide), and associated outcomes (effects on school climate, safety, related behavioral and mental health indicators, and academic outcomes). To explore questions in these three areas, CSPV and external evaluators from American Institutes for Research conducted a mixed-methods randomized control trial with a staggered implementation design using qualitative data (open-ended questions on implementation surveys, focus groups) and quantitative data (staff and student school climate data, attendance/truancy rates, and suspension rates, and academic achievement data).
This collection is organized into 12 parts and includes administrative school record data, student and staff climate surveys, and fidelity data. School record data from years 1 and 2 of the study include school-level attendance, truancy, and suspension rates, as well as student-level assessment data. Qualitative focus group data is not currently included in the collection.