Search results

Showing 1 – 39 of 39 results.
Curated

National Crime Victimization Survey: School Crime Supplement, 2009 (ICPSR 28201)

Released/updated on: 2011-01-21
Geographic coverage: United States
The primary purpose of the School Crime Supplement (SCS) is to obtain additional information about school-related victimizations so that policymakers; academic researchers; practitioners at the federal, state, and local levels; and special interest groups who are concerned with crime in schools can make informed decisions concerning policies and programs. The SCS asks questions related to students' experiences with, and perceptions of crime and safety at school, including preventive measures employed by schools; students' participation in after school activities; students' perception of school rules and enforcement of these rules; the presence of weapons, drugs, alcohol, and gangs in school; student bullying; hate-related incidents; and attitudinal questions relating to the fear of victimization at school. These responses are linked to the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) survey instrument responses for a more complete understanding of the individual student's circumstances.
Curated

National Crime Victimization Survey: School Crime Supplement, 2007 (ICPSR 23041)

Released/updated on: 2009-03-26
Geographic coverage: United States
The primary purpose of the School Crime Supplement (SCS) is to obtain additional information about school-related victimizations so that policymakers, academic researchers, practitioners at the federal, state and local levels, and special interest groups who are concerned with crime in schools can make informed decisions concerning policies and programs. The SCS asks questions related to students' experiences with, and perceptions of crime and safety at school, including preventive measures employed by schools, students' participation in after school activities, students' perception of school rules and enforcement of these rules, the presence of weapons, drugs, alcohol, and gangs in school, student bullying, hate-related incidents, and attitudinal questions relating to the fear of victimization at school. These responses are linked to the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) survey instrument responses for a more complete understanding of the individual student's circumstances.
Curated
Simple Crosstabs

National Crime Victimization Survey: School Crime Supplement, 2011 (ICPSR 33081)

Released/updated on: 2013-03-26
Geographic coverage: United States
The primary purpose of the School Crime Supplement (SCS) is to obtain additional information about school-related victimizations so that policymakers; academic researchers; practitioners at the federal, state, and local levels; and special interest groups who are concerned with crime in schools can make informed decisions concerning policies and programs. The SCS asks questions related to students' experiences with, and perceptions of crime and safety at school, including preventive measures employed by schools; students' participation in after school activities; students' perception of school rules and enforcement of these rules; the presence of weapons, drugs, alcohol, and gangs in school; student bullying; hate-related incidents; and attitudinal questions relating to the fear of victimization at school. These responses are linked to the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) survey instrument responses for a more complete understanding of the individual student's circumstances.
Curated
Simple Crosstabs

National Crime Victimization Survey: School Crime Supplement, 2013 (ICPSR 34980)

Released/updated on: 2014-12-02
Geographic coverage: United States
The primary purpose of the School Crime Supplement (SCS) is to obtain additional information about school-related victimizations so that policymakers; academic researchers; practitioners at the federal, state, and local levels; and special interest groups who are concerned with crime in schools can make informed decisions concerning policies and programs. The SCS asks questions related to students' experiences with, and perceptions of crime and safety at school, including preventive measures employed by schools; students' participation in after school activities; students' perception of school rules and enforcement of these rules; the presence of weapons, drugs, alcohol, and gangs in school; student bullying; hate-related incidents; and attitudinal questions relating to the fear of victimization at school. These responses are linked to the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) survey instrument responses for a more complete understanding of the individual student's circumstances.
Curated
Simple Crosstabs

National Crime Victimization Survey: School Crime Supplement, 2015 (ICPSR 36354)

Released/updated on: 2016-12-20
Geographic coverage: United States
The primary purpose of the School Crime Supplement (SCS) is to obtain additional information about school-related victimizations so that policymakers; academic researchers; practitioners at the federal, state, and local levels; and special interest groups who are concerned with crime in schools can make informed decisions concerning policies and programs. The SCS asks questions related to students' experiences with, and perceptions of crime and safety at school, including preventive measures employed by schools; students' participation in after school activities; students' perception of school rules and enforcement of these rules; the presence of weapons, drugs, alcohol, and gangs in school; student bullying; hate-related incidents; and attitudinal questions relating to the fear of victimization at school. These responses are linked to the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) survey instrument responses for a more complete understanding of the individual student's circumstances.
Curated

National Crime Victimization Survey: School Crime Supplement, 1995 (ICPSR 6739)

Released/updated on: 1998-04-06
Geographic coverage: United States
This supplement to the National Crime Victimization Surveys (formerly the National Crime Surveys) was designed to collect data on crime victimization in schools in the United States. Student respondents were asked a series of questions to determine their school attendance in the last six months. Other questions concerning schools were posed, including type of school, distance from home, and general attendance and monitoring policies. The data present information on the response of the school to student violation of rules, accessibility of drugs, and violence in school, including types of violence and student reaction. Other variables cover general violent crimes, personal larceny crimes, and household crimes and offer information on date, time, and place of crime. Demographic characteristics of household members such as age, sex, race, education, employment, median family income, and marital status are provided.
Curated

National Crime Victimization Survey: School Crime Supplement, 2005 (ICPSR 4429)

Released/updated on: 2008-04-30
Geographic coverage: United States
This supplement to the National Crime Victimization Survey (formerly the National Crime Surveys) was designed to collect data on crime victimization in schools in the United States. Student respondents were asked a series of questions to determine their school attendance in the last six months. Other questions concerning schools were posed including preventive measures employed by schools, students' participation in after-school activities, students' perception of school rules and enforcement of these rules, the presence of weapons, drugs, alcohol, and gangs in schools, student bullying, hate-related incidents, and attitudinal questions relating to the fear of victimization at school. Other variables cover general violent crimes, personal larceny crimes, and household crimes and offer information on date, time, and place of crime. Demographic characteristics of household members such as age, sex, race, education, employment, household income, and marital status are provided.
Curated

National Crime Victimization Survey: School Crime Supplement, 2003 (ICPSR 4182)

Released/updated on: 2005-07-29
Geographic coverage: United States
This supplement to the National Crime Victimization Survey (formerly the National Crime Surveys) was designed to collect data on crime victimization in schools in the United States. Student respondents were asked a series of questions to determine their school attendance in the last six months. Other questions concerning schools were posed, including preventive measures employed by schools, students' participation in after-school activities, students' perception of school rules and enforcement of these rules, the presence of weapons, drugs, alcohol, and gangs in schools, student bullying, hate-related incidents, and attitudinal questions relating to the fear of victimization at school. Other variables cover general violent crimes, personal larceny crimes, and household crimes and offer information on date, time, and place of crime. Demographic characteristics of household members such as age, sex, race, education, employment, median family income, and marital status are provided.
Curated

National Crime Victimization Survey: School Crime Supplement, 2001 (ICPSR 3477)

Released/updated on: 2002-09-19
Geographic coverage: United States
This supplement to the National Crime Victimization Survey (formerly the National Crime Surveys) was designed to collect data on crime victimization in schools in the United States. Student respondents were asked a series of questions to determine their school attendance in the last six months. Other questions concerning schools were posed, including preventive measures employed by schools, students' participation in after-school activities, students' perception of school rules and enforcement of these rules, the presence of weapons, drugs, alcohol, and gangs in schools, student bullying, hate-related incidents, and attitudinal questions relating to the fear of victimization at school. Other variables cover general violent crimes, personal larceny crimes, and household crimes and offer information on date, time, and place of crime. Demographic characteristics of household members such as age, sex, race, education, employment, median family income, and marital status are provided.
Curated

National Crime Victimization Survey: School Crime Supplement, 1999 (ICPSR 3137)

Released/updated on: 2001-09-20
Geographic coverage: United States
This supplement to the National Crime Victimization Survey (formerly the National Crime Surveys) was designed to collect data on crime victimization in schools in the United States. Student respondents were asked a series of questions to determine their school attendance in the last six months. Other questions concerning schools were posed, including preventive measures employed by schools, students' participation in after-school activities, students' perception of school rules and enforcement of these rules, the presence of weapons, drugs, alcohol, and gangs in school, student bullying, hate-related incidents, and attitudinal questions relating to the fear of victimization at school. Other variables cover general violent crimes, personal larceny crimes, and household crimes and offer information on date, time, and place of crime. Demographic characteristics of household members such as age, sex, race, education, employment, median family income, and marital status are provided.
Curated
Simple Crosstabs

National Crime Victimization Survey: School Crime Supplement, [United States], 2017 (ICPSR 36982)

Released/updated on: 2020-02-27
Geographic coverage: United States
The primary purpose of the School Crime Supplement (SCS) is to obtain additional information about school-related victimizations so that policymakers; academic researchers; practitioners at the federal, state, and local levels; and special interest groups who are concerned with crime in schools can make informed decisions concerning policies and programs. The SCS asks questions related to students' experiences with, and perceptions of crime and safety at school, including preventive measures employed by schools; students' participation in after school activities; students' perception of school rules and enforcement of these rules; the presence of weapons, drugs, alcohol, and gangs in school; student bullying; hate-related incidents; and attitudinal questions relating to the fear of victimization at school. These responses are linked to the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) survey instrument responses for a more complete understanding of the individual student's circumstances.
Curated
Simple Crosstabs

National Crime Victimization Survey: School Crime Supplement, [United States], 2019 (ICPSR 37816)

Released/updated on: 2021-06-08
Geographic coverage: United States
The primary purpose of the School Crime Supplement (SCS) is to obtain additional information about school-related victimizations so that policymakers; academic researchers; practitioners at the federal, state, and local levels; and special interest groups who are concerned with crime in schools can make informed decisions concerning policies and programs. The SCS asks questions related to students' experiences with, and perceptions of crime and safety at school, including preventive measures employed by schools; students' participation in after school activities; students' perception of school rules and enforcement of these rules; the presence of weapons, drugs, alcohol, and gangs in school; student bullying; hate-related incidents; and attitudinal questions relating to the fear of victimization at school. These responses are linked to the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) survey instrument responses for a more complete understanding of the individual student's circumstances.
Curated
Simple Crosstabs

National Crime Victimization Survey: School Crime Supplement, [United States], 2022 (ICPSR 38666)

Released/updated on: 2024-02-28
Geographic coverage: United States
The primary purpose of the School Crime Supplement (SCS) is to obtain additional information about school-related victimizations so that policymakers; academic researchers; practitioners at the federal, state, and local levels; and special interest groups who are concerned with crime in schools can make informed decisions concerning policies and programs. The SCS asks questions related to students' experiences with, and perceptions of crime and safety at school, including preventive measures employed by schools; students' participation in after school activities; students' perception of school rules and enforcement of these rules; the presence of weapons, drugs, alcohol, and gangs in school; student bullying; hate-related incidents; and attitudinal questions relating to the fear of victimization at school. These responses are linked to the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) survey instrument responses for a more complete understanding of the individual student's circumstances.
Curated

Protective Behaviors of Student Victims of Bullying: A Rare Events Analysis of the 2009 School Crime Supplement to the National Crime Victimization Survey (ICPSR 32741)

Released/updated on: 2015-02-25
Geographic coverage: United States
This study explored whether bullied students (ages 12 through 18, in grades 6 through 12, enrolled during the current school year, and not homeschooled) engage in specific protective behaviors that inhibit learning, put other students' safety at risk, or foster a negative school climate. It also explored whether bullied students' behaviors varied by the type of bullying (direct, verbal, indirect, or cyber) endured. The researchers conducted secondary analyses of the NATIONAL CRIME VICTIMIZATION SURVEY: SCHOOL CRIME SUPPLEMENT, 2009 (ICPSR 28201), using rare events logistic regression, a technique that enables examination of the effects of several independent variables on a dichotomous dependent variable. The dataset produced contains a total of 65 variables, including 18 variables describing direct, verbal, indirect, and cyber bullying behaviors, 4 variables describing response behaviors by those bullied, and 28 variables describing student and school characteristics.
Curated

National Crime Surveys: Crime School Supplement, 1989 (ICPSR 9394)

Released/updated on: 1995-03-31
Geographic coverage: United States
This supplement to the National Crime Surveys was designed to collect data on crime victimization in schools in the United States. Student respondents were asked a series of questions to determine their school attendance in the last six months. Other questions concerning schools were posed, including type of school, distance from home, and general attendance and monitoring policies. The data present information on the response of the school to student violation of rules, accessibility of drugs, and violence in school, including types of violence and student reaction. Other variables cover general violent crimes, personal larceny crimes, and household crimes and offer information on date, time, and place of crime. Demographic characteristics of household members such as age, sex, race, education, employment, median family income, and marital status are provided.
The following results may be significantly less relevant compared to results above.
Curated
Restricted

Understanding Crime Victimization Among College Students in the United States, 1993-1994 (ICPSR 3074)

Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1993-01-01--1994-01-01
This study was designed to collect college student victimization data to satisfy four primary objectives: (1) to determine the prevalence and nature of campus crime, (2) to help the campus community more fully assess crime, perceived risk, fear of victimization, and security problems, (3) to aid in the development and evaluation of location-specific and campus-wide security policies and crime prevention measures, and (4) to make a contribution to the theoretical study of campus crime and security. Data for Part 1, Student-Level Data, and Part 2, Incident-Level Data, were collected from a random sample of college students in the United States using a structured telephone interview modeled after the redesigned National Crime Victimization Survey administered by the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Using stratified random sampling, over 3,000 college students from 12 schools were interviewed. Researchers collected detailed information about the incident and the victimization, and demographic characteristics of victims and nonvictims, as well as data on self-protection, fear of crime, perceptions of crime on campus, and campus security measures. For Part 3, School Data, the researchers surveyed campus officials at the sampled schools and gathered official data to supplement institution-level crime prevention information obtained from the students. Mail-back surveys were sent to directors of campus security or campus police at the 12 sampled schools, addressing various aspects of campus security, crime prevention programs, and crime prevention services available on the campuses. Additionally, mail-back surveys were sent to directors of campus planning, facilities management, or related offices at the same 12 schools to obtain information on the extent and type of planning and design actions taken by the campus for crime prevention. Part 3 also contains data on the characteristics of the 12 schools obtained from PETERSON'S GUIDE TO FOUR-YEAR COLLEGES (1994). Part 4, Census Data, is comprised of 1990 Census data describing the census tracts in which the 12 schools were located and all tracts adjacent to the schools. Demographic variables in Part 1 include year of birth, sex, race, marital status, current enrollment status, employment status, residency status, and parents' education. Victimization variables include whether the student had ever been a victim of theft, burglary, robbery, motor vehicle theft, assault, sexual assault, vandalism, or harassment. Students who had been victimized were also asked the number of times victimization incidents occurred, how often the police were called, and if they knew the perpetrator. All students were asked about measures of self-protection, fear of crime, perceptions of crime on campus, and campus security measures. For Part 2, questions were asked about the location of each incident, whether the offender had a weapon, a description of the offense and the victim's response, injuries incurred, characteristics of the offender, and whether the incident was reported to the police. For Part 3, respondents were asked about how general campus security needs were met, the nature and extent of crime prevention programs and services available at the school (including when the program or service was first implemented), and recent crime prevention activities. Campus planners were asked if specific types of campus security features (e.g., emergency telephone, territorial markers, perimeter barriers, key-card access, surveillance cameras, crime safety audits, design review for safety features, trimming shrubs and underbrush to reduce hiding places, etc.) were present during the 1993-1994 academic year and if yes, how many or how often. Additionally, data were collected on total full-time enrollment, type of institution, percent of undergraduate female students enrolled, percent of African-American students enrolled, acreage, total fraternities, total sororities, crime rate of city/county where the school was located, and the school's Carnegie classification. For Part 4, Census data were compiled on percent unemployed, percent having a high school degree or higher, percent of all persons below the poverty level, and percent of the population that was Black.
Curated
Simple Crosstabs

Recidivism in the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1997 - Standalone Data (Rounds 1 to 13) (ICPSR 34562)

Released/updated on: 2014-02-06
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1997-01-01--2009-01-01

The NLSY97 standalone data files are intended to be used by crime researchers for analyses without requiring supplementation from the main NLSY97 data set. The data contain age-based calendar year variables on arrests and incarcerations, self-reported criminal activity, substance use, demographic variables and relevant variables from other domains which are created using the NLSY97 data. The main NLSY97 data are available for public use and can be accessed online at the NLS Investigator Web site and at the NACJD Web site (as ICPSR 3959). Questionnaires, user guides and other documentation are available at the same links. The National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1997 (NLSY97) was designed by the United States Department of Labor, comprising the National Longitudinal Survey (NLS) Series. Created to be representative of United States residents in 1997 who were born between the years of 1980 and 1984, the NLSY97 documents the transition from school to work experienced by today's youths through data collection from 1997. The majority of the oldest cohort members (age 16 as of December 31, 1996) were still in school during the first survey round and the youngest respondents (age 12) had not yet entered the labor market.

Curated
Simple Crosstabs

Monitoring the Future: A Continuing Study of American Youth (12th-Grade Survey), 2019 (ICPSR 37841)

Released/updated on: 2020-10-29
Geographic coverage: United States

These surveys of 12th-grade students are part of a series that explores changes in important values, behaviors, and lifestyle orientations of contemporary American youth. Students are randomly assigned to complete one of six questionnaires, each with a different subset of topical questions, but all containing a set of "core" questions on demographics and drug use. There are about 1,400 variables across the questionnaires. Drugs covered by this survey include tobacco, smokeless tobacco, alcohol, marijuana, hashish, prescription medications, over-the-counter medications, LSD, hallucinogens, amphetamines (stimulants), Ritalin (methylphenidate), sedatives/barbiturates, tranquilizers, cocaine, crack cocaine, GHB (gamma hydroxybutyrate), ecstasy, methamphetamine, and heroin. Other topics include attitudes toward religion, changing roles for women, educational aspirations, self-esteem, exposure to drug education, and violence and crime (both in and out of school).

Highlights for 2019:

  • Change in methodology: half of the MTF schools completed in-class surveys on tablets loaded with the survey; the other half completed traditional paper-and-pencil surveys. Also see the Methodology section on this page for an overview and the codebook for details.
  • Expansion and revision of the study documentation in the codebook
  • New documentation available for download detailing the question adds/drops/changes to the surveys
  • Availability of supplemental data sets for previously unreleased questions

Two supplemental data files (DS8 and DS9) have been included this year by the Principal Investigators. These files each include three administrative variables for year (V1), form (V3), and ID (RESPONDENT_ID) along with a few additional variables of survey questions not previously released for Form 5 (DS8) and Form 6 (DS9) between the years 2016 to 2018. These same variables are already present in the main 2019 data files for Form 5 (DS6) and Form 6 (DS7). The front section of the codebook provides details about each of the variables. There are also instructions on how to merge the supplemental data on to the main data files for the previous three years:

  • 2018 data (ICPSR 37416)
  • 2017 data (ICPSR 37182)
  • 2016 data (ICPSR 36798)
Curated
Restricted

Evaluation of a Principal Training Program to Promote Safe and Civil Schools, Oklahoma, 2017-2022 (ICPSR 39076)

Released/updated on: 2026-04-29
Geographic coverage: United States, Oklahoma
Time period: 2017-01-01--2021-01-01
The Principal and School Climate project was a National Institute of Justice (NIJ) funded study in participating schools across the state of Oklahoma investigating the efficacy of Safe and Civil School Leadership (SCSL) with an additional program called START on Time (START). START was a training program for school principals teaching them skills to foster a safe and positive learning environment for students. This training program consisted of student support as well as resources for principals to use efficacious and data-driven discipline with students. Although first developed over a decade ago, there have been no evidence-based studies investigating the central role principals play within school environments.
Curated
Restricted

Understanding School Safety and the Use of School Resource Officers in Understudied Settings: Survey Data, Southern United States, 2017 (ICPSR 37384)

Released/updated on: 2020-04-29
Geographic coverage: Southern United States, United States
The Understanding School Safety and the Use of School Resource Officers in Understudied Settings project investigated school resource officers (SROs) within settings that have received almost no attention in the empirical literature: elementary schools and affluent, high performing school districts. This project was guided by four research questions: 1) Why and through what process were SROs implemented? 2) What roles and activities do SROs engage in within schools? 3) What impacts do SROs have on schools and students? 4) How do the roles and impacts of SROs differ across school contexts? Survey data come from the districts' SROs, and a sample of teachers, school leaders, students, and parents. Survey data was collected between spring of 2017 and fall of 2017.
Curated

State-Level Data on Juvenile Delinquency and Violence, Mental-Health and Psychotropic-Medication Related Issues, and School Accountability, United States, 1990-2014 (ICPSR 36775)

Released/updated on: 2019-06-25
Geographic coverage: District of Columbia, United States
Time period: 1990-01-01--2014-01-01

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 research project has tested a possible explanation for the Great American Crime Decline of the 1990s and especially 2000s: the increasing rates at which psychotropic drugs are prescribed, especially to children and adolescents. Psychotropic drugs are often prescribed to youth for mental health conditions that involve disruptive and impulsive behaviors and learning difficulties. The effects of these drugs are thus expected to lead to the decrease in the juveniles' involvement in delinquency and violence. The effects of two legislative changes are hypothesized to have contributed to the increased prescribing of psychotropic drugs to children growing up in families in poverty: 1) changes in eligibility for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) that made it possible for poor children to qualify for additional financial assistance due to mental health conditions (1990 and 1996), and 2) changes in school accountability rules following the passage of No Child Left Behind Act (2002) that put pressure on schools in some low-income areas to qualify academically challenged students as having ADHD or other learning disabilities.

The objectives of the project are: 1) to assemble a data set, using state-level data from various publicly available sources, containing information about trends in juvenile delinquency and violence, trends in psychotropic drug prescribing to children and adolescents, and various control variables associated with these two sets of trends; 2) to test the proposed hypotheses about the effect of increasing psychotropic medication prescribing to children and adolescents on juvenile delinquency and violence, using the assembled data set; and 3) to disseminate the scientific knowledge gained through this study among criminal justice researchers, psychiatric and public health scientists, as well as among a wider audience of practitioners and the general public.

This collection includes one SPSS file (Dataset_NIJ_GRANT_2014-R2-CX-0003_DV-IV_3-29-17.sav; n=1,275, 113 variables) and one Word syntax file (doc36775-0001_syntax.docx).

Curated

Strategies for Retaining Offenders in Mandatory Drug Treatment Programs in Kings County, New York, 1994-1995 (ICPSR 2749)

Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: United States, New York (state)
Time period: 1994-01-01--1995-01-01
This study examined the relationship between legal pressure and drug treatment retention by assessing perceptions of legal pressure held by two groups of legally-mandated treatment clients: (1) participants of the Drug Treatment Alternative to Prison (DTAP) program operated by the Kings County (Brooklyn) District Attorney in New York City, and (2) a matched group of probationers, parolees, Treatment Alternatives to Street Crime (TASC) participants, and other court-mandated offenders attending the same community-based treatment programs used by DTAP. The Brooklyn DTAP was selected for study because of the program's uniquely coercive program components, including the threat of a mandatory prison term for noncompliance. The goals of this project were (1) to test whether DTAP participants would show significantly higher retention rates when compared to a matched sample of other legally-mandated treatment clients, and (2) to assess the role of perceived legal pressure in predicting retention for both of these groups. Data were collected from program participants through interviews conducted at admission to treatment and follow-up interviews conducted about eight weeks later. Intake interviews were conducted, on average, one week after the client's admission to treatment. The one-to-one interviews, which lasted up to two hours, were administered by trained researchers in a private location at the treatment site. The intake interview battery included a mixture of standardized measures and those developed by the Vera Institute of Justice. Data in Part 1 were collected with the Addiction Severity Index and include age, sex, race, religion, and education. Additional variables cover medical problems, employment history, detailed substance abuse and treatment history, number of times arrested for various crimes, history of incarceration, family's substance abuse and criminal histories, relationships with family and friends, psychological problems such as depression, anxiety, and suicide, current living arrangements, and sources of income. Part 2, Supplemental Background and Retention Data, contains treatment entry date, number of days in treatment, age at treatment entry, termination date, treatment condition, arrest date, detention at arrest, date released on probation/parole, violation of probation/parole arrest date and location, problem drug, prior drug treatment, as well as age, gender, race, education, and marital status. Part 3, Division of Criminal Justice Services Data, includes data on the number of arrests before and after program entry, and number of total misdemeanor and felony arrests, convictions, and sentences. Part 4, Chemical Use, Abuse, and Dependence Data, contains information on type of substance abuse, intoxication or withdrawal at work, school, or home, effects of abuse on social, occupational, or recreational activities, and effects of abuse on relationships, health, emotions, and employment. Parts 5 and 6 contain psychiatric data gathered from the Symptom Checklist-90-Revised and Beck's Depression Inventory, respectively. Part 7 variables from the Circumstances, Motivation, Readiness, and Suitability scale include family's attitude toward treatment, subject's need for treatment, subject's desire to change life, and legal consequences if subject did not participate in treatment. Part 8, Stages of Change Readiness and Treatment Eagerness scale, contains data on how the subject viewed the drug problem, desire to change, and history of dealing with substance abuse. Part 9, Motivational/Program Supplement Data, includes variables on the subject's need for treatment, attitudes toward treatment sessions, the family's reaction to treatment, and a likelihood of completion rating. Part 10, Perceived Legal Coercion Data, gathered information on who referred the subject to the treatment program, who was keeping track of attendance, whether someone explained the rules of participation in the program and the consequences if the subject failed the program, whether the rules and consequences were put in writing, who monitored program participants, the likelihood of using drugs while in treatment, the likelihood of leaving the program before completion, whether the subject understood the legal consequences of failing the program, the type and frequency of reports and contacts with the criminal justice system, and the subject's reaction to various penalties for not completing the program. Part 11 contains data from the Community Oriented Programs Environment Scale (COPES). Part 12, Treatment Services Review Data, includes data on the number of times the subject received medical attention, days in school, days employed, days intoxicated, days in substance abuse treatment, days tested for drugs, number of contacts with the criminal justice system, days treated for psychological problems, and time spent at recreational activities. Additional variables include the number of individual and group treatment sessions spent discussing medical problems, education and employment, substance abuse, legal problems, and psychological and emotional problems.
Curated

School Survey on Crime and Safety (SSOCS), 2000: [United States] (ICPSR 3964)

Released/updated on: 2010-06-10
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 2000-03-27--2000-08-15
The School Survey on Crime and Safety (SSOCS) is managed by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) on behalf of the United States Department of Education (ED). SSOCS collects extensive crime and safety data from principals and school administrators of public schools in America. Data from this collection can be used to correlate school characteristics with violent and serious violent crimes in American schools. Furthermore, data from SSOCS can be used to assess what school programs, practices, and policies are used by schools in their efforts to prevent crime. SSOCS has been conducted three times, in school years 1999-2000, 2003-2004, and 2005-2006. The 1999-2000 School Survey on Crime and Safety (SSOCS:2000) was developed by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) and conducted by Abt Associates Inc. Funding for the survey was provided by the Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools. Questionnaire packets were mailed to 3,366 public primary, middle, high, and combined schools. A total of 2,270 public schools submitted usable questionnaires for a weighted response rate of 70 percent. Data were collected from March 27, 2000 to August 15, 2000.
Curated

Frequency of Arrest of the Young, Chronic, Serious Offender Using Two Male Cohorts Paroled by the California Youth Authority, 1981-1982 and 1986-1987 (ICPSR 2588)

Released/updated on: 2005-11-04
Geographic coverage: United States, California
This study investigated the ways in which active offenders and their behavior patterns are related to individual characteristics. Data were collected to explore topics such as the nature of individual offending behavior, including offense mix and specialization, the frequency of offending, and the characterization of offender types. To address these issues, the post-release arrest patterns of two cohorts of male youths paroled by the California Youth Authority in 1981-1982 and 1986-1987 were examined. The project focused on modeling the frequency of recidivism and the correlates of arrest frequency. The frequency of arrest was measured during two periods: the first year following release and years two and three following release. Criminal justice variables in this collection provide information on county-level crime and clearance rates for violent and property crimes known to the police. Measures of parolees' criminal history include length of incarceration prior to current commitment, frequency of arrest, age at first arrest, and calculated criminal history scores. Personal and family characteristics include previous violent behavior, alcohol and drug abuse, family violence, neglect or abuse, degree of parental supervision, parental criminality, education, and school disciplinary problems. Demographic variables include age and race of the subjects.
Curated

Process Evaluation of Residential Substance Abuse Treatment Programs in Maine, 1999-2000 (ICPSR 3281)

Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: United States, Maine
Time period: 1999-01-01--2000-01-01
The State of Maine Department of Corrections (MDOC) and the Office of Substance Abuse (OSA) at the Maine Department of Mental Health, Mental Retardation and Substance Abuse Services opened the Key Maine Therapeutic Community (TC) in March 1999, and its Transitional Treatment Program (TTP) for adult male inmates in January 2000. Spectrum Behavioral Services, Inc. (SBC) was subcontracted to implement the program, which was located at the Maine Correctional Facility in South Windham and the Pre-Release Center in Hallowell. The United States Department of Justice Residential Substance Abuse Treatment (RSAT) funded the initiative. This study was undertaken as a process evaluation of the program. To accomplish the aims of the process evaluation, research staff examined both program and client-level data that were collected throughout the first 15 months of the Key Maine TC's operation, a period that included the initial start-up period for the TTP. Part 1, Baseline Data, contains information on inmates, including age, ethnic group, education level, timing of all diplomas or degrees they had received, reasons for stopping school, marital and/or relationship status and history, and number and ages of children. The file also includes information on the last six months before being incarcerated, such as attendance at religious services, kind of housing and time spent there, as well as whom they lived with and the behavior of the inmate and their living companions in terms of alcohol and drug use. Also, there is information about how respondents supported themselves financially, including employment status and job information, such as number of days worked, number of jobs, part-time or full-time status, income, supplemental income, drug and alcohol use effects on employment, and whether they had dependants to support. In addition to information on the six months before incarceration, the file provides information on the inmate's substance abuse behaviors over his lifetime, including specific drugs used, the frequency used, and the age at which use of particular substances began. Information on substance abuse behaviors, such as specific substances used and frequency used in the last 30 days, is also recorded. Other variables in Part 1 focus on whether inmates' substance abuse had caused problems in major areas of their lives, such as family, employment, school, physical and mental health, relationships, and other substance abuse treatment received, including the type of treatment, duration of treatment, main substance abused, and reasons for entering treatment. Self-report data are available on each inmate's lifetime history of illegal activities, including, but not limited to, arrest history. This includes the offense(s) for which the inmate was currently serving time, as well as past offenses, jail time served, number of times incarcerated, illegal activities in which the inmate engaged during the last six months before incarceration, and time spent in probation during the last six months before incarceration. Information on visitors received during time in jail and contact (phone calls and letters) with others while in jail are included, as well as personal history information concerning the inmate's relationship with family and the activities they engaged in together. There is information on the friends the inmate had during the six months before incarceration, such as their education level, employment status, and relationship with family. Additional variables include whether the inmate reported having a history of child abuse, with details such as age at time of abuse, relationship with the abuser, frequency of abuse, perceived association of child abuse history to the inmate's substance abuse, the inmate's history as both victim of and perpetrator of violent crimes and weapon use, the inmate's sexual activity during the six months before incarceration, and his opinions about the chances of contracting HIV/AIDS. Other items pertain to behaviors that increase the risk of contracting HIV/AIDS and the inmates' feelings about HIV/AIDS, such as whether they worried about contracting the virus, whether they would want to know if they had the virus, whether they knew how to protect themselves, whether they had altered their behavior to reduce their chances of infection, and their perceptions regarding the likelihood of contracting HIV/AIDS. Part 1 data also provide information on inmates' physical and mental health, along with medications taken and diagnosed mental disorders. Interviewers' ratings concerning the inmates' behavior during the interview and whether the interviewer believed the inmates would complete the program are assessed across 16 areas. Part 2, Retention Data, indicates how long inmates spent in the program and the reason for their discharge. Part 3, Score Data, provides the inmates' psychological and motivational scores for the short self-esteem index, the short depression index, motivation and readiness and treatment engagement, and when they were tested. Also included are scores for counselor rapport and counselor competence. Part 4, Services Data, records the number of times an inmate had used particular services, such as clinical groups, clinical supervision, educational sessions, encounter groups, group counseling sessions, individual counseling sessions, seminars, and 12-step sessions.
Curated
Restricted

National Evaluation of the Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grant Program, 1998-2002 (ICPSR 4046)

Released/updated on: 2006-09-22
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1998-01-01--2000-01-01
This study examined the operation of the Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grant program (JAIBG) from fiscal years 1998 through 2000. In order to describe how states implemented the JAIBG program, this study examined the program's effects on state and local juvenile justice policies and practices, which included studying how states awarded the grant funds to localities and for what purposes, and an assessment of how states changed their policies and practices during this period. Variables in Part 1 (Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grant (JAIBG) Subgrant Follow-Up Information Form Data) provide grant information, jurisdiction type, planning typology of state, amount of funds budgeted for administrative purposes, and for each of 12 purpose areas, total amount of funds spent in subgrant, and number of the various entities involved in juvenile crime prevention. Variables in Part 2 (Fiscal Year 1998 Supplemental Programmatic Information Form Data) provide grant information, jurisdiction type, planning typology of state, type of program, primary purpose of funded programs in each of the 12 purpose areas (if the funds supported a new program in that purpose area), as well as allocation of funds and total funds in each purpose area. Variables in Parts 3-5 (Perceptions and Attitudes About the JAIBG Program Survey Data for JAIBG Subgrant Recipients, Perceptions and Attitudes About the JAIBG Program Survey Data for State Juvenile Crime Enforcement Coalition (JCEC) Members, and Perceptions and Attitudes About the JAIBG Program Survey Data for Local Juvenile Crime Enforcement Coalition (JCEC) Members) provide state, planning typology of state, and recipient's professional affiliations (by category). The surveys also included questions to measure the recipient's satisfaction with the JAIBG program and the funding received. Data available in this collection were obtained from the following two sources: (1) data collected by Follow-Up Information Forms (FIFs) for fiscal years 1998, 1999, and 2000 (Part 1), and (2) mail survey data collected by Abt Associates Inc., which included: programmatic and financial data for a sample of fiscal year 1998 programs (Part 2), attitudinal and opinion surveys of a sample of subgrant recipients (Part 3), state Juvenile Crime Enforcement Coalition (JCEC) members (Part 4), and a sample of local JCEC members (Part 5).
Curated
Restricted

National Survey of Children's Exposure to Violence I, 1990-2008 [United States] (ICPSR 35203)

Released/updated on: 2016-09-21
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1990-01-01--2008-07-01

The National Survey of Children's Exposure to Violence (NatSCEV) series involved three rounds of data collection, this study NatSCEV I (baseline), NatSCEV II, and NatSCEV III. For more information on other parts to the series, please use the following links:

NatSCEV II (ICPSR 36177) - http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR36177.v1

NatSCEV III (ICPSR 36523) - http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR36523.v1

The National Survey of Children's Exposure to Violence I was designed to obtain lifetime and one-year incidence estimates of a comprehensive range of childhood victimizations across gender, race, and developmental stage. Conducted between January and July, 2008, it assessed the experiences of a nationally representative sample of 4,549 children aged 1 month to 17 years living in the contiguous United States (excluding New Hampshire).

The primary sample of households was selected from a nationwide sampling frame of residential telephone numbers by random digit dialing (RDD). A second sample was drawn by over-sampling United States telephone exchanges that had a population of 70 percent or more of African American, Hispanic, or low-income households.

A short interview was conducted with an adult caregiver (usually a parent) to obtain family demographic information. One child was randomly selected from all eligible children in a household by selecting the child with the most recent birthday. The survey used an enhanced version of the Juvenile Victimization Questionnaire (JVQ), an inventory of childhood victimization. This version of the JVQ obtains reports on 48 forms of offenses against youth that cover five general areas of concern including: conventional crime, child maltreatment, peer and sibling victimization, sexual assault, and witnessing and indirect victimization. Follow-up questions for each victimization item gathered additional information about the victimization incident.

The data set has 1,824 variables and 4,549 cases.

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

Developing a Comprehensive Empirical Model of Policing in the United States, 1996-1999 (ICPSR 4338)

Released/updated on: 2006-09-06
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1996-01-01--2000-01-01
The aim of this study was to provide a systematic empirical assessment of three basic organizational premises of Community-Oriented Policing (COP). This study constructed a comprehensive data set by synthesizing data available in separate national data sets on police agencies and communities. The base data source used was the 1999 Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics (LEMAS) survey [LAW ENFORCEMENT MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATIVE STATISTICS (LEMAS), 1999 (ICPSR 3079)], which contained data on police organizational characteristics and on adoption of community-oriented policing procedures. The 1999 survey was supplemented with additional organizational variables from the 1997 LEMAS survey [LAW ENFORCEMENT MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATIVE STATISTICS (LEMAS), 1997 (ICPSR 2700)] and from the 1996 Directory of Law Enforcement Agencies [DIRECTORY OF LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES, 1996: [UNITED STATES] (ICPSR 2260)]. Data on community characteristics were extracted from the 1994 County and City Data Book, from the 1996 to 1999 Uniform Crime Reports [UNIFORM CRIME REPORTING PROGRAM DATA. [UNITED STATES]: OFFENSES KNOWN AND CLEARANCES BY ARREST (1996-1997: ICPSR 9028, 1998: ICPSR 2904, 1999: ICPSR 3158)], from the 1990 and 2000 Census Gazetteer files, and from Rural-Urban Community classifications. The merging of the separate data sources was accomplished by using the Law Enforcement Agency Identifiers Crosswalk file [LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY IDENTIFIERS CROSSWALK [UNITED STATES], 1996 (ICPSR 2876)]. In all, 23 data files from eight separate sources collected by four different governmental agencies were used to create the merged data set. The entire merging process resulted in a combined final sample of 3,005 local general jurisdiction policing agencies. Variables for this study provide information regarding police organizational structure include type of government, type of agency, and number and various types of employees. Several indices from the LEMAS surveys are also provided. Community-oriented policing variables are the percent of full-time sworn employees assigned to COP positions, if the agency had a COP plan, and several indices from the 1999 LEMAS survey. Community context variables include various Census population categories, rural-urban continuum (Beale) codes, urban influence codes, and total serious crime rate for different year ranges. Geographic variables include FIPS State, county, and place codes, and region.
Curated
Restricted

National Survey of Children's Exposure to Violence II, 1993-2012 [United States] (ICPSR 36177)

Released/updated on: 2016-10-11
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1993-01-01--2012-01-01

The National Survey of Children's Exposure to Violence (NatSCEV) series involved three rounds of data collection, NatSCEV I (baseline), this study NatSCEV II, and NatSCEV III. For more information on other parts to the series, please use the following links:

NatSCEV I (ICPSR 35203) - http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR35203.v1

NatSCEV III (ICPSR 36523) - http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR36523.v1

The National Survey of Children's Exposure to Violence II was designed to obtain lifetime and one-year incidence estimates of a comprehensive range of childhood victimizations across gender, race, and developmental stage. Conducted between March, 2011 and January, 2012, it assessed the experiences of a nationally representative sample of 4,503 children aged 1 month to 18 years living in the contiguous United States (excluding New Hampshire).

A nationwide sample which excluded any phone numbers with area codes assigned within the state of New Hampshire was constructed using four frames: (1) 801,317 landline telephone numbers from which telephone households could be drawn by random digit dialing (RDD); (2) 5,000 cell-phone telephone numbers from which a sample of cell phone users could be drawn by RDD; (3) an address-based sample (ABS) of 70,924 cell phone and residential numbers; and (4) a pre-screened sample of 3,573 telephone numbers of households with children from a recent national RDD survey. The compiled frame yielded 3,259 residential RDD interviews, 31 cell phone RDD interviews, 750 ABS interviews, and 463 pre-screened sample interviews for a total of 4,503 interviews.

A short interview was conducted with an adult caregiver (usually a parent) to obtain family demographic information. One child was randomly selected from all eligible children in a household by selecting the child with the most recent birthday. If the selected child was 1 month to 9 years old, the main interview was conducted with the caregiver. If the selected child was 10-17 years old, the main interview was conducted with the child.

The survey used an enhanced version of the Juvenile Victimization Questionnaire (JVQ), an inventory of childhood victimization. This version of the JVQ obtains reports on 53 forms of offenses against youth that cover six general areas of concern including: conventional crime, child maltreatment, peer and sibling victimization, sexual victimization, witnessing and indirect victimization, and internet victimization. Follow-up questions for each victimization item gathered additional information about the victimization incident.

Curated
Restricted

Indicators of Labor Trafficking Among North Carolina Migrant Farmworkers, 2010-2012 (ICPSR 34621)

Released/updated on: 2016-05-03
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, United States
Time period: 2011-09-01--2012-03-01, 2012-09-01--2012-12-01

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 purpose of the study was to investigate potential correlates of labor trafficking in an effort to identify indicators of labor trafficking that could be used by state and local law enforcement as signals that labor trafficking may be taking place in their communities. Stakeholder interviews with individuals from organizations who serve migrant workers (n=24) were piloted in September 2010 with the larger data collection effort occurring between October 2011 and March 2012. In-person interviews were conducted with farmworkers (Farmworker Data, n=380) who may have been experiencing labor exploitation or trafficking. The field data collection activities began in September 2012. Interview data were collected at residential migrant labor camps, at community events, and in Western North Carolina, at integrated housing and locations frequented by farmworkers. Finally, researchers extracted secondary data from a number of sources to create profiles of each county (County Data, n=17) in which interviews were conducted.

Curated
Restricted

National Survey of Children's Exposure to Violence III, 1997-2014 [United States] (ICPSR 36523)

Released/updated on: 2016-09-29
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1997-01-01--2014-01-01

The National Survey of Children's Exposure to Violence (NatSCEV) series involved three rounds of data collection, NatSCEV I (baseline), NatSCEV II, and this study, NatSCEV III. For more information on other parts to the series, please use the following links:

NatSCEV I (ICPSR 35203) - http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR35203.v1

NatSCEV II (ICPSR 36177) - http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR36177.v1

The National Survey of Children's Exposure to Violence III was designed to obtain lifetime and one-year incidence estimates of a comprehensive range of childhood victimizations across gender, race, and developmental stage. Conducted between August 2013 and April 2014, it assessed the experiences of a nationally representative sample of 4,000 children less than 18 years of age living in the contiguous United States (excluding New Hampshire).

A short interview was conducted with an adult caregiver (usually a parent) to obtain family demographic information. One child was randomly selected from all eligible children in a household by selecting the child with the most recent birthday. If the selected child was 1 month to 9 years old, the main interview was conducted with the caregiver. If the selected child was 10-17 years old, the main interview was conducted with the child.

The NatSCEV III questionnaire was very similar to the previous wave minus the extended family exposure to violence follow-up section that was included in NatSCEV II. The questionnaire asked for household demographics and questions about the focal child's health. A series of 52 juvenile victimization screening questions (JVQ) were asked, and for every screener the respondent endorsed, a series of follow-up questions about that victimization was asked. In addition, the survey included sections on lifetime and past year adversity, internet victimization, community disorder, bullying, delinquency, and the child/parent relationship.

Curated

Consequences of a Criminal Record for Employment Opportunity in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, 2002 (ICPSR 3599)

Released/updated on: 2005-11-04
Geographic coverage: Milwaukee, United States, Wisconsin
This study examined employers' policies and practices for hiring entry-level workers in the Milwaukee metropolitan area. The study consisted of telephone interviews conducted in the spring of 2002 with 177 employers who had advertised entry-level openings in the prior six months. The survey included questions about the company, such as size, industry, employee turnover, and racial composition, questions about hiring procedures, questions about the last worker hired for a position not requiring a college degree, and questions about the employer's attitude toward various kinds of marginalized workers. An emphasis in the survey was placed on assessing employers' attitudes about and experience with applicants with criminal histories.
Curated
Restricted

Denver Youth Survey Waves 1-5, (1988-1992) [Denver, Colorado] (ICPSR 36473)

Released/updated on: 2017-01-04
Geographic coverage: United States, Colorado, Denver
Time period: 1988-01-01--1992-01-01

The Denver Youth Survey (DYS) is part of the larger "Program of Research on the Causes and Correlates of Delinquency" initiated by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention in 1986. The DYS is a longitudinal study of problem and successful behavior over the life course that focuses on delinquency, drug use, victimization, and mental health. The DYS is based on a probability sample of households in "high-risk" neighborhoods of Denver, Colorado. These neighborhoods were selected on the basis of their social ecology in terms of population and housing characteristics. Only socially disorganized neighborhoods with high official crime rates (top one-third) were included. The survey respondents include 1,528 children and youth who were 7, 9, 11, 13, or 15 years old in 1987, and one of their parents, who lived in one of the more than 20,000 randomly selected households.

The survey respondents include 807 boys and 721 girls and include White (10 percent), Latino (45 percent), and African American (33 percent) youth, as well as 12 percent from other racial/ethnic backgrounds. The child and youth respondents, along with one caretaker, were interviewed annually from 1988 until 1992, and annually from 1995 until 1999. The age range covered by the study is from age 7 through age 26.

The dataset contains 1,528 cases and 22,081 variables.

Curated

Effects of Community Policing on Tasks of Street-Level Police Officers in Ohio, 1981 and 1996 (ICPSR 2481)

Released/updated on: 2005-11-04
Geographic coverage: United States, Ohio
These data were collected to analyze the impact of community-oriented policing (COP) on job assignments of police officers in Ohio. The study compared the self-reported job tasks of police officers in 1981 to those in 1996 to determine if job tasks had changed over time, if they differed between officers in departments pursuing community policing, or if they differed between officers assigned as "community policing" officers and those having more traditional assignments. The 1981 Ohio Peace Officer Task Analysis Survey was conducted to measure police officer tasks. A total of 1,989 police officers from over 300 Ohio police agencies responded to that survey. Recognizing that community policing had not yet begun to enjoy popularity when the first sample of officers was questioned in 1981 and that the job of policing and the training needs of peace officers had changed over the past 15 years, the Ohio Office of Criminal Justice Services again conducted a task analysis survey of a sample of police officers throughout the state in 1996. The 1996 survey instrument included 23 items taken directly from the earlier survey. These 23 items are the only variables from the 1981 survey that are included in this dataset, and they form the basis of the study's comparisons. A total of 1,689 officers from 229 police departments responded to the 1996 survey. Additionally, while the 1996 Peace Officer Task Analysis survey was in the field, the local police agencies included in the survey sample were asked to complete a separate agency survey to determine if they had a community policing program. A total of 180 departments returned responses to this agency survey. Background questions for the 1981 and 1996 task analysis surveys included police officers' age, race, sex, and job satisfaction. Items concerning police officers' job tasks covered frequency of conducting field searches of arrested persons, handcuffing suspects, impounding property, participating in raids, patrolling on foot, giving street directions, mediating family disputes, and engaging in school visits. The 1996 agency questionnaire gathered data on whether the police department had a COP program or a mission statement that emphasized community involvement, whether the COP program had an actual implementation date and a full-time supervisor, whether the respondents were currently assigned as COP officers, and whether the department's COP officers had had supplemental training.
Curated
Restricted

Crime During the Transition to Adulthood: How Youth Fare As They Leave Out-of-Home Care in Illinois, Iowa, and Wisconsin, 2002-2007 (ICPSR 27062)

Released/updated on: 2010-12-14
Geographic coverage: Iowa, United States, Illinois, Wisconsin
Time period: 2002-05-01--2007-08-01
The purpose of the study was to examine criminal behavior and criminal justice system involvement among youth making the transition from out-of-home care to independent adulthood. The study collected data from two sources: (1) survey data from the Midwest Study of the Adult Functioning of Former Foster Youth (Midwest Study), and (2) official arrest data. The Midwest Study was a longitudinal panel study that was part of a collaborative effort of the state public child welfare agencies in Illinois, Iowa, and Wisconsin, Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago, and the University of Washington. The participating states funded and/or operated the full range of services supported by the Chafee Foster Care Independence Program. The Midwest Study survey data were collected directly from the youth in the sample every two years over three waves, between May 2002 and January 2007. A total of 732 respondents participated in at least one of the in-person interviews over the three waves. This data collection includes some variables that were directly measured from the original Midwest Study survey instrument and other variables that were computed or derived from variables in the original data for purposes of the current study. To supplement the survey data, the research team accessed official arrest data from each state for this study. Researchers obtained data on all criminal arrests that occurred between the respondents' Wave 1 interview and August 31, 2007, a date by which all of the study participants were at least 21 years old. The study contains a total of 85 variables including indicator variables, demographic and background variables, delinquency and crime variables, out-of-home care experiences variables, and social bonds variables.
Curated
Restricted

Denver Youth Survey Waves 6-11 (1993-2003) [Denver, Colorado] (ICPSR 36474)

Released/updated on: 2016-12-30
Geographic coverage: United States, Colorado, Denver
Time period: 1993-01-01--2003-01-01

The Denver Youth Survey (DYS) is part of the larger "Program of Research on the Causes and Correlates of Delinquency" initiated by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention in 1986. It is a longitudinal study of problem and successful behavior over the life course that focuses on delinquency, drug use, victimization, and mental health. DYS variables also address family demographics, neighborhood characteristics, parenting, and involvement in social roles.

The DYS is based on a probability sample of households in "high-risk" neighborhoods of Denver, Colorado. These neighborhoods were selected on the basis of their social ecology in terms of population and housing characteristics. Only socially disorganized neighborhoods with high (top one-third) official crime rates were included. The survey respondents include 1,528 children and youth who were 7, 9, 11, 13, or 15 years old in 1987, and one of their parents, who lived in one of the more than 20,000 randomly selected households.

The survey respondents include 807 boys and 721 girls and include White (10%), Latino (45%), and African American (33%) youth, as well as 12% from other racial/ethnic backgrounds. The child and youth respondents, along with one caretaker, were interviewed annually from 1988 until 1992 (waves 1-5), annually from 1995 until 1999 (waves 6-10), and in 2003 (wave 11). The study covers an age range of 7 through 26.

Curated
Simple Crosstabs

Law Enforcement Agency Roster (LEAR), 2016 (ICPSR 36697)

Released/updated on: 2017-04-05
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 2015-01-01--2016-01-01
In the past several years, BJS has made efforts to develop a national roster of publicly funded law enforcement agencies. The Census of State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies (CSLLEA) represents the core of the BJS's law enforcement statistics program, and is currently used as the primary universe for all BJS law enforcement collections. The CSLLEA was last conducted in 2014 but encountered data collection issues. Since the last law enforcement universe list was the 2008 CSLLEA, BJS decided further work was needed to have a reliable and complete roster of law enforcement agencies. Using the 2008 and 2014 CSLLEA universe as the base, the LEAR integrated multiple datasets in an effort to compile a complete list of active general purpose law enforcement agencies. The goal of the LEAR was to serve as the universe list for which the Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics (LEMAS) core and supplement samples could be pulled. The 2016 LEAR contains a census of 15,810 general purpose law enforcement agencies, including 12,695 local and county police departments, 3,066 sheriffs' offices and 49 primary state police departments. Staffing size from multiple datasets has also been merged into the LEAR file.
Curated
Restricted

Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods (PHDCN): Conflict Tactics for Parent and Child, Wave 1, 1994-1997 (ICPSR 13584)

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 Conflict Tactics Scale for Parent and Child (CTSS). The CTSS, administered to the primary caregiver (PC) of subjects belonging to Cohorts 3 to 15, measured psychological and physical maltreatment and neglect of children by their PC, as well as nonviolent modes of discipline. The CTSS also measured the extent to which a PC carried out specific acts of physical and psychological aggression, regardless of whether the child was injured.