Showing 1 – 5 of 5 results.
Curated
Citizen Attitude Survey: Urban Problems in Ten American Cities, 1970 (ICPSR 7340)
Released/updated on: 1992-02-16
Geographic coverage: Milwaukee, United States, Tennessee, Albuquerque, Kansas City (Kansas), Kansas City (Missouri), Nashville, California, Kansas, San Diego, Baltimore, Atlanta, New Mexico, Massachusetts, Colorado, Missouri, Denver, Georgia, Maryland, Wisconsin, Boston
This study was a joint project of ten major United States cities participating in the Urban Observatory Program: Atlanta, Albuquerque, Baltimore, Boston, Denver, Kansas City, Kansas, Kansas City, Missouri, Milwaukee, Nashville, and San Diego. The survey focused on citizens' perceptions of the problems of urban life. Citizens' attitudes toward local government services and their opinions about local problems in the areas of schooling, housing, public transportation, controlled drugs, law and order, and taxes were assessed in all ten cities. Information on the socioeconomic status of the respondents, and on household composition was also elicited. Demographic data include sex, age, marital status, race, ethnicity, birthplace, level of education, and family income. Each city may be analyzed separately or may be treated as an integral part of the comparative study.
Curated
Detroit Area Study, 1994: Impact of Education on Attitudes (ICPSR 2852)
Released/updated on: 2003-07-25
Geographic coverage: Detroit, United States, Michigan
This survey focused on the influence of education on respondents' attitudes toward a variety of issues, including crime, city services, police protection, neighborhoods, health-care coverage, taxes, public schools, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), and government involvement in correcting class, gender, and race disparities. The survey also sought respondents' opinions on issues such as race relations, discrimination against women, racial balance in schools, laws against interracial marriages, housing discrimination law, racial profiling, and voting for a Black presidential candidate. Respondents were questioned on the comparative differences between Blacks and Whites in types of jobs held, housing, and level of income, and why Blacks were worse off than whites, the effects on property values of Blacks moving into White neighborhoods, and the high rate of unemployment and crime among Blacks as compared to Whites. Also explored were respondents' feelings about the death penalty, immigrants, other races, poor people, minority groups, affirmative action, homosexuality, television violence, censorship, and abortion. Questions on the respondents' educational background covered the types of elementary and secondary schools they attended and grades earned, level of education and degrees earned, and types of college(s) attended. Additional information gathered by the survey includes respondents' duration of residence in the tri-county area and at the current residence, place of previous residence, employment status, social class stratification, religious denomination, party preference, participation in social and political life, and knowledge of current affairs. Demographic information includes respondents' gender, age, marital status, race, and ethnicity.
Curated
Jury and Democracy Project (ICPSR 32801)
Released/updated on: 2016-05-11
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Seattle, United States, Texas, Colorado, Louisiana, Ohio, Washington, Nebraska
Time period: 1994-01-01--2004-01-01, 2004-01-01--2005-01-01
The Jury and Democracy Project aims to understand the impact that jury service has on citizens. Until recently, no direct empirical evidence regarding the link between jury service and public engagement existed. The Jury and Democracy Project has produced such data. This study consists of two datasets. Part 1, the National Jury Archival Data, consists of a merger of jury and voting records from 1994-2004 in Boulder County (Colorado), Cumberland and Swain Counties (North Carolina), Douglas County (Nebraska), El Paso County (Texas), Orleans Parish (Louisiana), Summit County (Ohio), and Thurston County (Washington). Part 1 includes information regarding seriousness and type of charges, duration of trial and trial information, county and juror information, juror role and voter information, and basic demographic information such as sex, age, political affiliation, and race. Part 2, the King County Survey Data, includes three waves of panel survey data collected from Washington state's King County Court and the Seattle Municipal Courthouse during 2004-2005. In Wave 1 all jurors in King County Court and Seattle Municipal Courthouse received the same survey which collected data on pre-service attitudes, demographics, and past jury duty service and behavior characteristics. Wave 2 consisted of two surveys: (1) King County Court jurors were surveyed on jury duty service experience and treatment, as well as jury selection, court and government efficacy, and citizen responsibility; (2) Seattle Municipal Courthouse jurors were surveyed on the same variables as the King County juror survey, as well as jury deliberation issues. Wave 3 also consisted of two surveys: (1) King County and Seattle Municipal Court jurors were surveyed on their involvement in politics and public affairs, participation in the local community, reflections on jury service, and political views; (2) an additional Wave 3 survey was given to a control replacement sample, which collected data on politics and public life, as well as involvement in politics and public affairs, participation in the local community, the political process, jury service, and demographic characteristics such as sex, race, age, and education level.
Curated
Project on Policing Neighborhoods in Indianapolis, Indiana, and St. Petersburg, Florida, 1996-1997 (ICPSR 3160)
Released/updated on: 2007-06-01
Geographic coverage: Indiana, United States, St. Petersburg, Florida, Indianapolis
Time period: 1996-01-01--1997-01-01
The purpose of the Project on Policing Neighborhoods (POPN) was to provide an in-depth description of how the police and the community interact with each other in a community policing (CP) environment. Research was conducted in Indianapolis, Indiana, in 1996 and in St. Petersburg, Florida, in 1997. Several research methods were employed: systematic observation of patrol officers (Parts 1-4) and patrol supervisors (Parts 5-14), in-person interviews with patrol officers (Part 15) and supervisors (Parts 16-17), and telephone surveys of residents in selected neighborhoods (Part 18). Field researchers accompanied their assigned patrol or supervising officer during all activities and encounters with the public during the shift. Field researchers noted when various activities and encounters with the public occurred during these "ride-alongs," who was involved, and what happened. In the resulting data files coded observation data are provided at the ride level, the activity level (actions that did not involve interactions with citizens), the encounter level (events in which officers interacted with citizens), and the citizen level. In addition to encounters with citizens, supervisors also engaged in encounters with patrol officers. Patrol officers and patrol supervisors in both Indianapolis and St. Petersburg were interviewed one-on-one in a private interviewing room during their regular work shifts. Citizens in the POPN study beats were randomly selected for telephone surveys to determine their views about problems in their neighborhoods and other community issues. Administrative records were used to create site identification data (Part 19) and data on staffing (Part 20). This data collection also includes data compiled from census records, aggregated to the beat level for each site (Part 21). Census data were also used to produce district populations for both sites (Part 22). Citizen data were aggregated to the encounter level to produce counts of various citizen role categories and characteristics and characteristics of the encounter between the patrol officer and citizens in the various encounters (Part 23). Ride-level data (Parts 1, 5, and 10) contain information about characteristics of the ride, including start and end times, officer identification, type of unit, and beat assignment. Activity data (Parts 2, 6, and 11) include type of activity, where and when the activity took place, who was present, and how the officer was notified. Encounter data (Parts 3, 7, and 12) contain descriptive information on encounters similar to the activity data (i.e., location, initiation of encounter). Citizen data (Parts 4, 8, and 13) provide citizen characteristics, citizen behavior, and police behavior toward citizens. Similarly, officer data from the supervisor observations (Parts 9 and 14) include characteristics of the supervising officer and the nature of the interaction between the officers. Both the patrol officer and supervisor interview data (Parts 15-17) include the officers' demographics, training and knowledge, experience, perceptions of their beats and organizational environment, and beliefs about the police role. The patrol officer data also provide the officers' perceptions of their supervisors while the supervisor data describe supervisors' perceptions of their subordinates, as well as their views about their roles, power, and priorities as supervisors. Data from surveyed citizens (Part 18) provide information about their neighborhoods, including years in the neighborhood, distance to various places in the neighborhood, neighborhood problems and effectiveness of police response to those problems, citizen knowledge of, or interactions with, the police, satisfaction with police services, and friends and relatives in the neighborhood. Citizen demographics and geographic and weight variables are also included. Site identification variables (Part 19) include ride and encounter numbers, site beat (site, district, and beat or community policing areas [CPA]), and sector. Staffing variables (Part 20) include district, shift, and staffing levels for various shifts. Census data (Part 21) include neighborhood, index of socioeconomic distress, total population, and total white population. District population variables (Part 22) include district and population of district. The aggregated citizen data (Part 23) provide the ride and encounter numbers, number of citizens in the encounter, counts of citizens by their various roles, and by sex, age, race, wealth, if known by the police, under the influence of alcohol or drugs, physically injured, had a weapon, or assaulted the police, counts by type of encounter, and counts of police and citizen actions during the encounter.
Curated
Residential Neighborhood Crime Control Project: Hartford, Connecticut, 1973, 1975-1977, 1979 (ICPSR 7682)
Released/updated on: 1992-02-16
Geographic coverage: United States, Connecticut, Hartford
This data collection contains responses to victimization
surveys that were administered as part of both the planning and
evaluation stages of the Hartford Project, a crime opportunity
reduction program implemented in a residential neighborhood in
Hartford, Connecticut, in 1976. The Hartford Project was an experiment
in how to reduce residential burglary and street robbery/purse snatching
and the fear of those crimes. Funded through the Hartford Institute of
Criminal and Social Justice, the project began in 1973. It was based
on a new "environmental" approach to crime prevention: a comprehensive
and integrative view addressing not only the relationship among
citizens, police, and offenders, but also the effect of the physical
environment on their attitudes and behavior. The surveys were
administered by the Center for Survey Research at the University of
Massachusetts at Boston. The Center collected Hartford resident survey
data in five different years: 1973, 1975, 1976, 1977, and 1979. The
1973 survey provided basic data for problem analysis and
planning. These data were updated twice: in 1975 to gather baseline
data for the time of program implementation, and in the spring of 1976
with a survey of households in one targeted neighborhood of Hartford
to provide data for the time of implementation of physical changes
there. Program evaluation surveys were carried out in the spring of
1977 and two years later in 1979. The procedures for each survey were
essentially identical each year in order to ensure comparability
across time. The one exception was the 1976 sample, which was not
independent of the one taken in 1975. In each survey except 1979,
respondents reported on experiences during the preceding 12-month
period. In 1979 the time reference was the past two years. The survey
questions were very similar from year to year, with 1973 being the most
unique. All surveys focused on victimization, fear, and perceived risk
of being victims of the target crimes. Other questions explored
perceptions of and attitudes toward police, neighborhood problems, and
neighbors. The surveys also included questions on household and
respondent characteristics.