Showing 1 – 38 of 38 results.
Curated
Childhood Victimization and Delinquency, Adult Criminality, and Violent Criminal Behavior in a Large Urban County in the Northwest United States, 1980-1997 (ICPSR 3548)
Released/updated on: 2003-05-06
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1980-01-01--1997-01-01
This research project was designed as a replication and extension of earlier research on how childhood victimization relates to delinquency, adult criminality, and violent criminal behavior (CHILD ABUSE, NEGLECT, AND VIOLENT CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR IN A MIDWEST METROPOLITAN AREA OF THE UNITED STATES, 1967-1988 (ICPSR 9480)). The study consisted of a sample of abused and neglected children who were made dependents of the Superior Court of a large urban county in the Northwest between 1980 and 1984, and a matched control group of children. Dependency records were obtained from the county court house. Control match criteria were collected from Department of Health birth records data. Type of abuse/neglect precipitating the dependency petition was collected and coded using a modified version of the Maltreatment Classification Coding Scheme (MCS). Data on juvenile arrests from juvenile court records, including both number and types, were collected for each abused and/or neglected youth and each matched control subject. Adult criminal arrests, excluding routine traffic offenses, for all abused and neglected subjects and matched controls were collected from local, county, state, and federal law enforcement sources. A subset of arrests consisting of violent crimes was developed as a key outcome of interest. Major types of variables included in this study are demographics, criminal records, dependency records (only for those subjects abused/neglected as children), including type and severity of child abuse/neglect, and census socioeconomic variables. Several derived variables were also included.
Curated
Simple Crosstabs
Citizenship, Democracy, and Drug-Related Violence (CIDENA, 2011) (ICPSR 34670)
Released/updated on: 2013-10-23
Geographic coverage: Estado de México, Nuevo León, Distrito Federal (Mexico), Michoacán, Mexico, Guerrero, Chihuahua, Jalisco
The survey Citizenship, Democracy, and Drug-Related Violence (CIDENA, 2011) was implemented with the goal of providing information towards understanding the complex relationship between society and drug-related violence in Mexico. Cognitive interviews, face-to-face interviews, and list experiments were utilized in Mexico. The survey was conducted in face-to-face interviews (at the residence of the interviewee) based on a sample of men and women over 18 years of age and residents of Mexico. The sample was representative nationwide of 7 states with different levels of violence: High (Chihuahua, Guerrero, Michoacán, and Nuevo León), Intermediate (Jalisco, and Estado de México), and Low (Distrito Federal). These states were selected according to their violence indexes (deaths associated with drug related violence reported in local newspapers). Demographic variables include age, sex, marital status, occupation, party affiliation, territories of residence, education, and income.
Curated
Data Bank of Minority Group Conflict, 1955-1965 (ICPSR 5209)
Released/updated on: 2009-07-16
Geographic coverage: Myanmar, Cyprus, Cambodia, Sudan, Malaysia, Paraguay, Portugal, Iceland, Global, Syria, North Korea, Greece, South Korea, Austria, Yugoslavia, El Salvador, Morocco, Iran, Luxembourg, Panama, Brazil, Guatemala, Iraq, Chile, Laos, Ecuador, Colombia, Argentina, Hungary, Japan, Zambia, Ghana, India, Albania, New Zealand, Turkey, Belgium, Finland, Italy, Honduras, Peru, Germany, Ethiopia, Haiti, Afghanistan, United States, Egypt, China (Peoples Republic), Thailand, Bolivia, Libya, Costa Rica, Saudi Arabia, Netherlands, Sweden, Pakistan, Ireland, Poland, France, Jordan, Bulgaria, Tunisia, Romania, Uruguay, Sri Lanka, Philippines, United Kingdom, Switzerland, Spain, Lebanon, Liberia, Cuba, Czech Republic, Nicaragua, Norway, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Mexico, Zimbabwe, Israel, Australia, Soviet Union, Indonesia
Time period: 1955-01-01--1965-01-01
This study contains data on conflict events between ethnic, racial, linguistic, and religious minority groups and predominant groups within society in 84 nations in the period 1955-1965. For each event, data are provided for the type of event, number and type of initiator and target of event, nature of minority tension, issues involved, date, location and duration of event, presence of violence, outcome of the event, number of initiators, targets, and mediators injured, arrested, or killed, and number of significant persons involved in the event as initiators, targets, or mediators that were injured, killed, or arrested. A summary scale was developed to measure the different intensity levels of aggressive behavior as well as the degree of friendliness signified by an event in minority tensions.
Curated
Restricted
Evaluation of the Tribal Strategies Against Violence (TSAV) Initiative in Four Tribal Sites in the United States, 1995-1999 (ICPSR 4080)
Released/updated on: 2005-03-15
Geographic coverage: Montana, United States, Oklahoma, North Dakota, Michigan
Time period: 1995-01-01--1999-01-01
This study evaluated the Tribal Strategies Against Violence (TSAV) Initiative. The TSAV was a federal-tribal partnership, lasting from 1995 to 1999, designed to develop comprehensive strategies in tribal communities to reduce crime, violence, and substance abuse. This study involved four of the seven TSAV sites: the Chickasaw Nation in Oklahoma, Fort Peck Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes in Montana, the Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians in Michigan, and the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians in North Dakota. A survey of TSAV stakeholders at the four sites was conducted in the summer and fall of 1999. The objectives of the survey were to gauge TSAV stakeholders' perceptions about the following: (1) the serious crime, violence, and quality of life issues in each community and the extent to which the local TSAV initiative had addressed those issues, (2) the intent and ultimate outcomes of the TSAV program, (3) obstacles to successful implementation of TSAV activities, and (4) decision-making processes used in planning and implementing TSAV locally. Offense data were also gathered at the Fort Peck site for 1995 to 1998 and at the Grand Traverse Band site for 1997 to 1999.
Curated
Firearms, Violence, and Youth in California, Illinois, Louisiana, and New Jersey, 1991 (ICPSR 6484)
Released/updated on: 2005-11-04
Geographic coverage: United States, Illinois, Louisiana, California, New Jersey
Time period: 1991-01-01--1991-04-01
Violence committed by and against juveniles was the focus of this study. Two groups were examined: incarcerated (criminally active) juveniles and students in inner-city high schools, since these youths are popularly considered to engage in and experience violence (especially gun-related violence), to belong to urban street gangs, and to participate in the drug trafficking thought to lead to excessive gun violence. Self-administered questionnaires were completed by 835 male inmates in six correctional facilities and 1,663 male and female students from ten inner-city high schools in California, Illinois, Louisiana, and New Jersey. Data collection took place during January through April of 1991. To maximize response rates, inducements of five dollars were offered to the inmates, Spanish-language versions of the questionnaire were provided to inmates who preferred them, and personal interviews were conducted with inmates whose reading skills were less than sufficient to complete the questionnaire on their own. In four schools, principals permitted the inducements to be offered to students to participate in the study. As with the inmate survey, a Spanish-language version of the questionnaire was provided to students who preferred it. The questionnaires covered roughly the same core topics for both inmates and students. Items included questions on sociodemographic characteristics, school experiences, gun ownership, gun use for several types of firearms, gun acquisition patterns, gun-carrying habits, use of other weapons, gang membership and gang activities, self-reported criminal histories, victimization patterns, drug use, alcohol use, and attitudes concerning guns, crime, and violence. In both questionnaires, the majority of the items covered firearms knowledge, acquisition, and use. The remaining items in the inmate survey primarily covered criminal behavior and, secondarily, victimization histories. In the student survey, these priorities were reversed.
Curated
General Social Survey, 1975 (ICPSR 7367)
Released/updated on: 1992-02-16
Geographic coverage: United States
The survey covers items viewed by the NORC staff and an advisory panel of sociologists as "mainstream" interests of modern academic sociology. In addition to standard personal data items, the 1975 survey covers such areas of interest as race relations, the family, social control, leisure activities, education, morals, violence, and pornography. The data were collected by the National Opinion Research Center as the fourth in a five-year series of general social surveys. The survey was administered in March and April of 1975 to a national cross-section sample of adults 18 years of age and older. The data were obtained from the Roper Center for Public Opinion Research.
Curated
ICPSR Instructional Subset: Justifying Violence: Attitudes of American Men, 1969 (ICPSR 7517)
Released/updated on: 1992-02-16
Geographic coverage: United States
This survey of attitudes of 1,374 American men aged 16-64 toward violence was conducted in the summer of 1969 by the Survey Research Center of the Institute for Social Research at the University of Michigan. The investigators examined the level of violence that respondents viewed as justified to accomplish social control and social change and also probed the respondents' personal values, their definition of violence, and their identification with groups involved in violence. To examine the degree of violence that American men felt could be justified for social control, the investigators asked respondents to react to situations involving protests and other disturbances. These situations included hoodlum gang disturbances, student protests, and Black protest demonstrations. The respondents were asked what police actions from "letting it go" to "shooting to kill" were appropriate as police control measures. Several such items were combined to form an index of "violence for social control." In questions dealing with the level of violence necessary to bring about social change, respondents were asked if they agreed with the necessity of "protest in which some people will be killed" in order to bring about changes sought by Blacks, by student demonstrators, and in general. These items were combined into an index of "violence for social change." This instructional subset from the original study also includes an initial series of questions that asked whether respondents viewed such actions as protest demonstrations, police frisking, looting, burglary, and draft-card burning as violence. This was followed by inquiries into the possible causes of violence and motives of those who participate in violence. Another set of variables deals with respondents' relative views of property damage and personal injury and their opinions on the use of violence to prevent violence, violence as a teaching tool, forgiveness of one's attacker, and the roles of courts and police agencies in combating crime. The subset concludes with a number of derived indices of violence attitudes that drew upon survey questions to form general patterns. These derived indices include retributive justice, self-defense, humanism, property-person priority, kindness, police-court power, court fairness, social causes, trust, and peer consensus indices. Finally, several summary measures gauge the respondents' general approval of violence for social control and social change purposes. Demographic variables specify education, age, religion, socioeconomic status, and region of the country.
Curated
Physical Violence in American Families, 1976 (ICPSR 7733)
Released/updated on: 2005-11-04
Geographic coverage: United States
For this study, a nationwide sample of 960 males and 1,183
females were interviewed to examine methods of conflict resolution
within the family. Information was gathered regarding the following
areas: resolution of conflicts between spouses and between parents and
children, including detailed information on the development of
conflicts resulting in violence, resolution of conflicts in the
respondent's childhood family, family power structure, marital
closeness and stability, personality, and stress factors.
Curated
Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods: Community Survey, 1994-1995 (ICPSR 2766)
Released/updated on: 2023-03-29
Geographic coverage: United States, Chicago, Illinois
The Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods is an interdisciplinary study aimed at deepening society's understanding of the causes and pathways of juvenile delinquency, adult crime, substance abuse, and violence. In particular, it is a study of children's social and psychological development from birth to young adulthood in urban neighborhoods. This collection contains data from a cross-sectional survey of Chicago residents in 1994 and is the first product of an eight-year project. The survey gathered information from adult residents of Chicago on their perceptions of the neighborhoods in which they live. The survey questionnaire was a multidimensional assessment of the structural conditions and organization of the neighborhoods. Data collection consisted of a household interview of residents aged 18 and older to assess key neighborhood dimensions, including the dynamic structure of the local community, organizational and political structure, cultural values, informal social control, formal social control, and social cohesion. Variables include measures of the best and worst aspects of living in Chicago, how long residents had lived in a particular neighborhood, characteristics of their neighborhood, including types of social service agencies available, and if they would consider moving to a different neighborhood and why. Other community variables measure the relationships among neighbors, including how many neighbors a respondent would recognize, how often neighbors socialized, and how often neighbors participated in other activities together. Variables that capture neighborhood social order include respondents' perceptions of neighborhood problems such as litter, graffiti, drinking, drugs, and excessive use of force by police. Respondents were also asked about their normative beliefs regarding violence, money, and various children's behaviors. Victimization variables cover how often the respondent was the victim of a fight with a weapon, a violent argument, a gang fight, sexual assault, robbery, theft, or vandalism. Other variables measure fear of crime and attitudes toward the police. Demographic variables include age, gender, education, living arrangement, national origin, and employment status. In addition, a number of scales created by the study's scientific directors are included such as social disorder, perceived neighborhood danger, and neighborhood activism. Part 1 of this study contains individual responses to survey questions. Part 2 contains data aggregated to the neighborhood cluster (NC) level (see Study Design for explanation of NC).
Curated
Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods (PHDCN): Caregiver-Subject Conflict Scale, Wave 2, 1997-2000 (ICPSR 13612)
Released/updated on: 2006-04-05
Geographic coverage: United States, Chicago, Illinois
Time period: 1997-01-01--2000-01-01
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 Caregiver-Subject Conflict Scale (CSC). The CSC was administered to the primary caregiver (PC) of subjects belonging to Cohorts 0-15. This Wave 2 study was modified from the Wave 1 parent-child version of the Conflict Tactics Scale (PROJECT ON HUMAN DEVELOPMENT IN CHICAGO NEIGHBORHOODS (PHDCN): CONFLICT TACTICS SCALE FOR PARENT AND CHILD, WAVE 1, 1994-1997 [ICPSR 13584]) by adding items related to more positive forms of disciplinary tactics, modifying the response scale, and inquiring about tactics used not only by the PC, but by any adult household member. The CSC asked if any of several different ways of settling problems with the subject were used by any adult household member in the past year.
Curated
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.
Curated
Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods (PHDCN): Conflict Tactics Scale for Partner and Spouse, Wave 1, 1994-1997 (ICPSR 13583)
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 Partner and Spouse (CTSP). The CTSP was administered to either the primary caregiver (PC) of subjects belonging to Cohorts 0 to 15, or to the subjects of Cohort 18. It measured both the extent to which partners in a dating, cohabiting, or marital relationship engage in psychological and physical attacks on each other and also their use of reasoning or negotiation to deal with conflicts.
Curated
Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods (PHDCN): Exposure to Violence (Primary Caregiver), Wave 1, 1994-1997 (ICPSR 13588)
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 Exposure to Violence (ETV), administered to the primary caregiver (PC) of subjects belonging to Cohorts 3 to 15. It assessed the PC's perception of the subject's experience of exposure to different types of violent acts, as well as how exposure to violence my have affected the PC, his or her family, and friends.
Curated
Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods (PHDCN): Exposure to Violence (Subject), Wave 1, 1994-1997 (ICPSR 13589)
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 Exposure to Violence (ETV), administered to those subjects belonging to Cohorts 9 to 18. It assessed the subject's experience of exposure to different types of violent acts, as well as how exposure to violence may have affected the subject, his or her family, and friends.
Curated
Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods (PHDCN): My Child's Exposure to Violence, Wave 2, 1997-2000 (ICPSR 13619)
Released/updated on: 2005-12-06
Geographic coverage: United States, Chicago, Illinois
Time period: 1997-01-01--2000-01-01
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 parent-report version of the Exposure to Violence. For Wave 2, a much more detailed version of the instrument than was used in Wave 1 was developed to assess exposure to violence. This detailed parent-report instrument was administered to Cohorts 0 to 15 and obtained information regarding the subject's lifetime and past year exposure to violent events. The parent-report instrument is complemented by the subject self-report instrument, PROJECT ON HUMAN DEVELOPMENT IN CHICAGO NEIGHBORHOODS (PHDCN): MY EXPOSURE TO VIOLENCE (SUBJECT), WAVE 2, 1997-2000 (ICPSR 13617).
Curated
Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods (PHDCN): My Exposure to Violence (Primary Caregiver), Wave 2, 1997-2000 (ICPSR 13618)
Released/updated on: 2005-12-06
Geographic coverage: United States, Chicago, Illinois
Time period: 1997-01-01--2000-01-01
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. In Wave 2, a parent self-report version of the Exposure to Violence was administered to the primary caregiver of each subject belonging to Cohorts 0 to 6. It assessed the primary caregiver's past year exposure to different types of violent acts.
Curated
Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods (PHDCN): My Exposure to Violence (Subject), Wave 2, 1997-2000 (ICPSR 13617)
Released/updated on: 2005-12-06
Geographic coverage: United States, Chicago, Illinois
Time period: 1997-01-01--2000-01-01
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. Once such measure was the subject self-report version of the Exposure to Violence. For Wave 2, a much more detailed version of the instrument than was used in Wave 1 was developed to assess exposure to violence. It was called, My Exposure to Violence (Subject), or ETVS. This detailed subject self-report instrument was administered to Cohorts 9 to 15 and obtained information regarding the subject's lifetime and past year exposure to violent events. In addition, a short form of the subject self-report instrument was used with subjects in Cohort 6. The subject self-report instrument is complemented by the parent-report instrument PROJECT ON HUMAN DEVELOPMENT IN CHICAGO NEIGHBORHOODS (PHDCN): MY CHILD'S EXPOSURE TO VIOLENCE, WAVE 2, 1997-2000 (ICPSR 13619).
Curated
Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods (PHDCN): Physical Abuse Scale, Wave 2, 1997-2000 (ICPSR 13642)
Released/updated on: 2006-04-05
Geographic coverage: United States, Chicago, Illinois
Time period: 1997-01-01--2000-01-01
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 Physical Abuse Scale (PAS). The PAS was administered to the primary caregiver (PC) of subjects belonging to Cohorts 0-15. It measured the extent to which partners in a dating, cohabiting, or marital relationship engage in physical attacks on each other. This Wave 2 study replaced the Wave 1 partner-spouse version of the Conflict Tactics Scale (PROJECT ON HUMAN DEVELOPMENT IN CHICAGO NEIGHBORHOODS (PHDCN): CONFLICT TACTICS SCALE FOR PARTNER AND SPOUSE, WAVE 1, 1994-1997 [ICPSR 13583]).
Curated
Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods (PHDCN): Self Report of Offending, Wave 1, 1994-1997 (ICPSR 13601)
Released/updated on: 2006-02-07
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. The Self Report of Offending was a self-report questionnaire focused on a participant's involvement in antisocial behavior and the legal consequences of that behavior.
Curated
Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods (PHDCN): Self Report of Offending, Wave 2, 1997-2000 (ICPSR 13658)
Released/updated on: 2005-12-06
Geographic coverage: United States, Chicago, Illinois
Time period: 1997-01-01--2000-01-01
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. The Self Report of Offending was a self-report questionnaire focused on a participant's involvement in antisocial behavior and the legal consequences of that behavior.
Curated
Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods (PHDCN): Systematic Social Observation, 1995 (ICPSR 13578)
Released/updated on: 2005-07-18
Geographic coverage: United States, Chicago, Illinois
Time period: 1995-06-01--1995-10-01
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 Systematic Social Observation (SSO). The SSO was a standardized approach for directly observing the physical, social, and economic characteristics of neighborhoods, one block at a time. In 1995, the PHDCN initiated a combined person-based and videotaped approach to collecting systematic observations of neighborhoods. Eighty of the 343 Neighborhood Clusters were used in this study. Once the sampling was complete, the block face (the block segment on one side of the street) became the unit of observation. Using videotape and observer logs, data were collected in the 80 sampled Chicago neighborhoods. Only a sample of block faces were selected for coding due to budget expenses. The National Opinion Research Center (NORC) collected the data for the SSO. Between June and October of 1995, trained observers from NORC drove a sports utility vehicle down every block within the 80 sampled neighborhoods. A videographer videotaped both sides of each block, while two observers recorded characteristics of each block face on observer logs. Further coding of the videotapes and observer logs was conducted by NORC staff.
Curated
Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods (PHDCN): Where Are You Afraid? (Fear), Wave 2, 1997-2000 (ICPSR 13621)
Released/updated on: 2006-04-24
Geographic coverage: United States, Chicago, Illinois
Time period: 1997-01-01--2000-01-01
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 Where Are You Afraid? questionnaire that included questions regarding the subject's fear in certain situations. It was administered to Cohorts 9, 12, and 15.
Curated
Substance Use Among Violently Injured Youth in an Urban Emergency Department: Services and Outcomes in Flint, Michigan, 2009-2013 (ICPSR 36558)
Released/updated on: 2016-09-23
Geographic coverage: Flint, United States, Michigan
Time period: 2009-12-01--2013-09-01
This project was an investigation into the natural course of service needs, use, and trajectories among high-risk youth and young adults with drug use who presented to an inner-city Emergency Department with multiple risk behaviors (with and without acute violent injury). Eligible participants included youth/young adults (ages 14-24) who sought care at the Hurley Medical Center (HMC) Emergency Department (ED) located in Flint, Michigan between December 19, 2009 and September 7, 2011. Consenting youth completed a self-administered computerized screening survey. All participants who self-reported past year drug use were recruited for the longitudinal study. For a comparison group, a randomly selected sample of drug using youth seeking ED care for other reasons (e.g. abdominal pain, motor vehicle crash) were selected for longitudinal study (equilibrated monthly proportionally for age/gender with the acute violent injury group). Participants in the violent injury and comparison group completed a baseline assessment during their ED visit.
Dataset 1 (DS1) contains the Baseline Screener Data of both young adults and youth. This data file has 1,448 cases and 314 variables. Each case represents an individual seeking treatment in the emergency department.
Dataset 2 (DS2) contains the Baseline Youth Data. This data file has 89 cases and 531 variables. Of these 89 cases, 51 of the youths (ages 14-17) presented to the Emergency Department with a violent injury. The remaining 38 respondents reported to the Emergency Department for non-violent injury and are part of the comparison group.
Dataset 3 (DS3) contains the Baseline Young Adult Data. This file contains 511 cases and 483 variables. Of these 511 cases, 299 of the young adults (ages 18-24) presented to the Emergency Department with a violent injury. The remaining 212 respondents reported to the Emergency Department for non-violent injury and are part of the comparison group.
The Baseline Screener Data includes demographics and information about public assistance, income, work, marital status, insurance, the injury visit, school/grades, retaliation attitudes, fights, violence, gang affiliation, weapons, partner violence, nicotine use, alcohol use, drug use, HIV risk-taking behaviors, needle use, sexual behavior, STD/HIV, past adolescent injuries, age on onset of drug use, and current conflict and aggression.
The Baseline Youth and Young Adult Data include sexual behavior, threat of retaliation, brief symptom inventory/suicide risk, drug and alcohol refusal efficacy, drinking and driving (DUI), community involvement, peer influences, non-partner aggression, parental support, parent influence on drug and alcohol use, family conflict, mentors, fight self-efficacy, community violence, sexual risk behaviors, medical care, alcohol dependence/abuse, drug dependence/abuse, substance abuse service utilization, post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), conduct disorder (youth) or antisocial personality disorder (young adult), legal system involvement, major depressive episodes, and mental health service utilization.
Curated
Simple Crosstabs
Substance Use Among Violently Injured Youth in an Urban Emergency Department: Services and Outcomes in Flint, Michigan, 2009-2013 (Public-Use) (ICPSR 36769)
Released/updated on: 2017-03-31
Geographic coverage: Flint, United States, Michigan
Time period: 2009-12-01--2013-09-01
This project was an investigation into the natural course of service needs, use, and trajectories among high-risk youth and young adults with drug use who presented to an inner-city Emergency Department with multiple risk behaviors (with and without acute violent injury). Eligible participants included youth/young adults (ages 14-24) who sought care at the Hurley Medical Center (HMC) Emergency Department (ED) located in Flint, Michigan between December 19, 2009 and September 7, 2011. Consenting youth completed a self-administered computerized screening survey. All participants who self-reported past year drug use were recruited for the longitudinal study. For a comparison group, a randomly selected sample of drug using youth seeking ED care for other reasons (e.g. abdominal pain, motor vehicle crash) were selected for longitudinal study (equilibrated monthly proportionally for age/gender with the acute violent injury group). Participants in the violent injury and comparison group completed a baseline assessment during their ED visit.
Dataset 1 (DS1) contains the Baseline Screener Data of both young adults and youth. This data file has 1,448 cases and 253 variables. Each case represents an individual seeking treatment in the emergency department.
Dataset 2 (DS2) contains the Baseline Youth Data. This data file has 89 cases and 363 variables. Of these 89 cases, 51 of the youths (ages 14-17) presented to the Emergency Department with a violent injury. The remaining 38 respondents reported to the Emergency Department for non-violent injury and are part of the comparison group.
Dataset 3 (DS3) contains the Baseline Young Adult Data. This file contains 511 cases and 380 variables. Of these 511 cases, 299 of the young adults (ages 18-24) presented to the Emergency Department with a violent injury. The remaining 212 respondents reported to the Emergency Department for non-violent injury and are part of the comparison group.
The Baseline Screener Data includes demographics and information about public assistance, income, work, marital status, insurance, the injury visit, school/grades, retaliation attitudes, fights, violence, gang affiliation, weapons, partner violence, nicotine use, alcohol use, drug use, HIV risk-taking behaviors, needle use, sexual behavior, STD/HIV, past adolescent injuries, age on onset of drug use, and current conflict and aggression.
The Baseline Youth and Young Adult Data include brief sexual behavior, threat of retaliation, brief symptom inventory, drug and alcohol refusal efficacy, drinking and driving (DUI), community involvement, peer influences, non-partner aggression, parental support, parent influence on drug and alcohol use, family conflict, mentors, fight self-efficacy, community violence, medical care, alcohol dependence/abuse, drug dependence/abuse, substance abuse service utilization, post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), conduct disorder (youth) or antisocial personality disorder (young adult), legal system involvement, major depressive episodes, and mental health service utilization.
Curated
Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data: Hate Crime Data, 2011 [Record-Type Files] (ICPSR 34583)
Released/updated on: 2013-07-17
Geographic coverage: United States
In response to a growing concern about hate crimes, the United States Congress enacted the Hate Crime Statistics Act of 1990. The Act requires the attorney general to establish guidelines and collect, as part of the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, data "about crimes that manifest evidence of prejudice based on race, religion, sexual orientation, or ethnicity, including where appropriate the crimes of murder and non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, aggravated assault, simple assault, intimidation, arson, and destruction, damage or vandalism of property." Hate crime data collection was required by the Act to begin in calendar year 1990 and to continue for four successive years. In September 1994, the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act amended the Hate Crime Statistics Act to add disabilities, both physical and mental, as factors that could be considered a basis for hate crimes. Although the Act originally mandated data collection for five years, the Church Arson Prevention Act of 1996 amended the collection duration "for each calendar year," making hate crime statistics a permanent addition to the UCR program. As with the other UCR data, law enforcement agencies contribute reports either directly or through their state reporting programs. Information contained in the data includes number of victims and offenders involved in each hate crime incident, type of victims, bias motivation, offense type, and location type.
Curated
Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data: Hate Crime Data, 2012 [Record-Type Files] (ICPSR 35086)
Released/updated on: 2014-05-16
Geographic coverage: United States
In response to a growing concern about hate crimes, the United States Congress enacted the Hate Crime Statistics Act of 1990. The Act requires the attorney general to establish guidelines and collect, as part of the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, data "about crimes that manifest evidence of prejudice based on race, religion, sexual orientation, or ethnicity, including where appropriate the crimes of murder and non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, aggravated assault, simple assault, intimidation, arson, and destruction, damage or vandalism of property." Hate crime data collection was required by the Act to begin in calendar year 1990 and to continue for four successive years. In September 1994, the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act amended the Hate Crime Statistics Act to add disabilities, both physical and mental, as factors that could be considered a basis for hate crimes. Although the Act originally mandated data collection for five years, the Church Arson Prevention Act of 1996 amended the collection duration "for each calendar year," making hate crime statistics a permanent addition to the UCR program. As with the other UCR data, law enforcement agencies contribute reports either directly or through their state reporting programs. Information contained in the data includes number of victims and offenders involved in each hate crime incident, type of victims, bias motivation, offense type, and location type.
Curated
Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data: Hate Crime Data, 2013 [Record-Type Files] (ICPSR 36118)
Released/updated on: 2015-11-13
Geographic coverage: United States
In response to a growing concern about hate crimes, the United States Congress enacted the Hate Crime Statistics Act of 1990. The Act requires the attorney general to establish guidelines and collect, as part of the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, data "about crimes that manifest evidence of prejudice based on race, religion, sexual orientation, or ethnicity, including where appropriate the crimes of murder and non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, aggravated assault, simple assault, intimidation, arson, and destruction, damage or vandalism of property." Hate crime data collection was required by the Act to begin in calendar year 1990 and to continue for four successive years. In September 1994, the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act amended the Hate Crime Statistics Act to add disabilities, both physical and mental, as factors that could be considered a basis for hate crimes. Although the Act originally mandated data collection for five years, the Church Arson Prevention Act of 1996 amended the collection duration "for each calendar year," making hate crime statistics a permanent addition to the UCR program. As with the other UCR data, law enforcement agencies contribute reports either directly or through their state reporting programs. Information contained in the data includes number of victims and offenders involved in each hate crime incident, type of victims, bias motivation, offense type, and location type.
Curated
Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data: Hate Crime Data, 2014 [Record-Type Files] (ICPSR 36397)
Released/updated on: 2016-03-17
Geographic coverage: United States
In response to a growing concern about hate crimes, the United States Congress enacted the Hate Crime Statistics Act of 1990. The Act requires the attorney general to establish guidelines and collect, as part of the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, data "about crimes that manifest evidence of prejudice based on race, religion, sexual orientation, or ethnicity, including where appropriate the crimes of murder and non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, aggravated assault, simple assault, intimidation, arson, and destruction, damage or vandalism of property." Hate crime data collection was required by the Act to begin in calendar year 1990 and to continue for four successive years. In September 1994, the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act amended the Hate Crime Statistics Act to add disabilities, both physical and mental, as factors that could be considered a basis for hate crimes. Although the Act originally mandated data collection for five years, the Church Arson Prevention Act of 1996 amended the collection duration "for each calendar year," making hate crime statistics a permanent addition to the UCR program. As with the other UCR data, law enforcement agencies contribute reports either directly or through their state reporting programs. Information contained in the data includes number of victims and offenders involved in each hate crime incident, type of victims, bias motivation, offense type, and location type.
Curated
Simple Crosstabs
Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data: Hate Crime Data, 2015 [Record-Type Files] (ICPSR 36835)
Released/updated on: 2024-01-17
Geographic coverage: United States
In response to a growing concern about hate crimes, the United States Congress enacted the Hate Crime Statistics Act of 1990. The Act requires the attorney general to establish guidelines and collect, as part of the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, data "about crimes that manifest evidence of prejudice based on race, religion, sexual orientation, or ethnicity, including where appropriate the crimes of murder and non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, aggravated assault, simple assault, intimidation, arson, and destruction, damage or vandalism of property." Hate crime data collection was required by the Act to begin in calendar year 1990 and to continue for four successive years. In September 1994, the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act amended the Hate Crime Statistics Act to add disabilities, both physical and mental, as factors that could be considered a basis for hate crimes. Although the Act originally mandated data collection for five years, the Church Arson Prevention Act of 1996 amended the collection duration "for each calendar year," making hate crime statistics a permanent addition to the UCR program. As with the other UCR data, law enforcement agencies contribute reports either directly or through their state reporting programs. Information contained in the data includes number of victims and offenders involved in each hate crime incident, type of victims, bias motivation, offense type, and location type.
Curated
Simple Crosstabs
Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data: Hate Crime Data (Record-Type Files), United States, 2016 (ICPSR 37060)
Released/updated on: 2024-01-17
Geographic coverage: United States
In response to a growing concern about hate crimes, the United States Congress enacted the Hate Crime Statistics Act of 1990. The Act requires the attorney general to establish guidelines and collect, as part of the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, data "about crimes that manifest evidence of prejudice based on race, religion, sexual orientation, or ethnicity, including where appropriate the crimes of murder and non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, aggravated assault, simple assault, intimidation, arson, and destruction, damage or vandalism of property." Hate crime data collection was required by the Act to begin in calendar year 1990 and to continue for four successive years. In September 1994, the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act amended the Hate Crime Statistics Act to add disabilities, both physical and mental, as factors that could be considered a basis for hate crimes. Although the Act originally mandated data collection for five years, the Church Arson Prevention Act of 1996 amended the collection duration "for each calendar year," making hate crime statistics a permanent addition to the UCR program. As with the other UCR data, law enforcement agencies contribute reports either directly or through their state reporting programs. Information contained in the data includes number of victims and offenders involved in each hate crime incident, type of victims, bias motivation, offense type, and location type.
Curated
Simple Crosstabs
Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data: Hate Crime Data (Record-Type Files), United States, 2017 (ICPSR 37854)
Released/updated on: 2024-01-17
Geographic coverage: United States
In response to a growing concern about hate crimes, the United States Congress enacted the Hate Crime Statistics Act of 1990. The Act requires the attorney general to establish guidelines and collect, as part of the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, data "about crimes that manifest evidence of prejudice based on race, religion, sexual orientation, or ethnicity, including where appropriate the crimes of murder and non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, aggravated assault, simple assault, intimidation, arson, and destruction, damage or vandalism of property." Hate crime data collection was required by the Act to begin in calendar year 1990 and to continue for four successive years. In September 1994, the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act amended the Hate Crime Statistics Act to add disabilities, both physical and mental, as factors that could be considered a basis for hate crimes. Although the Act originally mandated data collection for five years, the Church Arson Prevention Act of 1996 amended the collection duration "for each calendar year," making hate crime statistics a permanent addition to the UCR program. As with the other UCR data, law enforcement agencies contribute reports either directly or through their state reporting programs. Information contained in the data includes number of victims and offenders involved in each hate crime incident, type of victims, bias motivation, offense type, and location type.
Curated
Simple Crosstabs
Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data: Hate Crime Data (Record-Type Files), United States, 2018 (ICPSR 37872)
Released/updated on: 2024-01-17
Geographic coverage: United States
In response to a growing concern about hate crimes, the United States Congress enacted the Hate Crime Statistics Act of 1990. The Act requires the attorney general to establish guidelines and collect, as part of the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, data "about crimes that manifest evidence of prejudice based on race, religion, sexual orientation, or ethnicity, including where appropriate the crimes of murder and non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, aggravated assault, simple assault, intimidation, arson, and destruction, damage or vandalism of property." Hate crime data collection was required by the Act to begin in calendar year 1990 and to continue for four successive years. In September 1994, the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act amended the Hate Crime Statistics Act to add disabilities, both physical and mental, as factors that could be considered a basis for hate crimes. Although the Act originally mandated data collection for five years, the Church Arson Prevention Act of 1996 amended the collection duration "for each calendar year," making hate crime statistics a permanent addition to the UCR program. As with the other UCR data, law enforcement agencies contribute reports either directly or through their state reporting programs. Information contained in the data includes number of victims and offenders involved in each hate crime incident, type of victims, bias motivation, offense type, and location type.
Curated
Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data: Hate Crime Data (Record-Type Files), United States, 2019 (ICPSR 38782)
Released/updated on: 2023-09-28
Geographic coverage: United States
In response to a growing concern about hate crimes, the United States Congress enacted the Hate Crime Statistics Act of 1990. The Act requires the attorney general to establish guidelines and collect, as part of the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, data "about crimes that manifest evidence of prejudice based on race, religion, sexual orientation, or ethnicity, including where appropriate the crimes of murder and non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, aggravated assault, simple assault, intimidation, arson, and destruction, damage or vandalism of property." Hate crime data collection was required by the Act to begin in calendar year 1990 and to continue for four successive years. In September 1994, the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act amended the Hate Crime Statistics Act to add disabilities, both physical and mental, as factors that could be considered a basis for hate crimes. Although the Act originally mandated data collection for five years, the Church Arson Prevention Act of 1996 amended the collection duration "for each calendar year," making hate crime statistics a permanent addition to the UCR program. As with the other UCR data, law enforcement agencies contribute reports either directly or through their state reporting programs. Information contained in the data includes number of victims and offenders involved in each hate crime incident, type of victims, bias motivation, offense type, and location type.
Curated
Simple Crosstabs
Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data: Hate Crime Data (Record-Type Files), United States, 2020 (ICPSR 38790)
Released/updated on: 2023-12-11
Geographic coverage: United States
In response to a growing concern about hate crimes, the United States Congress enacted the Hate Crime Statistics Act of 1990. The Act requires the attorney general to establish guidelines and collect, as part of the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, data "about crimes that manifest evidence of prejudice based on race, religion, sexual orientation, or ethnicity, including where appropriate the crimes of murder and non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, aggravated assault, simple assault, intimidation, arson, and destruction, damage or vandalism of property." Hate crime data collection was required by the Act to begin in calendar year 1990 and to continue for four successive years. In September 1994, the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act amended the Hate Crime Statistics Act to add disabilities, both physical and mental, as factors that could be considered a basis for hate crimes. Although the Act originally mandated data collection for five years, the Church Arson Prevention Act of 1996 amended the collection duration "for each calendar year," making hate crime statistics a permanent addition to the UCR program. As with the other UCR data, law enforcement agencies contribute reports either directly or through their state reporting programs. Information contained in the data includes number of victims and offenders involved in each hate crime incident, type of victims, bias motivation, offense type, and location type.
Curated
Simple Crosstabs
Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data: Hate Crime Data (Record-Type Files), United States, 2021 (ICPSR 38798)
Released/updated on: 2023-12-12
Geographic coverage: United States
In response to a growing concern about hate crimes, the United States Congress enacted the Hate Crime Statistics Act of 1990. The Act requires the attorney general to establish guidelines and collect, as part of the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, data "about crimes that manifest evidence of prejudice based on race, religion, sexual orientation, or ethnicity, including where appropriate the crimes of murder and non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, aggravated assault, simple assault, intimidation, arson, and destruction, damage or vandalism of property." Hate crime data collection was required by the Act to begin in calendar year 1990 and to continue for four successive years. In September 1994, the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act amended the Hate Crime Statistics Act to add disabilities, both physical and mental, as factors that could be considered a basis for hate crimes. Although the Act originally mandated data collection for five years, the Church Arson Prevention Act of 1996 amended the collection duration "for each calendar year," making hate crime statistics a permanent addition to the UCR program. As with the other UCR data, law enforcement agencies contribute reports either directly or through their state reporting programs. Information contained in the data includes number of victims and offenders involved in each hate crime incident, type of victims, bias motivation, offense type, and location type.
Curated
Simple Crosstabs
Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data: Hate Crime Data (Record-Type Files), United States, 2022 (ICPSR 39065)
Released/updated on: 2024-07-29
Geographic coverage: United States
In response to a growing concern about hate crimes, the United States Congress enacted the Hate Crime Statistics Act of 1990. The Act requires the attorney general to establish guidelines and collect, as part of the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, data "about crimes that manifest evidence of prejudice based on race, religion, sexual orientation, or ethnicity, including where appropriate the crimes of murder and non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, aggravated assault, simple assault, intimidation, arson, and destruction, damage or vandalism of property." Hate crime data collection was required by the Act to begin in calendar year 1990 and to continue for four successive years. In September 1994, the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act amended the Hate Crime Statistics Act to add disabilities, both physical and mental, as factors that could be considered a basis for hate crimes. Although the Act originally mandated data collection for five years, the Church Arson Prevention Act of 1996 amended the collection duration "for each calendar year," making hate crime statistics a permanent addition to the UCR program. As with the other UCR data, law enforcement agencies contribute reports either directly or through their state reporting programs. Information contained in the data includes number of victims and offenders involved in each hate crime incident, type of victims, bias motivation, offense type, and location type.
Curated
Simple Crosstabs
Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data: Hate Crime Data (Record-Type Files), United States, 2023 (ICPSR 39300)
Released/updated on: 2026-06-29
Geographic coverage: Puerto Rico, United States, Guam, Virgin Islands of the United States, American Samoa, Northern Mariana Islands
In response to a growing concern about hate crimes, the United States Congress enacted the Hate Crime Statistics Act of 1990. The Act requires the attorney general to establish guidelines and collect, as part of the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, data "about crimes that manifest evidence of prejudice based on race, religion, sexual orientation, or ethnicity, including where appropriate the crimes of murder and non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, aggravated assault, simple assault, intimidation, arson, and destruction, damage or vandalism of property." Hate crime data collection was required by the Act to begin in calendar year 1990 and to continue for four successive years. In September 1994, the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act amended the Hate Crime Statistics Act to add disabilities, both physical and mental, as factors that could be considered a basis for hate crimes. Although the Act originally mandated data collection for five years, the Church Arson Prevention Act of 1996 amended the collection duration "for each calendar year," making hate crime statistics a permanent addition to the UCR program. As with the other UCR data, law enforcement agencies contribute reports either directly or through their state reporting programs. Information contained in the data includes number of victims and offenders involved in each hate crime incident, type of victims, bias motivation, offense type, and location type.
Curated
Simple Crosstabs
Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data: Hate Crime Data (Record-Type Files), United States, 2024 (ICPSR 39663)
Released/updated on: 2026-07-13
Geographic coverage: Puerto Rico, United States, Guam, Virgin Islands of the United States, American Samoa, Northern Mariana Islands
In response to a growing concern about hate crimes, the United States Congress enacted the Hate Crime Statistics Act of 1990. The Act requires the attorney general to establish guidelines and collect, as part of the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, data "about crimes that manifest evidence of prejudice based on race, religion, sexual orientation, or ethnicity, including where appropriate the crimes of murder and non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, aggravated assault, simple assault, intimidation, arson, and destruction, damage or vandalism of property." Hate crime data collection was required by the Act to begin in calendar year 1990 and to continue for four successive years. In September 1994, the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act amended the Hate Crime Statistics Act to add disabilities, both physical and mental, as factors that could be considered a basis for hate crimes. Although the Act originally mandated data collection for five years, the Church Arson Prevention Act of 1996 amended the collection duration "for each calendar year," making hate crime statistics a permanent addition to the UCR program. As with the other UCR data, law enforcement agencies contribute reports either directly or through their state reporting programs. Information contained in the data includes number of victims and offenders involved in each hate crime incident, type of victims, bias motivation, offense type, and location type.