This dataset is about book subjects. It has 3 rows and is filtered where the books is Special agent : on the front lines of the FBI. It features 10 columns including number of authors, number of books, earliest publication date, and latest publication date.

Context

The Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program has been the starting place for law enforcement executives, students of criminal justice, researchers, members of the media, and the public at large seeking information on crime in the nation. The program was conceived in 1929 by the International Association of Chiefs of Police to meet the need for reliable uniform crime statistics for the nation. In 1930, the FBI was tasked with collecting, publishing, and archiving those statistics.

Today, four annual publications, Crime in the United States, National Incident-Based Reporting System, Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted, and Hate Crime Statistics are produced from data received from over 18,000 city, university/college, county, state, tribal, and federal law enforcement agencies voluntarily participating in the program. The crime data are submitted either through a state UCR Program or directly to the FBI’s UCR Program.

This dataset focuses on the crime rates and law enforcement employment data in the state of California.

Content

Crime and law enforcement employment rates are separated into individual files, focusing on offenses by enforcement agency, college/university campus, county, and city. Categories of crimes reported include violent crime, murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, property crime, burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle damage, and arson. In the case of rape, data is collected for both revised and legacy definitions. In some cases, a small number of enforcement agencies switched definition collection sometime within the same year.

Acknowledgements

This dataset originates from the FBI UCR project, and the complete dataset for all 2015 crime reports can be found here.

Inspiration

• What are the most common types of crimes in California? Are there certain crimes that are more common in a particular place category, such as a college/university campus, compared to the rest of the state?
• How does the number of law enforcement officers compare to the crime rates of a particular area? Is the ratio similar throughout the state, or do certain campuses, counties, or cities have a differing rate?
• How does the legacy vs. refined definition of rape differ, and how do the rape counts compare? If you pulled the same data from FBI datasets for previous years, can you see a difference in rape rates over time?

Investigator(s): Federal Bureau of Investigation Since 1930, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has compiled the Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) to serve as periodic nationwide assessments of reported crimes not available elsewhere in the criminal justice system. With the 1977 data, the title was expanded to Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data. Each year, participating law enforcement agencies contribute reports to the FBI either directly or through their state reporting programs. ICPSR archives the UCR data as five separate components: (1) summary data, (2) county-level data, (3) incident-level data (National Incident-Based Reporting System [NIBRS]), (4) hate crime data, and (5) various, mostly nonrecurring, data collections. Summary data are reported in four types of files: (a) Offenses Known and Clearances by Arrest, (b) Property Stolen and Recovered, (c) Supplementary Homicide Reports (SHR), and (d) Police Employee (LEOKA) Data (Law Enforcement Officers Killed or Assaulted). The county-level data provide counts of arrests and offenses aggregated to the county level. County populations are also reported. In the late 1970s, new ways to look at crime were studied. The UCR program was subsequently expanded to capture incident-level data with the implementation of the National Incident-Based Reporting System. The NIBRS data focus on various aspects of a crime incident. The gathering of hate crime data by the UCR program was begun in 1990. Hate crimes are defined as crimes that manifest evidence of prejudice based on race, religion, sexual orientation, or ethnicity. In September 1994, disabilities, both physical and mental, were added to the list. The fifth component of ICPSR's UCR holdings is comprised of various collections, many of which are nonrecurring and prepared by individual researchers. These collections go beyond the scope of the standard UCR collections provided by the FBI, either by including data for a range of years or by focusing on other aspects of analysis. NACJD has produced resource guides on UCR and on NIBRS data.

The UNIFORM CRIME REPORTING PROGRAM DATA: OFFENSES KNOWN AND CLEARANCES BY ARREST, 2020 dataset is a compilation of offenses reported to law enforcement agencies in the United States. Due to the vast number of categories of crime committed in the United States, the FBI has limited the type of crimes included in this compilation to those crimes which people are most likely to report to police and those crimes which occur frequently enough to be analyzed across time. Crimes included are criminal homicide, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny-theft, and motor vehicle theft. Much information about these crimes is provided in this dataset. The number of times an offense has been reported, the number of reported offenses that have been cleared by arrests, and the number of cleared offenses which involved offenders under the age of 18 are the major items of information collected.

Federal Bureau of Investigation, Department of Justice - Extraction of crime related data from the FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program

***Starting on March 7th, 2024, the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) will adopt a new Records Management System for reporting crimes and arrests. This new system is being implemented to comply with the FBI's mandate to collect NIBRS-only data (NIBRS — FBI - https://www.fbi.gov/how-we-can-help-you/more-fbi-services-and-information/ucr/nibrs). During this transition, users will temporarily see only incidents reported in the retiring system. However, the LAPD is actively working on generating new NIBRS datasets to ensure a smoother and more efficient reporting system. ***

******Update 1/18/2024 - LAPD is facing issues with posting the Crime data, but we are taking immediate action to resolve the problem. We understand the importance of providing reliable and up-to-date information and are committed to delivering it.

As we work through the issues, we have temporarily reduced our updates from weekly to bi-weekly to ensure that we provide accurate information. Our team is actively working to identify and resolve these issues promptly.

We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause and appreciate your understanding. Rest assured, we are doing everything we can to fix the problem and get back to providing weekly updates as soon as possible. ******

This dataset reflects incidents of crime in the City of Los Angeles dating back to 2020. This data is transcribed from original crime reports that are typed on paper and therefore there may be some inaccuracies within the data. Some location fields with missing data are noted as (0°, 0°). Address fields are only provided to the nearest hundred block in order to maintain privacy. This data is as accurate as the data in the database. Please note questions or concerns in the comments.

The Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program has been the starting place for law enforcement executives, students of criminal justice, researchers, members of the media, and the public at large seeking information on crime in the nation. Part I categorizes incidents in two categories: violent and property crimes. Aggravated assault, forcible rape, murder, and robbery are classified as violent crime, while burglary, larceny-theft, and motor vehicle theft are classified as property crimes. This dataset contains FBI Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Part I crime data for the last 40 years in Greensboro, North Carolina.The Greensboro Police Department is comprised of 787 sworn and non-sworn employees dedicated to the mission of partnering to fight crime for a safer Greensboro. We believe that effectively fighting crime requires everyone's effort. With your assistance, we can make our city safer. Wondering what you can do?Take reasonable steps to prevent being victimized. Lock your car and home doors. Be aware of your surroundings. If something or someonefeels out of the ordinary, go to a safe place.Be additional eyes and ears for us. Report suspicious or unusual activity, and provide tips through Crime Stoppers that can help solve crime.Look out for your neighbors. Strong communities with active Neighborhood Watch programs are not attractive to criminals. By taking care of the people around you, you can create safe places to live and work.Get involved! If you have children, teach them how to react to bullying, what the dangers of texting and driving are, and how to safely use the Internet. Talk with your older relatives about scams that target senior citizens.Learn more about GPD. Ride along with us. Participate in the Police Citizens' Academy. Volunteer, apply for an internship, or better yet join us.You may have heard about our philosophy of neighborhood-oriented policing. This is practice in policing that combines data-driven crime analysis with police/citizen partnerships to solve problems.In the spirit of partnership with the community, our goal is to make the Greensboro Police Department as accessible as possible to the people we serve. Policies and procedures, referred to as directives, are rules that all Greensboro Police Department employees must follow in carrying out the mission of the department. We will update the public copy of the directives in a timely manner to remain consistent with new policy and procedure updates.

The Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data, Police Employee Data, 2013 file contains monthly data on felonious or accidental killings and assaults upon United States law enforcement officers acting in the line of duty. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) assembled the data and processed them from UCR Master Police Employee (LEOKA) data tapes. Each agency record in the file includes the following summary variables: state code, population group code, geographic division, Metropolitan Statistical Area code, and agency name. These variables afford considerable flexibility in creating subsets or aggregations of the data. Since 1930, the Federal Bureau of Investigation has compiled the Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) to serve as a periodic nationwide assessment of reported crimes not available elsewhere in the criminal justice system. Each year, this information is reported in four types of files: (1) Offenses Known and Clearances by Arrest, (2) Property Stolen and Recovered, (3) Supplementary Homicide Reports (SHR), and (4) Police Employee (LEOKA) Data. The Police Employee (LEOKA) Data provide information about law enforcement officers killed or assaulted (hence the acronym, LEOKA) in the line of duty. The variables created from the LEOKA forms provide in-depth information on the circumstances surrounding killings or assaults, including type of call answered, type of weapon used, and type of patrol the officers were on.

The Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program has been the starting place for law enforcement executives, students of criminal justice, researchers, members of the media, and the public at large seeking information on crime in the nation. Part I categorizes incidents in two categories: violent and property crimes. Aggravated assault, forcible rape, murder, and robbery are classified as violent crime, while burglary, larceny-theft, and motor vehicle theft are classified as property crimes. This dataset contains FBI Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Part I crime data for the last 40 years in Greensboro, North Carolina. The crime rate or index is calculated on a per 100,000 resident basis.A crime rate describes the number of crimes reported to law enforcement agencies per 100,000 residents. A crime rate is calculated by dividing the number of reported crimes by the total population; the result is multiplied by 100,000. For example, in 2013 there were 496 robberies in Greensboro and the population was 268,176 according to the SBI estimate. This equals a robbery crime rate of 185 per 100,000 general population.496/268,176 = 0.00184953165085615 x 100,000 = 184.95The Greensboro Police Department is comprised of 787 sworn and non-sworn employees dedicated to the mission of partnering to fight crime for a safer Greensboro. We believe that effectively fighting crime requires everyone's effort. With your assistance, we can make our city safer. Wondering what you can do?Take reasonable steps to prevent being victimized. Lock your car and home doors. Be aware of your surroundings. If something or someonefeels out of the ordinary, go to a safe place.Be additional eyes and ears for us. Report suspicious or unusual activity, and provide tips through Crime Stoppers that can help solve crime.Look out for your neighbors. Strong communities with active Neighborhood Watch programs are not attractive to criminals. By taking care of the people around you, you can create safe places to live and work.Get involved! If you have children, teach them how to react to bullying, what the dangers of texting and driving are, and how to safely use the Internet. Talk with your older relatives about scams that target senior citizens.Learn more about GPD. Ride along with us. Participate in the Police Citizens' Academy. Volunteer, apply for an internship, or better yet join us.You may have heard about our philosophy of neighborhood-oriented policing. This is practice in policing that combines data-driven crime analysis with police/citizen partnerships to solve problems.In the spirit of partnership with the community, our goal is to make the Greensboro Police Department as accessible as possible to the people we serve. Policies and procedures, referred to as directives, are rules that all Greensboro Police Department employees must follow in carrying out the mission of the department. We will update the public copy of the directives in a timely manner to remain consistent with new policy and procedure updates.

Assessment of the danger of communism within and outside of the USA by local elites. Attitude to restriction of domestic civil rights and liberties, in order to deter this threat. Topics: Contentment with life; most important personal and political problems; most important topics of conversation with acquaintances and friends; assessment of the danger of communism in the world and the danger of a new war; preferred conduct regarding the Soviet Union; attitude to arms limitation; characterization of American communists; assessment of the danger from inner-American communists; attitude to limitation of domestic civil rights and liberties to combat communists; attitude to communists (scale); tolerance and conformity; assumptions about the FBI´s extent to which informed about communists in the country; attitude to employment of communists in the education system; judgement on the work of the Congressional Committee or Nixon Committee; upbringing style; media usage; party preference; religiousness. Demography: occupation; religious denomination; school education; regional origins; social origins; marital status; military service; party membership; age (classified); sex. Interviewer rating: race and position of respondent. Einschätzung der Gefahr des Kommunismus innerhalb und außerhalb der USA durch lokale Eliten. Einstellung zur Einschränkung bürgerlicher Freiheitsrechte, um diese Bedrohung abzuwenden. Themen: Lebenszufriedenheit; wichtigste persönliche und politische Probleme; wichtigste Gesprächsthemen mit Bekannten und Freunden; Einschätzung der Gefahr des Kommunismus in der Welt und der Gefahr eines neuen Krieges; präferiertes Verhalten gegenüber der Sowjetunion; Einstellung zur Rüstungsbegrenzung; Charakterisierung amerikanische Kommunisten; Einschätzung der Gefahr durch inneramerikanischer Kommunisten; Einstellung zur Begrenzung bürgerlicher Freiheitsrechte zur Bekämpfung von Kommunisten; Einstellung zu Kommunisten (Skala); Toleranz und Konformität; Vermutungen über die Informiertheit des FBI über die Kommunisten im Lande; Einstellung zur Beschäftigung von Kommunisten im Bildungssystem; Beurteilung der Arbeit des Congressional Committees bzw. Nixon-Komitees; Erziehungsstil; Mediennutzung; Parteipräferenz; Religiosität. Demographie: Beruf; Konfession; Schulbildung; regionale Herkunft; soziale Herkunft; Familienstand; Militärdienst; Parteimitgliedschaft; Alter (klassiert); Geschlecht. Interviewerrating: Rasse und Position des Befragten.

Einschätzung der Gefahr des Kommunismus innerhalb und außerhalb der USAdurch lokale Eliten. Einstellung zur Einschränkung bürgerlicherFreiheitsrechte, um diese Bedrohung abzuwenden. Themen: Lebenszufriedenheit; wichtigste persönliche und politischeProbleme; wichtigste Gesprächsthemen mit Bekannten und Freunden;Einschätzung der Gefahr des Kommunismus in der Welt und der Gefahreines neuen Krieges; präferiertes Verhalten gegenüber der Sowjetunion;Einstellung zur Rüstungsbegrenzung; Charakterisierung amerikanischeKommunisten; Einschätzung der Gefahr durch inneramerikanischerKommunisten; Einstellung zur Begrenzung bürgerlicher Freiheitsrechtezur Bekämpfung von Kommunisten; Einstellung zu Kommunisten (Skala);Toleranz und Konformität; Vermutungen über die Informiertheit des FBIüber die Kommunisten im Lande; Einstellung zur Beschäftigung vonKommunisten im Bildungssystem; Beurteilung der Arbeit des CongressionalCommittees bzw. Nixon-Komitees; Erziehungsstil; Mediennutzung;Parteipräferenz; Religiosität. Demographie: Beruf; Konfession; Schulbildung; regionale Herkunft;soziale Herkunft; Familienstand; Militärdienst; Parteimitgliedschaft;Alter (klassiert); Geschlecht. Interviewerrating: Rasse und Position des Befragten. Assessment of the danger of communism within and outside of the USA bylocal elites. Attitude to restriction of domestic civil rights andliberties, in order to deter this threat. Topics: Contentment with life; most important personal and politicalproblems; most important topics of conversation with acquaintances andfriends; assessment of the danger of communism in the world and thedanger of a new war; preferred conduct regarding the Soviet Union;attitude to arms limitation; characterization of American communists;assessment of the danger from inner-American communists; attitude tolimitation of domestic civil rights and liberties to combat communists;attitude to communists (scale); tolerance and conformity; assumptionsabout the FBI´s extent to which informed about communists in thecountry; attitude to employment of communists in the education system;judgement on the work of the Congressional Committee or NixonCommittee; upbringing style; media usage; party preference;religiousness. Demography: occupation; religious denomination; school education;regional origins; social origins; marital status; military service;party membership; age (classified); sex. Interviewer rating: race and position of respondent. Mündliche Befragung mit standardisiertem Fragebogen Oral survey with standardized questionnaire ´Local Community Leaders´ aus 123 Städten mit 10.000 bis 150.000 Einwohnern ´Local Community Leaders´ from 123 cities with 10000 to 150000 residents Auswahlverfahren Kommentar: Quotenauswahl

The purpose of the study was to explore how local law enforcement were responding to the crime of human trafficking after the passage of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) in 2000. The first phase of the study (Part 1, Law Enforcement Interview Quantitative Data) involved conducting telephone surveys with 121 federal, state, and local law enforcement officials in key cities across the country between August and November of 2005. Different versions of the telephone survey were created for the key categories of law enforcement targeted by this study (state/local investigators, police offices, victim witness coordinators, and federal agents). The telephone surveys were supplemented with interviews from law enforcement supervisors/managers, representatives from the Federal Bureau of Investigation's (FBI) Human Trafficking/Smuggling Office, the United States Attorney's Office, the Trafficking in Persons Office, and the Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division. Respondents were asked about their history of working human trafficking cases, knowledge of human trafficking, and familiarity with the TVPA. Other variables include the type of trafficking victims encountered, how human trafficking cases were identified, and the law enforcement agency's capability to address the issue of trafficking. The respondents were also asked about the challenges and barriers to investigating human trafficking cases and to providing services to the victims. In the second phase of the study (Part 2, Case File Review Qualitative Data) researchers collected comprehensive case information from sources such as case reports, sanitized court reports, legal newspapers, magazines, and newsletters, as well as law review articles. This case review examined nine prosecuted cases of human trafficking since the passage of the TVPA. The research team conducted an assessment of each case focusing on four core components: identifying the facts, defining the problem, identifying the rule to the facts (e.g., in light of the rule, how law enforcement approached the situation), and conclusion.

Abstract (en): The UNIFORM CRIME REPORTING PROGRAM DATA: SUPPLEMENTARY HOMICIDE REPORTS, 2010 (SHR) provide detailed information on criminal homicides reported to the police. These homicides consist of murders; non-negligent killings also called non-negligent manslaughter; and justifiable homicides. UCR Program contributors compile and submit their crime data by one of two means: either directly to the FBI or through their State UCR Programs. State UCR Programs frequently impose mandatory reporting requirements which have been effective in increasing both the number of reporting agencies as well as the number and accuracy of each participating agency's reports. Each agency may be identified by its numeric state code, alpha-numeric agency ("ORI") code, jurisdiction population, and population group. In addition, each homicide incident is identified by month of occurrence and situation type, allowing flexibility in creating aggregations and subsets. ICPSR data undergo a confidentiality review and are altered when necessary to limit the risk of disclosure. ICPSR also routinely creates ready-to-go data files along with setups in the major statistical software formats as well as standard codebooks to accompany the data. In addition to these procedures, ICPSR performed the following processing steps for this data collection: Checked for undocumented or out-of-range codes.. Homicide incidents reported by law enforcement agencies in the United States mail questionnaireStarting with the year 1998, each of the four parts of the UCR data collection archived by ICPSR is released as a separate study under its own study number. The Supplementary Homicide Reports data for the years 1975-1997 can be found in UNIFORM CRIME REPORTING PROGRAM DATA: 1975-1997 (ICPSR 9028).This data collection was produced by the United States Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation.The unit of analysis in this dataset is the homicide "incident" as defined by the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program. Thus, information on the victim(s), the offender(s), the relationship between these individuals, the weapons used, and the circumstances surrounding the homicide are provided by incident. Up to eleven offenders can be involved in an incident. The Uniform Crime Reporting Program (UCR) is a data collection effort designed to provide an overall view of crime in the United States. Data for the UCR have been gathered by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) since 1930. The data are compiled from law enforcement agencies on a monthly basis. UCR data housed at the Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research (ICPSR) include: OFFENSES KNOWN AND CLEARANCES BY ARREST (also know as RETURN A), PROPERTY STOLEN AND RECOVERED (also known as SUPPLEMENT TO RETURN A), SUPPLEMENTARY HOMICIDE REPORTS (SHR), and POLICE EMPLOYEE (LEOKA) DATA. The UCR data for 1975-1997 are archived under ICPSR study number 9028. Starting with the 1998 UCR data each of the main data files comprising the UCR has been given its own ICPSR study number. New study numbers will be issued each year for OFFENSES KNOWN AND CLEARANCES BY ARREST, PROPERTY STOLEN AND RECOVERED, SUPPLEMENTAL HOMICIDE REPORTS, and POLICE EMPLOYEE (LEOKA) DATA. Each UCR data file, regardless of study number, has its own documentation specific to it.

These data assess the effects of the risk of local jail incarceration and of police aggressiveness in patrol style on rates of violent offending. The collection includes arrest rates for public order offenses, size of county jail populations, and numbers of new prison admissions as they relate to arrest rates for index (serious) crimes. Data were collected from seven sources for each city. CENSUS OF POPULATION AND HOUSING, 1980 [UNITED STATES]: SUMMARY TAPE FILE 1A (ICPSR 7941), provided county-level data on number of persons by race, age, and age by race, number of persons in households, and types of households within each county. CENSUS OF POPULATION AND HOUSING, 1980 [UNITED STATES]: SUMMARY TAPE FILE 3A (ICPSR 8071), measured at the city level, provided data on total population, race, age, marital status by sex, persons in household, number of households, housing, children, and families above and below the poverty level by race, employment by race, and income by race within each city. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) 1980 data provided variables on total offenses and offense rates per 100,000 persons for homicides, rapes, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny, motor vehicle offenses, and arson. Data from the FBI for 1980-1982, averaged per 100,000, provided variables for the above offenses by sex, age, and race, and the Uniform Crime Report arrest rates for index crimes within each city. The NATIONAL JAIL CENSUS for 1978 and 1983 (ICPSR 7737 and ICPSR 8203), aggregated to the county level, provided variables on jail capacity, number of inmates being held by sex, race, and status of inmate's case (awaiting trial, awaiting sentence, serving sentence, and technical violations), average daily jail populations, number of staff by full-time and part-time, number of volunteers, and number of correctional officers. The JUVENILE DETENTION AND CORRECTIONAL FACILITY CENSUS for 1979 and 1982-1983 (ICPSR 7846 and 8205), aggregated to the county level, provided data on the number of individuals being held by type of crime and sex, as well as age of juvenile offenders by sex, average daily prison population, and payroll and other expenditures for the institutions.

The primary objective of this project was to explore the familial, physical, psychological, social, and cultural antecedents and correlates of violent criminal offending. This research used an extensive longitudinal database collected on 1,345 young adult male offenders admitted to the Federal Correctional Institution (FCI) in Tallahassee, Florida, from November 3, 1970, to November 2, 1972. Using FBI arrest records ("rap sheets"), each inmate was classified on the basis of the National Crime Information Center Uniform Offense Codes into one of four distinct categories: (1) "angry violent," in which the apparent goal was to injure the victim, (2) "instrumentally violent," in which the aggressive behavior was a means to an end (as in a robbery), (3) "potentially violent," as evidenced by making threats or carrying weapons but in which the offender was not accused of any violent offenses, and (4) "nonviolent," in which the offender had not been charged with violent criminal behavior. Violent offenders were also subdivided into those who had been repetitively violent and those who had been charged with just one violent offense. As part of the classification process, each inmate was administered an extensive battery of tests by the research project staff. The two primary personality assessment instruments utilized were the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) and the California Psychological Inventory (CPI). Each inmate's caseworker filled out a series of of standard Bureau of Prisons forms recording the results of the medical, educational, and psychological evaluations, as well as salient aspects of the case and criminal history. The researchers also obtained copies of each offender's Presentence Investigation Report (PSI) that had been prepared by the federal probation officer, and then devised a series of scales to quantify the PSI data. In addition, an hour-long structured intake interview was administered to each inmate by his team psychologist. Global scales were constructed from these intake interviews. After each interview, the psychologists performed an evaluative Q-sort. Nine scales were later constructed based on these Q-sorts. Also, every dormitory officer and every work supervisor completed scales assessing each subject's interpersonal adjustment and work performance at 90-day intervals. Immediately prior to release, as many inmates as possible were reinterviewed and retested on the MMPI and the CPI. Follow-ups using FBI rap sheets were conducted in 1976 and 1984. Variables obtained from the Bureau of Prisons forms include age upon entry, race, marital status, age at first arrest, number of prior adult convictions, commitment offense(s), highest school grade completed, drug dependency, and alcoholism. Scales developed from the PSIs provide data on father, mother, and siblings, family incohesiveness, adequacy of childhood dwelling, social deviance of family, school problems, employment problems, achievement motivation, problems with interpersonal relations, authority conflicts, childhood and adolescent or adult maladjustment and deviance, poor physical health, juvenile conviction record, adult arrest and conviction record, violence of offense, group influence on illegal behavior, and prior prison adjustment. The intake interview inquired about the developmental family history and the child's development, the inmate's marriage, educational, and work history and attitudes, attitudes toward sex, military service and attitudes, self-reported use of alcohol and other substances, religious preferences and practices, and problems during any previous confinements. Scales based on the psychologists' Q-sorts evaluated aggression, hostility avoidance, authority conflict, sociability, social withdrawal, social/emotional constriction, passivity, dominance, and adaptation to the environment. Data are also provided on global dorm adjustment and the number of shots, cell house days, sick calls, and infractions for the offenders' first and second 90-day periods at the FCI.