nmm 22 4500 ICPSR25924 MiAaI m f a u cr mn mmmmuuuu 130619s2011 miu f a eng d (MiAaI)ICPSR25924 MiAaI MiAaI Evaluation of a Demonstration for Enhanced Judicial Oversight of Domestic Violence Cases in Milwaukee, Wisconsin; Washtenaw County, Michigan; and Dorchester, Massachusetts; 1997-2004 [electronic resource] Adele Harrell , Jennifer Yahner , Lisa Newmark , Christy Visher 2011-04-29 Ann Arbor, Mich. Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor] 2011 ICPSR 25924 Numeric Title from ICPSR DDI metadata of 2013-06-19. AVAILABLE. This study is freely available to the general public. Also available as downloadable files. The Judicial Oversight Demonstration (JOD) was designed to test the feasibility and impact of a coordinated response to intimate partner violence (IPV) that involved the courts and justice agencies in a central role. The primary goals were to protect victim safety, hold offenders accountable, and reduce repeat offending. The two primary evaluation objectives were: (1) to test the impact of JOD interventions on victim safety, offender accountability, and recidivism, and (2) to learn from the experiences of well-qualified sites who were given resources and challenged to build a collaboration between the courts and community agencies to respond to intimate partner violence. Dorchester, Massachusetts, and Washtenaw County, Michigan, participated in a quasi-experimental evaluation of the impact of the program. IPV cases reaching disposition during the JOD were compared to similar cases reaching disposition in Lowell, Massachusetts, and Ingham County, Michigan. All IPV cases reaching disposition from approximately January 2003 to November 2004 (see Study Time Periods and Time Frames) were reviewed and included in the sample if appropriate. To be eligible for the sample, cases had to involve: (1) criminal IPV charges; (2) victims and offenders age 18 or older; and (3) victims and offenders who lived in the target jurisdiction at the time of case disposition. Cases that reached disposition more than a year after the incident were excluded to limit loss of data due to poor recall of the facts of the incident and police response. The evaluation design of JOD in Milwaukee differed from that of the other two sites. The evaluation in Milwaukee was based on a quasi-experimental comparison of offenders convicted of IPV and ordered to probation during JOD (January 1, 2001, to May 21, 2002) and before JOD (October 8, 1997, to December 21, 1999). This design was selected when early plans for an experimental design had to be abandoned and no comparable contemporaneous comparison group could be identified. Data for this evaluation were collected from court and prosecutors’ records of case and defendant characteristics, probation files on offender supervision practices, and official records of rearrest, but do not include interviews with victims or offenders. This data collection has 20 data files containing 3,578 cases and 4,092 variables. The data files contain information related to each site's Batterer Intervention Programs (Parts 1, 8, and 15), court data (Parts 2, 12, 13, 14, 16, and 18), law enforcement (Parts 3, 11, and 17), and victim data (Parts 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, and 19). The Dorchester, Massachusetts, and Washtenaw County, Michigan, Impact Evaluation Data (Part 7) include baseline and follow-up information for the offender and the victim. The data file also contains Probation Supervision Performance Reports, Victim Services Logs, and Case Incident Fact Sheet information. The Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Impact Evaluation Data (Part 20) include information related to the offender and the victim such as age, race, and sex, as well as arrest records including charges filed. Cf.: http://dx.doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR25924.v1 law enforcement icpsr victimization icpsr victims icpsr violence against women icpsr abuse icpsr battered women icpsr court cases icpsr courts icpsr domestic violence icpsr intimate partner violence icpsr ICPSR XVII. Social Institutions and Behavior NACJD X. Victimization NACJD XIII. Violence Against Women Harrell, Adele Yahner, Jennifer Newmark, Lisa Visher, Christy Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research. ICPSR (Series) 25924 Access restricted ; authentication may be required: http://dx.doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR25924.v1 nmm 22 4500 ICPSR26381 MiAaI m f a u cr mn mmmmuuuu 130619s2013 miu f a eng d (MiAaI)ICPSR26381 MiAaI MiAaI National Survey of Juvenile Justice Professionals, 2005-2007 [United States] [electronic resource] Janeen Buck Willison , Christy Visher , Daniel P. Mears , Jeffrey A. Butts 2013-03-21 Ann Arbor, Mich. Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor] 2013 ICPSR 26381 Numeric Title from ICPSR DDI metadata of 2013-06-19. AVAILABLE. This study is freely available to the general public. Also available as downloadable files. This study involved a survey of juvenile court judges, chief probation officers, prosecutors, and public defenders to measure their impressions of recent policy changes and the critical needs facing today's juvenile justice system. In addition the study garnered recommendations for improving the administration and effectiveness of this system. The study's primary objective was to provide policymakers, administrators, and practitioners with actionable information about how to improve the operations and effectiveness of the juvenile justice system, and to examine the role practitioners could play in constructing sound juvenile justice policy. A total of 534 juvenile court judges, chief probation officers, court administrators, prosecutors, and defense attorneys in 44 states and the District of Columbia participated in the Assessing the Policy Options (APO) national practitioner survey. The survey consisted of four major sections: demographics, critical needs, policies and practices, and practitioner recommendations. Critical needs facing the juvenile justice system were measured by asking respondents about the policy priority of 13 issues in their respective jurisdictions; topics ranged from staff training and development to effective juvenile defense counsel to information technology. Respondents were also asked to assess the effectiveness of 17 different policies and practices -- ranging from parental accountability laws to transfer and treatment -- in achieving 6 vital juvenile justice outcomes. Cf.: http://dx.doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR26381.v1 juvenile justice icpsr curfew icpsr decision making icpsr gangs icpsr juvenile courts icpsr juvenile crime icpsr juvenile detention icpsr juvenile offenders icpsr juvenile recidivists icpsr mental health services icpsr needs assessment icpsr policy making icpsr restorative justice icpsr risk assessment icpsr sex offenders icpsr social services icpsr substance abuse treatment icpsr NACJD VI. Criminal Justice System NACJD V. Courts NACJD VII. Crime and Delinquency ICPSR XVII.E. Social Institutions and Behavior, Crime and the Criminal Justice System Willison, Janeen Buck Visher, Christy Mears, Daniel P. Butts, Jeffrey A. Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research. ICPSR (Series) 26381 Access restricted ; authentication may be required: http://dx.doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR26381.v1