nmm 22 4500 ICPSR32541 MiAaI m f a u cr mn mmmmuuuu 130521s2012 miu f a eng d (MiAaI)ICPSR32541 MiAaI MiAaI Effects of Defense Counsel on Homicide Case Outcomes in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 1995-2004 [United States] [electronic resource] James Anderson , Paul Heaton 2012-09-21 Ann Arbor, Mich. Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor] 2012 ICPSR 32541 Numeric Title from ICPSR DDI metadata of 2013-05-21. AVAILABLE. This study is freely available to the general public. Also available as downloadable files. This study measured the difference that defense counsel made to the outcome of homicide and death penalty cases. One in five indigent murder defendants in Philadelphia were randomly assigned representation by the Defender Association of Philadelphia while the remainder received court-appointed private attorneys. This study's research design utilized this random assignment to measure how defense counsel affected murder case outcomes. The research team collected data on 3,157 defendants charged with murder in Philadelphia Municipal Court between 1995-2004, using records provided by the Philadelphia Courts (First Judicial District of Pennsylvania). Data were also obtained from the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, the Pennsylvania Unified Judicial System web portal, the National Corrections Reporting Program, and the 2000 Census. This study contains a total of 47 variables including public defender representation, defendant demographics, ZIP code characteristics, prior criminal history, case characteristics, case outcomes, and case handling procedures. Cf.: http://dx.doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR32541.v1 attorneys icpsr capital punishment icpsr convictions (law) icpsr court cases icpsr court system icpsr courts icpsr criminal courts icpsr criminal justice system icpsr criminal law icpsr defendants icpsr defense counsel icpsr homicide icpsr legal representation icpsr legal systems icpsr murder icpsr offenders icpsr outcome evaluation icpsr plea negotiations icpsr poverty icpsr public defenders icpsr punishment icpsr sentencing icpsr trials icpsr NACJD IV. Court Case Processing NACJD VI. Criminal Justice System NACJD V. Courts ICPSR XVII.E. Social Institutions and Behavior, Crime and the Criminal Justice System Anderson, James Heaton, Paul Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research. ICPSR (Series) 32541 Access restricted ; authentication may be required: http://dx.doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR32541.v1 nmm 22 4500 ICPSR30983 MiAaI m f a u cr mn mmmmuuuu 130521s2012 miu f a eng d (MiAaI)ICPSR30983 MiAaI MiAaI Multi-Site Adult Drug Court Evaluation (MADCE), 2003-2009 [electronic resource] Shelli B. Rossman , John K. Roman , Janine M. Zweig , Michael Rempel , Christine H. Lindquist 2012-11-05 Ann Arbor, Mich. Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor] 2012 ICPSR 30983 Numeric Title from ICPSR DDI metadata of 2013-05-21. AVAILABLE. This study is freely available to the general public. Also available as downloadable files. The Multi-Site Adult Drug Court Evaluation (MADCE) study included 23 drug courts and 6 comparison sites selected from 8 states across the country. The purpose of the study was to: (1) Test whether drug courts reduce drug use, crime, and multiple other problems associated with drug abuse, in comparision with similar offenders not exposed to drug courts, (2) address how drug courts work and for whom by isolating key individual and program factors that make drug courts more or less effective in achieving their desired outcomes, (3) explain how offender attitudes and behaviors change when they are exposed to drug courts and how these changes help explain the effectiveness of drug court programs, and (4) examine whether drug courts generate cost savings. Offenders in all 29 sites were surveyed in 3 waves, at baseline, 6 months later, and 18 months after enrollment. The research comprises three major components: process evaluation, impact evaluation, and a cost-benefit analysis. The process evaluation describes how the 23 drug court sites vary in program eligibility, supervision, treatment, team collaboration, and other key policies and practices. The impact evaluation examines whether drug courts produce better outcomes than comparison sites and tests which court policies and offender attitudes might explain those effects. The cost-benefit analysis evaluates drug court costs and benefits. Cf.: http://dx.doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR30983.v1 cost effectiveness icpsr court system icpsr courts icpsr crime control icpsr crime control policies icpsr crime control programs icpsr drug abuse icpsr drug courts icpsr drug law enforcement icpsr drug law offenses icpsr drug offenders icpsr drug related crimes icpsr outcome evaluation icpsr process evaluation icpsr NACJD V. Courts ICPSR XVII.E. Social Institutions and Behavior, Crime and the Criminal Justice System NACJD VII. Crime and Delinquency Rossman, Shelli B. Roman, John K. Zweig, Janine M. Rempel, Michael Lindquist, Christine H. Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research. ICPSR (Series) 30983 Access restricted ; authentication may be required: http://dx.doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR30983.v1