Search results

Search tips
Showing 1 – 5 of 5 results.
Curated
Restricted

Multi-site National Institute of Justice Evaluation of Second Chance Act Reentry Courts in Seven States, 2012-2016 (ICPSR 36748)

Released/updated on: 2018-07-24
Geographic coverage: Texas, Missouri, New Hampshire, Ohio, Florida, Delaware, Virginia
Time period: 2012-01-01--2016-12-31

These data are part of NACJD's Fast Track Release and are distributed as they there received from the data depositor. The files have been zipped by NACJD for release, but not checked or processed except of the removal of direct identifiers. Users should refer to the accompany readme file for a brief description of the files available with this collections and consult the investigator(s) if further information is needed.

The study used a multi-method approach including 1. a process evaluation in all eight sites involving yearly site visits from 2012 to 2014 with key stakeholder interviews, observations, and participant focus groups; 2. a prospective impact evaluation (in four sites) including interviews at release from jail or prison and at 12 months after release (as well as oral swab drug tests) with reentry court participants and a matched comparison group; 3. a recidivism impact evaluation (in seven sites) with a matched comparison group tracking recidivism for 2 years post reentry court entry and 4. a cost-benefit evaluation (in seven sites) involving a transactional and institutional cost analysis (TICA) approach. Final administrative data were collected through the end of 2016.

This collection includes four SPSS data files: "interview_archive2.sav" with 746 variables and 412 cases, "NESCCARC_Archive_File_3.sav" with 518 variables and 3,710 cases, "Interview Data1.sav" with 1,356 variables and 412 cases, "NESCCARC Admin Data File.sav" with 517 variables and 3,710 cases, and three SPSS syntax files: "Interview Syntax.sps", "archive_2-17.sps", and "NESCCARC Admin Data Syntax.sps".

Curated
Simple Crosstabs

An Experimental and Survey Analysis of Economic Sanctions in Centre County, Pennsylvania (ICPSR 36152)

Released/updated on: 2016-01-04
Geographic coverage: United States, Pennsylvania
Time period: 2012-04-01--2013-07-31
This study comprises two parts: (1) an experimental analysis of whether reminders about payment and reasons why payment should be made are effective in getting offenders to pay their court-ordered economic sanctions; and (2) a survey of probationers who were ordered to pay economic sanctions that investigated five reasons why offenders may not pay their court-ordered restitution: inability to pay, not knowing what they owe, disagreeing with the purpose and fairness of restitution, perceived unfair treatment by the probation officer, and problems with the mechanics of paying. A sample of 771 probationers was selected from Centre County, Pennsylvania. All individuals included in the sample had an outstanding restitution balance. The experiment addressed two reasons offenders give for why they do not pay their court-ordered restitution: (a) lack of understanding of how much they owe and where their payments are directed and (b) a belief that the sanctions are unfair. A total of 771 offenders were randomly assigned to one of four conditions in a 2 x 2 between-subjects design in which, over a 6-month period in 2012, three quarters of the offenders received monthly letters that contained (a) information or no information about the economic sanctions they had paid and what they still owed (Information manipulation) and (b) a statement or no statement about reasons for paying restitution (Rationale manipulation). The remaining offenders did not receive a letter. Payments were tracked monthly for 6 months after the first letter was sent, and at 9, 12, and 18 months after the first letter, using the Pennsylvania Unified Judicial System website. The survey of the same probationers was administered approximately 14 months after the first letter was sent (8 months after the final letter). Of the 771 offenders, 149 returned a completed survey.
Curated
Simple Crosstabs

Eurobarometer 78.2: European Parliament, Future of Europe and Consumer Behavior in the European Union, November-December 2012 (ICPSR 35251)

Released/updated on: 2014-10-09
Geographic coverage: Cyprus, Portugal, Global, Malta, Greece, Netherlands, Sweden, Austria, Latvia, Luxembourg, Ireland, Poland, Slovenia, Slovakia, France, Bulgaria, Lithuania, Croatia, Romania, Hungary, United Kingdom, Spain, Czech Republic, Belgium, Finland, Denmark, Italy, Germany, Estonia
Time period: 2012-11-17--2012-12-02

The Eurobarometer series is a unique cross-national and cross-temporal survey program conducted on behalf of the European Commission. These surveys regularly monitor public opinion in the European Union (EU) member countries and consist of standard modules and special topic modules. The standard modules address attitudes towards European unification, institutions and policies, measurements for general socio-political orientations, as well as respondent and household demographics. The special topic modules address such topics as agriculture, education, natural environment and resources, public health, public safety and crime, and science and technology.

This round of Eurobarometer surveys covers the following special topics: (1) Future of Europe, and (2) Consumer behavior in the European Union. In regard to the future of Europe, opinions were collected on the expected quality of life for future generations, main challenges for the EU to face in the future, predictions on whether EU society will place more importance on solidarity or individualism and predictions of whether the EU will be a leading diplomatic power. In regard to consumer behavior, respondents were asked if they had a legitimate cause for complaint during a transaction, what type of action was taken during the interaction, court ruling where a business was taken to court, willingness to go to court, reasons to go to court in another EU member state, and European small claims procedure. Additional information includes respondents' sources of political knowledge and to what extent they feel well informed on political matters.

Demographic and other background information collected includes age, gender, nationality, marital status and parental relations, occupation, age when stopped full-time education, household composition, ownership of a fixed or a mobile telephone and other durable goods, difficulties in paying bills, level in society, and Internet use. In addition, country-specific data includes type and size of locality, region of residence, and language of interview (select countries).

Curated

Cost Effectiveness of Misdemeanant Probation in Hamilton County, Ohio, 1981-1982 (ICPSR 8259)

Released/updated on: 2006-01-18
Geographic coverage: United States, Ohio, Cincinnati
Time period: 1981-01-01--1982-12-31
This research was designed to determine whether the supervision of misdemeanant probationers was cost-effective for increasing the level of successful probation completions in Hamilton County, Ohio. The primary objective was to examine the relationships among these factors: supervision costs, the collection of court costs, fines, and restitution, types of supervision, risk assessment, and probationer conduct for the population of probationers. Probationers were initially classified according to risk assessment and then randomly assigned to a supervision category. The probationer's risk potential was a numerical score derived from demographic background variables, prior record, and history of substance use. The DSCP (Degree of Successful Completion of Probation) was developed specifically to measure probationer conduct and to compare trends and relationships. The variables examined in the study include: risk assessment at intake, supervision level assigned, number of times the probationer was assigned to probation, start and planned termination dates, date of last status change, status at termination, degree of successful completion of probation achieved, costs incurred in administering probation, and amounts collected from each probationer for court costs, restitution, and fines. Although data were collected on 7,072 misdemeanant probation experiences, there are only 2,756 probationers included in the study. The remaining 4,316 cases were excluded due to failure of the probationer to show up for screening or for other reasons that did not meet the research criteria.
Curated

Survey of Judges on the Role of Courts in American Society, 1979 (ICPSR 7824)

Released/updated on: 1992-02-16
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1978-01-01--1979-12-31
This survey was conducted in order to obtain from judges their views and experiences regarding the role of courts in American society, specifically on issues of caseload management. From a sample representing five regions of the country, 104 federal and state judges were interviewed about their general work practices and performance in court over the year previous to August 1979. Variables describe the amount of time judges spent on routine judicial activities, characteristics of cases requiring excessive time, the mechanisms employed in the resolution of civil disputes, techniques for reducing or more expeditiously handling heavy caseloads, and suggestions for extra-judicial dispute settlement processes that could serve as alternatives to courts. Data are also available on each judge's legal education, legal experience, and personal background.
Back to top