Search results

Under the Second Chance Act (SCA) of 2008, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) awarded hundreds of grants under various categories of competition to state, local, and tribal governments to develop or enhance re-entry programs. In 2018, the First Step Act was signed into law, helping to continue the financial support of the SCA program, among other reentry-focused services. While SCA programs have been operating for about 15 years, the research conducted on these programs and their services has been relatively short-term, examining outcomes on participants no more than a few years past the point of program enrollment. There had not yet been an examination of the long-term impacts of SCA services.

In 2021, DOJ's National Institute of Justice (NIJ) awarded a cooperative agreement to NORC at the University of Chicago (NORC) and its partner, Social Policy Research Associates (SPR), to evaluate the long-term impacts of seven SCA Adult Demonstration Program grantees, which were first awarded SCA funding in FY 2009. NORC and SPR, along with an additional partner, MDRC, previously evaluated these grantees by conducting an implementation study and a randomized controlled trial (RCT) impact study, with random assignment beginning in December 2011 (or approximately two years after the grantees began operating their SCA programs) and ending in March 2013. The results of this earlier evaluation were included in an implementation study report, an 18-month impact study report, based on a follow-up survey and administrative data, and a 30-month impact study report based on administrative data.

The goal of the current longitudinal research was to estimate the impacts of the SCA program on the outcomes of the original impact study participants, over the approximately ten to twelve years following the point when these participants were first randomly assigned. More specifically the current research has sought to assess:

1. whether SCA participants demonstrated better long-term outcomes related to recidivism (arrest, conviction, and incarceration) than did control group members;
2. whether SCA participants demonstrated better long-term employment and earnings outcomes than control group members
3. whether SCA participants demonstrated better long-term outcomes on other indicators of well-being (e.g., housing, family formation, benefits, substance abuse, etc.) than control group members.

To answer these questions the study team gathered both participant survey and administrative data.

• Survey data: Using a multi-phase process, the study team began administering a survey to study participants in late November 2021 and closed the survey on December 19, 2023. At that point, all pending respondents had been contacted by study team staff multiple times. The study team was able to complete 378 interviews during the entire survey data collection period.
• Criminal justice administrative data:The study team obtained arrest, conviction, and state prison and jail incarceration data from state and local public agencies (for the counties to which participants were released or served) in the six states and seven counties in which the seven grantees operated. The study team was able to collect these data from all agencies except two (arrest data in South Dakota and jail data from Oklahoma City). These data included all periods between random assignment and nearly ten years after random assignment for all participants.
• Employment and earnings administrative data: The study team was able to access data from the Department Health and Human Services' National Directory of New Hires database which allowed for the analysis of employment and earnings data for study participants over a two-year period from July 2022 to June 2024.

Survey and administrative data were used to answer the first two research questions with survey data being the only source for the third research question.

This dataset measures the number and density of law enforcement organizations—including police departments, fire departments, courts, correctional facilities, and legal counsel and prosecution offices—across United States census tracts and ZIP Code Tabulation Areas (ZCTAs) from 1990 through 2022. Data are derived from the National Establishment Time Series (NETS) database and geocoded to 2010 and 2020 TIGER/Line shapefiles from the US Census Bureau.

This package replicates all tables and figures in the paper and online appendix for "Economic Conditions and Incarceration in the United States: Evidence from Missouri, 1850-1930.

This study used a multi-systems approach to understand the root causes of school violence in the state of Oregon (United States), accounting for factors within the individual, family, school, juvenile justice, child protective services, and social services systems and how they work together in predicting school violence. The effort was guided by four Research Questions:

1. What are the potential root causes and related factors that contribute to school violence?
2. What are the disciplinary responses to school violence, and are rates of suspensions and expulsions equivalent across demographic subgroups of students?
3. What is the sequence of events that lead from a school-related disciplinary incident to an arrest and to juvenile or adult court involvement and disposition, and which individual, family, school, and neighborhood factors influence this trajectory?
4. What are the responses to and consequences of shootings in K-12 public settings?

To answer these questions, RMC Research, with support from the the Oregon Youth Authority (OYA) and the Oregon Department of Education (ODE), conducted a secondary analysis of existing data on 15 cohorts of students between kindergarten and grade 12. Research Questions 1, 2, and 3 were addressed using a multi-level cohort design with longitudinal data provided by OYA (n=5,129,815 observations across time from 855,580 unique youth). Research Question 4 was addressed through an extensive review of research on school safety strategies.

This collection contains 16 SPSS syntax files used to clean and analyze the secondary data, detailed guides to data preparation and data-related decisions made by the research team, and a list of obtained data files and variables. There are no data files in this collection.

The Cuyahoga County (Ohio, USA) Sexual Assault Kit (SAK) Initiative, led by the Cuyahoga County Prosecutor's Office, was launched in 2013 to test and follow up on previously untested sexual assault/rape kits that were collected as evidence from sexual assault victims. Rape reports typically include an incident report taken by the responding officer(s) who is tasked with gathering pertinent facts and evidence and then forwarding the report to an investigator (detective) for follow-up, as well as a summary of the investigative activity on the case as noted by the investigator, which can include the decision of the assigned prosecutor to file or not file charges.

Signaling is defined as information conveyed by responding officers in the narratives of police reports regarding a victim's creditability and rape-myth adherence. The goal was to better understand if and how responding officers' written reports in sexual assault cases impact investigating officers' decision-making and how cases proceed (or fail to proceed) in the criminal justice process. The objective of the study was to explore the first step in the investigative process to elucidate facilitators and barriers to sexual assault cases reaching a successful disposition.

The research team employed text mining and machine learning methods using natural language processing and advanced statistical analyses to evaluate the narratives of 5,638 police reports of sexual assaults where victims had sexual assault kits collected in Cuyahoga County over the span of nearly two decades (primarily 1993 through 2011). These reports were analyzed using topic modeling and sentiment analysis. The team addressed three research questions:

1. To what extent did "sentiments" in the responding officers' narratives reveal positive or negative signaling of victims' credibility?
2. To what extent were the "topics" and sentiments in the responding officers' narratives different in cases with increased investigative activity compared to those with less?
3. To what extent were both the topics and sentiments in the responding officers' narratives different for cases that were successfully investigated and prosecuted compared to those that were not?

This collection includes a quantitative dataset (DS1) and a qualitative dataset (DS2). The report-level quantitative dataset contains calculated sentiment scores, categorical variables describing the incident and outcome, and demographic variables of the victim(s) and suspect(s) for all reports analyzed (n=5,639). The full text for all reports is available in a CSV file that can be merged with the main data file. The qualitative data is a subset of reports from the main dataset (n=18) with high, medium, and low sentiment scores that were manually coded by the research team.

Cyberstalking involves using computing and communications technologies in threatening ways, such as to surveil or harass an individual (online or physically), convey threats, make false accusations about an individual, or share embarrassing information (such as nonconsensual pornography). Cyberstalking has become a mechanism commonly used by intimate-partner abusers--and even by members of extremist groups--to track and access their victims. Exacerbating this problem are new opportunities for victimization brought by digital and internet-connected surveillance devices and technologies.

This study attempted to enhance understanding of cyberstalking by offering the empirical analysis on federal cyberstalking cases. This study included the analysis of the number of federal cyberstalking cases filed over time, the characteristics of these cases (e.g., technologies involved and types of victims), and case outcomes.

Users should note that while there is mention of accompanying qualitative data, these data are not included in this release and will not be released in the future.

This study explored the life-course experiences of criminally involved veterans. The topics of maladaptive behavior patterns, criminal conduct, diverging demographic and social statuses, impacts of mental illness, social support, substance use, propensity for criminal involvement before entering the military, and combat exposure, of the veterans were explored. The project aimed to uncover common links to problematic life-course outcomes thematically shared across cohorts of criminally involved veterans and/or differences between cohorts of veterans resulting in unique needs across the life-course.

This study included three aims of analysis:

1. To explore the life-course experiences of veterans who are in the criminal justice system by assessing the perspectives of this particularly important group - those under the control of the criminal justice system, but also navigating their problems while living in the community.
2. To document the ecological momentary day-to-day experience of these individuals, in order to better understand how experience shapes normative daily behavior, mood fluctuation, self-esteem, and psychological well-being.
3. To explore the relationships of these individuals tapping into the perspectives of family/social networks members who are closest to the criminally involved veterans to better understand how deviance impacts family and social support systems - in addition to considering the complex dynamics of these relationships.

Users should note that this study included interviews, provided in qualitative transcripts. The associated qualitative data is currently not included in this release, but will be provided at a later date.

The purpose of the completed project was to follow the first National Elder Mistreatment Study (NEMS), which provided prevalence estimates, with a second study of a subset of the same participants to measure the effects of elder abuse in terms of (1) health and mental health outcomes and (2) criminal justice system participation and satisfaction, as well as to specify additional predictors of these effects. Data were collected from 774 older adults 8 years following their participation in Wave I of the NEMS. This represented the results of contacting every locatable participant who reported psychological, physical, or sexual (but not financial) abuse at Wave I (achieved subsample n = 183 of the original 753 Wave I victims) and a comparison sample of 591 randomly selected Wave I non-victims from the remaining 2,149 working phone numbers of the original 5,024 non-victims (at Wave I). As mentioned, financial abuse classification at Wave I was not used to identify the victim subgroup prior to sampling, however retrospective analysis indicated that the two aforementioned sampling groups (every working phone number of Wave I victims of psychological, physical, and sexual abuse AND every working phone number of the 2,149 comparison Wave I participants) accounted for all but 7 financial abuse victims identified as such at Wave I (i.e., no other financial abuse victims at Wave I could have possibly been re-contacted). The cooperation rate (upon contact), for Wave I victims of psychological, physical, or sexual abuse was 66 percent; the cooperation rate of comparison Wave I participants was 57 percent. (Note: it had originally been proposed to conduct propensity matching once the sample of Wave I victims was re-contacted, however by conserving funds during this first phase, the study was able to expand from propensity matching to random selection of a much larger group of over 2,149, for a final derived sample of 774.)

In January 2016, the Quattrone Center for the Fair Administration of Justice at the University of Pennsylvania Law School was awarded grant 2015-R2-CX-K040 for a proposal entitled "Instilling a Culture of Continuous Learning from Criminal Justice System Errors: A Multi-Stakeholder Sentinel Events Review of Process in Philadelphia." The work performed under the grant built upon a successful pilot program supported by NIJ, in which a group of criminal justice professionals in Philadelphia, PA conducted a multi-stakeholder sentinel event review (SER) of a criminal case in the United States. The Quattrone Center proposed to build upon the pilot project by implementing the Philadelphia Event Review Team (PERT) as a more permanent working group to identify cases of error in the Philadelphia criminal justice system and conduct sentinel event reviews of those cases over the three-year period of performance for the grant.

The PERT formed a group of dedicated criminal justice professionals across multiple agencies - the Philadelphia District Attorney's Office, the Philadelphia Police Department, the Defender Association of Philadelphia, the 1st Circuit Court of Common Pleas of Pennsylvania, and others - who agreed to meet regularly and review cases where all of the participants felt an undesired outcome had occurred.

The process for conducting the second SER was lengthy and circuitous, and was slowed by a number of factors: the churn of elected and appointed personnel in the participating agencies, the overhang of potential impending litigation on cases being reviewed for possible selection, and in one instance, the inability to waive attorney/client privilege for a defendant whose treatment by the system was viewed as suboptimal by the PERT. Both the successes and the challenges of SERs in criminal justice as experienced by the PERT are set forth below.

The SERs conducted as part of this project followed the definition of SER set forth in the NIJ publication Mending Justice: Sentinel Event Reviews. Sentinel events, which have a history of successful application in fields as diverse as aviation, healthcare, and military operations, are multi-stakeholder reviews of instances of error in complex human systems that seek to reveal and understand the root cause(s) of such "never events" as plane crashes, surgical errors, and other accidents. They involve a formal procedure to review errors in a non-blaming atmosphere and determine ways to avoid such errors in the future.

Applying the methodology of Sentinel Event Reviews (SER) to the criminal justice system involves reviewing a criminal investigation and prosecution that demonstrated some "error," as defined by the participants of the SER. The PERT took the position that any wrongful conviction, cold case, officer-involved shooting, or death of an individual in the custody of the state was by definition a case of error; this definition is completely separate from an assessment of blame and simply held that any instance of these outcomes was per se unwanted, even if such an outcome may have resulted by good faith professionals acting within established training and protocols. The PERT attempted to conduct SERs of selected cases in the criminal justice system using principles of "just culture review," defined as "a culture that recognizes that competent professionals make mistakes and acknowledges that even competent professionals will develop unhealthy norms (shortcuts, "routine rule violations"), but has zero tolerance for reckless behavior." (Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Glossary)

A substantial question regarding the application of SERs to criminal justice was whether the adversarial nature of the criminal justice system, which is different than the structure of the systems in which SERs were originally developed, would be a barrier to their successful application in criminal justice. The adversarial culture unique to the criminal justice process creates additional challenges, including the complexity of gaining consensus from cross-agency participants on the definition or occurrence of errors, the ability to define shared goals within a system, and the ability to implement reforms that require changes in agencies other than one's own. Within that context, the work performed under this grant provides additional information to help answer the questions posed by, and the methodology outlined in, Mending Justice--namely, (1) how might SERs be applied to the criminal justice system; (2) can they effectively reduce future errors; and (3) is this approach sustainable?

The datasets are the result of two data requests. The first data request asked for appeals court cases for the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas involving criminal cases with an appeal filed from 1/1/2011 through 12/31/2015 as recorded in the Pennsylvania Appellate Court Management System (PACMS). The second data request asked for data on case level data related to the criminal cases disposed in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas from 11/17/2006 through 11/17/2016 with one of the following final case dispositions: dismissed, judgement of acquittal, mistrial, nolle prossed, nolle prossed (case dismissed), quashed, demurrer sustained, or withdrawn. For each kind of data (cases, case dispositions, offenses, offense dispositions, docket entries) there are two files, one for each of the data requests. The two files for each type of data share the same structure and fields.

The major objective of this project was to investigate photo array composition in order to improve eyewitness identification procedures. Photo array composition involves the fillers, or known-innocent individuals that police add to a photo array so that the perpetrator/suspect (referred to as the "target" in experimental design) does not stand out. An unbiased (fair) photo array contains fillers that match the description of the suspect provided by one or more eyewitnesses. In contrast, in a biased photo array, the suspect stands out from the fillers. Another popular procedure used by police is the showup, when the suspect is presented without any fillers. This project involved all three of these procedures.

This collection contains raw and aggregated data from 12 sets of experiments that investigated different aspects of eyewitness identification, including fair vs. biased lineups, lineup size, distinctive facial features, target-filler similarity, impact of sleep on eyewitness accuracy, memory strength, number of suspects presented, impact of courtroom instructions and expert expertise, and speed and confidence of eyewitness identification. Each experiment set followed a similar general design, with variations based on the purpose and hypotheses of the specific study. United States-based adult participants recruited via SurveyMonkey were asked to complete an online experiment in which they would be presented with a crime vignette and a suspect facial image (created from a faces database), given a distractor task, and then asked to select the suspect from a lineup and rate the confidence level of their decision.

The data were provided to ICPSR in Excel workbook format (41 data files, 3 codebooks) and are available for download as a zipped package. ICPSR has not modified the files from the format in which they were supplied. Data files are organized into subfolders that are named with a short content descriptor and citation of the relevant publication. Unless noted, data files contain a "codes" sheet that explains the variables and experimental condition groups. Articles and theses/dissertations that used each dataset are available under Data-related Publications. Please refer to the ICPSR README for more information.

The effective treatment of youth with co-occurring mental health and substance use disorders placed in juvenile justice residential facilities aims to effect positive change among youth in the system's care and promote public safety. This study aimed to examine the prevalence of co-occurring disorders among a multiyear, statewide sample of youth completing residential placement within the juvenile justice system in the state of Florida.

• Determine the prevalence of mental health and substance use disorders, and their co-occurrence among youth placed in long-term juvenile justice facilities across the state of Florida
• Assess the impact of service matching to assessed dynamic risk factors, dosage of intervention services actually provided to each youth, and treatment quality/fidelity of those interventions on both changes in risk and protective factors during placement and post-release recidivism outcomes
• provide policy recommendations related to the efficacy of best practices through the combination of service matching/dosage/treatment quality of treatment within residential facilities among youth presenting with co-occurring disorders

In order to investigate whether reductions to sentence length reduce recidivism and its related costs, the research team conducted two studies under the same NIJ grant.

In Study 1, the research team used a quasi-experimental approach to examine how sentence length influenced time to rearrest. Specifically, the team estimated an instrumental variable hazard model using variation stemming from the implementation of South Dakota's Public Safety Improvement Act of 2013 (SB70). SB70 was a major sentencing reform that reduced the likelihood of incarceration and the length of sentence for certain non-violent offenses. The legislation was a response to high rates of incarceration and rising criminal justice costs with a particular focus on addressing individuals convicted of non-violent offenses. The goal was to improve public safety while reducing corrections spending. For grand theft below $5,000 and third-degree burglary, the reform reduced the severity of the felony class and the maximum allowed sentence length by 50% to 80%. Only certain offenses were subject to sentencing reductions such that unaffected offense types were included in the analysis as a comparison group.

In Study 2, the research team applied the logic of recurring event hazard models that predicted the probability of events over time with two distinct objectives: to identify desisters and to estimate the impact of life events on the longitudinal pattern of offending. Administrative data from the North Carolina Department of Public Safety (NCDPS) Division of Adult Correction were obtained to answer this research question. The team connected commonly used trajectory models to recurrent event survival models.

This collection contains only syntax files and documentation that were created for Study 1 (South Dakota). The P.I. codebook reflects the dataset that was created for analysis, though the data are not available. Please refer to the User Guide for more information. While Study 2's (North Carolina) methodology is described, please note that, excluding the NIJ Final Report, no Study 2 materials are available through ICPSR.

The Survey of Sexual Victimization (SSV) is part of BJS's National Prison Rape Statistics Program, which gathers mandated data on the incidence and prevalence of sexual victimization in adult correctional and juvenile justice facilities, under the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 (PREA; P.L. 108-79). This is an administrative data collection based on allegations of sexual victimization by other adjudicated juveniles or staff that are reported to authorities. The collection includes an enumeration of allegations and substantiated incidents reported to juvenile justice systems operated by states and the District of Columbia and tribal juvenile facilities and a sample of local and private juvenile justice facilities.

In 2013, correctional administrators reported 1,883 allegations of sexual victimization. This total contains all allegations of five types of victimization measured by the SSV - youth-on-youth nonconsensual sexual acts, abusive sexual contacts, and sexual harassment as well as staff-on-youth sexual misconduct and sexual harassment. Of those allegations, 394 were substantiated after investigation.

The Survey of Sexual Victimization (SSV) is part of BJS's National Prison Rape Statistics Program, which gathers mandated data on the incidence and prevalence of sexual victimization in adult correctional and juvenile justice facilities, under the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 (PREA; P.L. 108-79). This is an administrative data collection based on allegations of sexual victimization by other adjudicated juveniles or staff that are reported to authorities. The collection includes an enumeration of allegations and substantiated incidents reported to juvenile justice systems operated by states and the District of Columbia and tribal juvenile facilities and a sample of local and private juvenile justice facilities.

In 2014, correctional administrators reported 2,915 allegations of sexual victimization. This total contains all allegations of five types of victimization measured by the SSV - youth-on-youth nonconsensual sexual acts, abusive sexual contacts, and sexual harassment as well as staff-on-youth sexual misconduct and sexual harassment. Of those allegations, 564 were substantiated after investigation.

The Survey of Sexual Victimization (SSV) is part of BJS's National Prison Rape Statistics Program, which gathers mandated data on the incidence and prevalence of sexual victimization in adult correctional and juvenile justice facilities, under the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 (PREA; P.L. 108-79). This is an administrative data collection based on allegations of sexual victimization by other adjudicated juveniles or staff that are reported to authorities. The collection includes an enumeration of allegations and substantiated incidents reported to juvenile justice systems operated by states and the District of Columbia and tribal juvenile facilities and a sample of local and private juvenile justice facilities.

In 2015, correctional administrators reported 3,150 allegations of sexual victimization. This total contains all allegations of five types of victimization measured by the SSV - youth-on-youth nonconsensual sexual acts, abusive sexual contacts, and sexual harassment as well as staff-on-youth sexual misconduct and sexual harassment. Of those allegations, 642 were substantiated after investigation.

The Survey of Sexual Victimization (SSV) is part of BJS's National Prison Rape Statistics Program, which gathers mandated data on the incidence and prevalence of sexual victimization in adult correctional and juvenile justice facilities, under the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 (PREA; P.L. 108-79). This is an administrative data collection based on allegations of sexual victimization by other adjudicated juveniles or staff that are reported to authorities. The collection includes an enumeration of allegations and substantiated incidents reported to juvenile justice systems operated by states and the District of Columbia and tribal juvenile facilities and a sample of local and private juvenile justice facilities.

In 2016, correctional administrators reported 3,740 allegations of sexual victimization. This total contains all allegations of five types of victimization measured by the SSV - youth-on-youth nonconsensual sexual acts, abusive sexual contacts, and sexual harassment as well as staff-on-youth sexual misconduct and sexual harassment. Of those allegations, 738 were substantiated after investigation.

The Survey of Sexual Victimization (SSV) is part of BJS's National Prison Rape Statistics Program, which gathers mandated data on the incidence and prevalence of sexual victimization in adult correctional and juvenile justice facilities, under the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 (PREA; P.L. 108-79). This is an administrative data collection based on allegations of sexual victimization by other adjudicated juveniles or staff that are reported to authorities. The collection includes an enumeration of allegations and substantiated incidents reported to juvenile justice systems operated by states and the District of Columbia and tribal juvenile facilities and a sample of local and private juvenile justice facilities.

In 2017, correctional administrators reported 3,592 allegations of sexual victimization. This total contains all allegations of five types of victimization measured by the SSV - youth-on-youth nonconsensual sexual acts, abusive sexual contacts, and sexual harassment as well as staff-on-youth sexual misconduct and sexual harassment. Of those allegations, 599 were substantiated after investigation.

The Survey of Sexual Victimization (SSV) is part of BJS's National Prison Rape Statistics Program, which gathers mandated data on the incidence and prevalence of sexual victimization in adult correctional and juvenile justice facilities, under the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 (PREA; P.L. 108-79). This is an administrative data collection based on allegations of sexual victimization by other adjudicated juveniles or staff that are reported to authorities. The collection includes an enumeration of allegations and substantiated incidents reported to juvenile justice systems operated by states and the District of Columbia and tribal juvenile facilities and a sample of local and private juvenile justice facilities.

In 2018, correctional administrators reported 3,692 allegations of sexual victimization. This total contains all allegations of five types of victimization measured by the SSV - youth-on-youth nonconsensual sexual acts, abusive sexual contacts, and sexual harassment as well as staff-on-youth sexual misconduct and sexual harassment. Of those allegations, 627 were substantiated after investigation.

The Survey of Sexual Victimization (SSV) is part of BJS's National Prison Rape Statistics Program, which gathers mandated data on the incidence and prevalence of sexual victimization in adult correctional and juvenile justice facilities, under the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 (PREA; P.L. 108-79). This is an administrative data collection based on allegations of sexual victimization by other incarcerated adults or staff that are reported to authorities. The collection includes an enumeration of allegations and substantiated incidents reported to state prison systems; the federal prison system; U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE); the U.S. military; and a sample of jail jurisdictions, privately operated adult prisons and jails, and facilities in Indian country.

In 2016, correctional administrators reported 36,265 allegations of sexual victimization. This total contains all allegations of five types of victimization measured by the SSV - inmate-on-inmate nonconsensual sexual acts, abusive sexual contacts, and sexual harassment as well as staff-on-inmate sexual misconduct and sexual harassment. Of those allegations, 2,818 were substantiated after investigation.

The Survey of Sexual Victimization (SSV) is part of BJS's National Prison Rape Statistics Program, which gathers mandated data on the incidence and prevalence of sexual victimization in adult correctional and juvenile justice facilities, under the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 (PREA; P.L. 108-79). This is an administrative data collection based on allegations of sexual victimization by other incarcerated adults or staff that are reported to authorities. The collection includes an enumeration of allegations and substantiated incidents reported to state prison systems; the federal prison system; U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE); the U.S. military; and a sample of jail jurisdictions, privately operated adult prisons and jails, and facilities in Indian country.

In 2017, correctional administrators reported 35,206 allegations of sexual victimization. This total contains all allegations of five types of victimization measured by the SSV - inmate-on-inmate nonconsensual sexual acts, abusive sexual contacts, and sexual harassment as well as staff-on-inmate sexual misconduct and sexual harassment. Of those allegations, 2,720 were substantiated after investigation.

The Survey of Sexual Victimization (SSV) is part of BJS's National Prison Rape Statistics Program, which gathers mandated data on the incidence and prevalence of sexual victimization in adult correctional and juvenile justice facilities, under the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 (PREA; P.L. 108-79). This is an administrative data collection based on allegations of sexual victimization by other incarcerated adults or staff that are reported to authorities. The collection includes an enumeration of allegations and substantiated incidents reported to state prison systems; the federal prison system; U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE); the U.S. military; and a sample of jail jurisdictions, privately operated adult prisons and jails, and facilities in Indian country.

In 2018, correctional administrators reported 37,688 allegations of sexual victimization. This total contains all allegations of five types of victimization measured by the SSV - inmate-on-inmate nonconsensual sexual acts, abusive sexual contacts, and sexual harassment as well as staff-on-inmate sexual misconduct and sexual harassment. Of those allegations, 2,873 were substantiated after investigation.

The Survey of Sexual Victimization (SSV) is part of BJS's National Prison Rape Statistics Program, which gathers mandated data on the incidence and prevalence of sexual victimization in adult correctional and juvenile justice facilities, under the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 (PREA; P.L. 108-79). This is an administrative data collection based on allegations of sexual victimization by other incarcerated adults or staff that are reported to authorities. The collection includes an enumeration of allegations and substantiated incidents reported to state prison systems; the federal prison system; U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE); the U.S. military; and a sample of jail jurisdictions, privately operated adult prisons and jails, and facilities in Indian country.

In 2019, correctional administrators reported 38,132 allegations of sexual victimization. This total contains all allegations of five types of victimization measured by the SSV - inmate-on-inmate nonconsensual sexual acts, abusive sexual contacts, and sexual harassment as well as staff-on-inmate sexual misconduct and sexual harassment. Of those allegations, 3,684 were substantiated after investigation.

The Survey of Sexual Victimization (SSV) is part of BJS's National Prison Rape Statistics Program, which gathers mandated data on the incidence and prevalence of sexual victimization in adult correctional and juvenile justice facilities, under the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 (PREA; P.L. 108-79). This is an administrative data collection based on allegations of sexual victimization by other incarcerated adults or staff that are reported to authorities. The collection includes an enumeration of allegations and substantiated incidents reported to state prison systems; the federal prison system; U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE); the U.S. military; and a sample of jail jurisdictions, privately operated adult prisons and jails, and facilities in Indian country.

In 2020, correctional administrators reported 36,264 allegations of sexual victimization. This total contains all allegations of the five types of victimization measures by the SSV - inmate-on-inmate nonconsensual sexual acts, abusive sexual contacts, and sexual harassment, as well as staff-on-inmate sexual misconduct and sexual harassment. Of those allegations, 2,351 were substantiated after investigation.

To address the relative difficulty in predicting domestic violence incidents and effectively targeting resources, the University of Chicago Crime Lab and the New York Police Department (NYPD) collaborated to develop and test a machine learning-based statistical model to predict the risk of domestic violence victimization in New York City.

Phase 1 of the project was to develop a statistical model using machine learning techniques. NYPD administrative records dated between January 2006 and January 2017 were used as input data to build and refine the tool. Due to the lack of unique identifiers for victims in the records, the research team also used data from the Chicago Police Department to create a probabilistic record linkage toolkit (Name Match) to identify which records belonged to the same person within and across data sources.

In Phase 2, the researchers aimed to field test the tool's capability to identify individuals at risk of repeated domestic violence through a large-scale randomized control trial. Measuring the effects of regular home visits of high-priority individuals thought to be at risk of serious domestic assault, the test intended to compare the selections of individuals made by officers versus those predicted by the tool.

This collection contains only the machine learning code files (R and Python) created during secondary analysis, which have been released as a zipped package. Please refer to the Data Roadmap for instructions on how to obtain the original NYPD data. To access the Name Change algorithm and documentation, please visit the Github repository.

Research Triangle Institute (RTI) International, in partnership with MD Consulting, conducted a researcher-survivor-ally participatory process evaluation of the Task Force on Anti-Human Trafficking in San Francisco. The purpose of the Task Force is to review current efforts to improve the city's response to human trafficking and identify gaps in services for survivors. Participants include representatives from social service organizations, law enforcement, community-based organizations, philanthropic and advocacy groups, and concerned citizens.

This study included an integrated, multi-level approach of community involvement. People who have experienced a severe form of human trafficking are represented at all levels of the research process, including that of co-principal investigator (co-PI), research assistants (RAs) and members of the Community Advisory Board (CAB). The goals of this evaluation were to evaluate components of task force implementation through a comprehensive process evaluation, conduct a secondary analysis of law enforcement data, and create a research infrastructure that supports the intellectual and career development of people who have experienced trafficking.

Guided by a life course perspective, this study used a mixed methodological approach (i.e., quantitative administrative data and qualitative interviews) to identify the differences in events, motivations, and experiences related to gang affiliation and the differences across (a) system-documented, gang-involved individuals, (b) system-documented gang-involved individuals who have gang-involved family members, and (c) other high-risk youth who are suspected of involvement. The overall goal of this research was to identify distinct pathways to gang activity that could inform practitioners and policymakers about useful intervention strategies. The study context was specific to Multnomah County, Oregon.

To achieve this, separate and distinct juvenile and adult systems databases were integrated to create critical linkages between juvenile services data (including risk assessments), adult community corrections data, and federal corrections data (n=2,210 individual records). This allowed for the examination of the trajectory of each individual - regardless of gang system documented gang status - from juvenile services through state adult corrections through federal adult corrections. It also permitted the investigation into the similarities or differences among different system-identified groups (i.e., gang involved, suspected gang involved, or no documentation of gang involvement). Additionally, the inclusion of familial and peer criminal justice records and system gang identification enabled the research team to control for family and peer influences while focusing on how the father's criminality and gang status might be a risk factor for youth criminal legal involvement and escalation into the adult system. Research questions for the quantitative data collection were:

1. What aspects of early criminal offending and other problematic behaviors differ between gang-affiliated youth, gang-affiliated youth with gang-involved parents, and other high-risk youth?
2. Are there significant differences in the likelihood of youth escalation into the adult criminal justice system and the Federal Corrections System between gang-affiliated youth, gang-affiliated youth with gang-involved parents, and other high-risk youth?
3. Are there consistent age-related trends in risk as measured by the Juvenile Crime Prevention (JCP) tool? Do these trends vary by gang-affiliated youth, gang-affiliated youth with gang-involved parents, and other high-risk youth?
4. What is the timing of important life events across the life course of justice-involved youth? Does the timing differ between gang-affiliated youth, gang-affiliated youth with gang-involved parents, and other high-risk youth?
5. Does the close proximity of the timing of these life events increase the likelihood of youth escalation into the adult criminal justice system and the Federal Corrections System? Do these predictions differ between gang-affiliated youth, gang-affiliated youth with gang-involved parents, and other high-risk youth?
6. How do parental offending and incarceration patterns predict their child's likelihood of becoming gang-affiliated and likelihood of escalation into the adult criminal justice system?
7. How do the answers to the above research questions vary by youth race, ethnicity, geography, and offense type?

In addition to quantitative measures of gang pathways, semi-structured interviews were conducted with two groups: gang-affiliated and gang-involved youth supervised in the Department of Community Justice Gang Unit during the study time period (n=32), and corrections staff who had current or previous experience working with gang-affiliated or gang-involved youth (n=12). Original research questions for the qualitative data collection were:

1. What are the critical transition periods for becoming gang-affiliated, and how are they experienced as an emotional event and/or a deliberate decision? How do these differ between individuals who have no criminal justice system involved family members, individuals with criminal justice involved family members, and individuals with gang-affiliated family members?
2. What is the relational and emotional experience of recruiting a familial relation to gang affiliation, and of being recruited by a familial relation to gang affiliation and gang activities?
3. What are the motivations for recruiting a familial relation into gang affiliation, and for allowing oneself to be successfully recruited by a family member?
4. What are the methods employed by gang-affiliated individuals in recruiting their family members?
5. Do the recruiter and recruited have significant or patterned differences in the event and experience of recruitment into gang affiliation and activities?
6. Do the recruiter and recruited have significant or patterned differences in their views and experiences of the criminal justice system?

Qualitative data will be made available in a future update.

With the growing popularity, technological ease of using propensity score modeling (PSM), and the concern over its reliability and validity among scholars and practitioners, the researchers aimed to answer whether PSM methods can replicate the results from randomized controlled trials (RCTs). In this secondary data analysis, the researchers gathered the datasets of 10 publicly available and restricted RCT studies from the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data (NACJD), introduced an artificial selection bias into the treatment groups of these investigations, and then used each PSM technique to remove this selection bias. The team then compared the results generated from the PSM methods to those derived from the original RCT experiments, and meta-analyzed the findings across all studies to reveal the true reliability and validity of PSM in relation to RCTs using criminal justice data.

For each study used in this analysis, the researchers created SPSS syntax for variable recodes and artificial bias creation and a codebook with original study items, recoded variables, and analytic variables. (In one study, two RCTs were conducted and thus two sets of syntax and codebooks were created.) Seven text files contain the Stata and R code used to run each PSM technique. These materials have been zipped into a package and are available for restricted download. Please refer to the ICPSR README for more information.

The evaluation of the Honest Opportunity Probation with Enforcement Demonstration Field Experiment (HOPE DFE) was a four-site, randomized controlled trial replicating a Hawaii probation program widely touted as successful in reducing drug use, violations, and reincarceration. HOPE is based on "swift, certain, and fair" principles, beginning with a warning hearing from a judge and requiring strict adherence to supervision requirements, including random drug testing, with all violations followed by hearings and jail sanctions. Treatment is for those who repeatedly fail random tests. Grants and technical assistance were provided to the sites (Saline County, Arkansas; Essex County, Massachusetts; Clackamas County, Oregon; Tarrant County, Texas) by the Bureau of Justice Assistance to facilitate implementation. The evaluation documented implementation and fidelity, tested outcomes (primarily recidivism), and estimated costs.

1,504 individuals who met eligibility criteria for HOPE were randomly assigned to HOPE or to probation as usual (PAU) between August 2012 and September 2014. Phases of the study included a process evaluation with fidelity analysis, outcomes evaluation, and cost evaluation. Data collection activities included site visits, documentation review, stakeholder interviews, procuring administrative records, conducting interviews for probationers at three different timepoints (baseline, 6 months, 12 months), drug testing oral swabs, and a weekly telephone-based interview with a subset of probationers to assess attitudinal changes.

The importance of strong and supportive relationships between fathers and children -- and the effects they can have on a child's development -- is well established. Some fathers face personal or societal barriers to positive involvement with their children such as low levels of education, stigma from criminal records, declining wages for low-skilled men, or family instability. Fathers who live apart from their children may be at a particular disadvantage. These obstacles interfere with fathers' capacity to provide financial and emotional support for their children, which is critical to a solid foundation for child well-being. Responsible Fatherhood programs aim to improve the well-being of low-income fathers and their children by addressing these types of barriers.

Since 2006, Responsible Fatherhood programs across the country have received federal funding administered by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Family Assistance (OFA). These programs aim to promote positive father-child interactions, improve parents' relationship with each other, and build fathers' economic stability. Since their inception, Responsible Fatherhood programs have been evaluated to build evidence and determine their ability to achieve these goals. Past studies have found little evidence that Responsible Fatherhood programs are effective at improving the quality of father/child relationships. The limited evidence of effectiveness of prior programs motivated a search to identify new and innovative approaches.

The Administration for Children and Families (ACF) Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation (OPRE), with funding from OFA, initiated the Building Bridges and Bonds (B3) study in collaboration with researchers, practitioners, and fathers in an effort to identify and rigorously test new and promising ways to help fathers with low incomes improve relationships with their children and work toward economic stability. The B3 study design added three new program component enhancements to the usual services offered by existing Responsible Fatherhood programs at six program sites, and estimated the impacts of each added component.

1. The Cognitive Behavioral Intervention for Justice Involved Individuals Seeking Employment (CBI-Emp), which works with fathers with recent involvement in the criminal justice system and aims to help them find and keep better jobs by improving coping skills and encouraging positive thoughts, attitudes, and behaviors.
2. Just Beginning (JB) a parenting intervention that works with fathers and their young children together to improve the quality of father-child interactions.
3. The DadTime engagement intervention, a smartphone app that aims to improve fathers' participation in the program by guiding and supporting them in making and following through on plans for attending Just Beginning workshops. It also prompts them to practice skills learned in the parenting intervention.

The overall purpose of this mixed methods, multi-site study was to explore the use of restrictive housing in United States prisons and jails from the perspective of incarcerated individuals and corrections officers who work in restrictive housing units. Restrictive housing, also known as solitary confinement or segregation, is defined as keeping an incarcerated person in their cell for 22 or more hours per day.

To study the extent to which exposure to restrictive housing affects outcomes (i.e., mental/physical health problems, deterrence from future misconduct) for incarcerated individuals, the research team collected administrative records of housing moves ("stints") from the Colorado Department of Corrections and Missouri Department of Corrections. Records are available for all individuals incarcerated between January 1, 2015 and December 31, 2017. Data from Colorado includes roughly 1.3 million observations from 39,849 incarcerations. Data from Missouri includes roughly 1.1 million observations from 79,208 incarcerations. To study the impact of working in restrictive housing units on officers' physical, emotional, and mental wellbeing, the team administered surveys to officers working in correctional facilities in Missouri (n=376), North Carolina (n=249), and Oregon (site 1 n=47, site 2 n=133).

The research team also conducted officer focus groups, interviews with agency leadership, observations of restrictive housing and general population units, and a national comprehensive survey about the use of restrictive housing in jails. Only the administrative records and officer wellbeing survey data are available in this collection.

The Center for Court Innovation, in partnership with independent consultants from the public defender's office of certain tribes, conducted a comprehensive survey of tribal justice system stakeholders, focused on the existing use of risk-needs assessments and similar tools, and existing data collection/technology used by tribal jurisdictions around the country. The survey results create a comprehensive portrait of tribal court system risk and need assessment, data collection, management, and challenges reported by those directly involved in managing and working with people in the system.

With state courts facing record-breaking caseloads and tightening budgets, jurisdictions around the country have begun to seek alternatives to traditional case processing as early as possible in the criminal justice process. One existing alternative is prosecutor-led diversion, a model which allows jurisdictions to reroute low-level offenders from traditional case-processing at the front-end of the justice process, in many cases prior to formal charge or arraignment. Although prosecutor-led diversion programs (PDPs) have been a part of the American legal landscape for several decades, there is little to no descriptive literature of the model and only sporadic impact evaluations of specific programs. In response, the Center for Court Innovation, the RAND Corporation, and the Association of Prosecuting Attorneys conducted a national, multi-method study with the following goals: (1) to synthesize existing knowledge of PDPs, (2) to produce a rich understanding of existing programs through in-depth case studies of programs in 11 sites nationwide, including program goals, target populations, and policies, and (3) to test PDP effectiveness in reducing recidivism, incarceration, psychosocial problems, and costs to the society and the economy through a prospective impact evaluation of 5 programs at 3 sites. Phase 1 consisted of in-depth interviews with key stakeholders at the 11 sites. Phase 2 consisted of focus groups with program participants, and an impact study of the effects of PDPs on case disposition, use of jail, re-arrest, and cost effectiveness.

This collection includes data from the Phase 2 impact study. Five programs from 3 of the 11 sites (Cook County, Illinois, Chittenden County, Vermont, and Milwaukee County, Wisconsin) were selected for quasi-experimental impact evaluations. For each program, the research team obtained a de-identified dataset containing demographics, criminal histories, and instant case outcomes.

The National Juvenile Court Data Archive houses over 15 million automated records of cases handled by courts with juvenile jurisdiction. Although some states' data contain traffic and dependency cases, the majority are delinquency and status offense records. The collection itself dates back to the 1920s when it was under the Children's Bureau, however in 1974 the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), within the U.S. Department of Justice assumed responsibility for the work of promoting access to automated juvenile court data sets for juvenile justice research and policymaking efforts.

The Archive contains the most detailed information available on juveniles involved in the juvenile justice system and on the activities of U.S. juvenile courts. The Archive houses a sizable collection of automated juvenile court data files that not only support the national estimates but also support the study of a wide range of national and subnational juvenile justice issues. Designed to facilitate research on the juvenile justice system, the Archive's data files are available to policy-makers, researchers, students, and the public. The data have been used to explore a broad range of topics, from investigating the effectiveness of juvenile court programs and examining policy developments in individual jurisdictions, to monitoring the impact of legislative changes, and guiding juvenile justice system reform.

This study seeks to examine important components of our nation's sex offender tracking and monitoring systems, with a focus on risk assessment and sexual recidivism (measured by re-arrest). Data were collected from 1,789 adult sex offenders in the following states.

• Florida: 500 cases
• Minnesota: 500 cases
• New Jersey: 291 cases
• South Carolina: 498 cases

The data file contains another 551 cases from the state of Massachusetts. However, due to how and when those cases were identified they were not included in the Principal Investigator's focus and analysis. There are also another 151 cases where a study participant's state is missing. Total there are 2,491 cases and 1,947 variables.

The cross-site evaluation of the Adult Offender Reentry Demonstration Projects (AORDP) was a seven-site study designed to 1) describe the implementation and sustainability of each AORDP project through a process evaluation, 2) determine the per capita program costs of each AORDP project through a cost study, and 3) determine the effectiveness of the programs through a multicomponent outcome study. The seven evaluation sites were located in California, Connecticut, Florida, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. The objectives of the outcome evaluation were to determine the effects of program participation on recidivism and other outcomes and assess whether program participation increased engagement in services, including substance abuse treatment and mental health services. The outcome evaluation consisted of two components:

1. Cross-site prospective study designed to collect longitudinal survey data with a sample of program participants and appropriate comparison or control subjects to assess the impact of the SCA funding on access to services and reentry outcomes, such as substance use, employment, housing, and health.

2. Site-specific recidivism analyses using administrative data to assess the impact of AORDP program participation on recidivism outcomes for all individuals enrolled in the AORDP programs and a matched comparison group in each site

Do post-incarceration partner violence experiences in justice-involved couples conform to the most widely used evidence based typology of partner violence in the general population (Johnson, 2008)? What aspects of social context at the individual, couple/family, and community levels shape post-incarceration partner violence experiences? Do couple/family-level social context factors mediate the observed relationship between the identified community-level influences and experiences of partner violence? What social context factors at the individual, couple/family, and community levels do members of justice-involved couples see as shaping their experiences of partner violence?

Victim advocates and criminal justice system personnel have long recognized the importance of context in guiding victim services and criminal justice system responses to violence, yet little evidence exists to guide such approaches. Despite the very high prevalence of post-incarceration partner violence observed in the first study to rigorously measure it (the Multi-site Study on Incarceration, Parenting, and Partnering), little is known of the social contextual factors that shape violent victimization in justice-involved couples. The Post-Incarceration Partner Violence: Examining the Social Context of Victimization to Inform Victim Services and Prevention study addressed this gap by assessing the role of contextual factors that empirical and theoretical work suggests could affect partner violence in this vulnerable population. This secondary analysis study drew on longitudinal data from the MFS-IP dataset and other public sources to develop an actionable understanding of the social contexts that influence the observed high prevalence of violence in a sample of couples that have contact with the criminal justice system but are disconnected from formal service delivery systems or other sources of help. The researcher conducted a theory-driven typology analysis to describe the social context of post-incarceration partner violence at the couple level, and utilized quantitative modeling and in-depth qualitative analysis to assess the individual-, couple/family-, and community-level contexts that shape partner violence.