Search results

The Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement (CJRP), conducted every other year, asks juvenile residential custody facilities in the United States to describe all youth assigned to a bed in the facility on a specified reference date. In 2019, the reference date was Wednesday, October 23 (the fourth Wednesday in October).

Each record in the data provides information on a juvenile in a residential facility on the reference date, including information on placement (e.g., placing agency), the judicial process (e.g., court adjudication status), and demographics (e.g., age). Each record that provides information about a juvenile also includes information about institutional characteristics (e.g., facility type, use of locked doors or gates), treatment services, and population of the facility in which the juvenile was held. Therefore, CJRP data can be analyzed at the individual or facility level.

The census was not sent to adult facilities or to facilities exclusively for drug or mental health treatment or for abused or neglected children. Some state and regional agencies provide CJRP data for more than one facility under their jurisdiction.

The Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement (CJRP), conducted every other year, asks juvenile residential custody facilities in the United States to describe all youth assigned a bed in the facility on a specified reference date. In 2021, the reference date was Wednesday, October 27 (the fourth Wednesday in October).

Each record in the data provides information on a juvenile in a residential facility on the reference date, including information on placement (e.g. placing agency), the judicial process (e.g. court adjudication status), and demographics (e.g. age). Each record that provides information about a juvenile also includes information about institutional characteristics (e.g. facility type, use of locked doors or gates), treatment services, and population of the facility in which the juvenile was held. Therefore, CJRP data can be analyzed at the individual or facility level.

The census was not sent to adult facilities or to facilities exclusively for drug or mental health treatment or for abused or neglected children. Some state and regional agencies provide CJRP data for more than one facility under their jurisdiction.

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 Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement (CJRP), conducted every other year, asks juvenile residential custody facilities in the United States to describe all youth assigned a bed in the facility on a specified reference date. In 2017, the reference date was Wednesday, October 25 (the fourth Wednesday in October).

Each record in the data provides information on a juvenile in a residential facility on the reference date, including information on placement (e.g. placing agency), the judicial process (e.g. court adjudication status), and demographics (e.g. age). Each record that provides information about a juvenile also includes information about institutional characteristics (e.g. facility type, use of locked doors or gates), treatment services, and population of the facility in which the juvenile was held. Therefore, CJRP data can be analyzed at the individual or facility level.

The census was not sent to adult facilities or to facilities exclusively for drug or mental health treatment or for abused or neglected children. Some state and regional agencies provide CJRP data for more than one facility under their jurisdiction.

The Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement (CJRP), conducted every other year, asks juvenile residential custody facilities in the United States to describe all youth assigned a bed in the facility on a specified reference date. In 2015, the reference date was Wednesday, October 28 (the fourth Wednesday in October).

Each record in the data provides information on a juvenile in a residential facility on the reference date, including information on placement (e.g. placing agency), the judicial process (e.g. court adjudication status), and demographics (e.g. age). Each record that provides information about a juvenile also includes information about institutional characteristics (e.g. facility type, use of locked doors or gates), treatment services, and population of the facility in which the juvenile was held. Therefore, CJRP data can be analyzed at the individual or facility level.

The census was not sent to adult facilities or to facilities exclusively for drug or mental health treatment or for abused or neglected children. Some state and regional agencies provide CJRP data for more than one facility under their jurisdiction.

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

In this study, researchers used capture-recapture sampling and multiple data sources to gauge the impact of drug trafficking in Quebec, Canada on the United States drug market. The main analyses were based on arrest data that were obtained for Quebec. In addition, analysis of the chemical composition and price assessments of the Quebec synthetic drugs was done.

The study includes one SPSS data file (Quebec Arrest Data (Synthetic Drugs Cases, September 2014; n=20261)-ICPSR.sav ; n=20,261 ; 13 variables) and one Excel data file (Chemical composition of seized synthetic drugs.xls ; n=365 ; 14 variables).

Spatial analyses of border seizure data was performed by the researchers, but these data are not available at this time. The data used for these analyses concerned synthetic drug seizures at Canadian borders from 2007 to 2012. The dataset was provided by the Canadian Border Services Agency (CBSA). For each seizure, the specific border crossing where the seizure was made was provided, as well as the value of the seizure (except for precursors), the country of origin and the type of drug seized. The types of drugs were classified into five types: (1) Precursors, (2) MDMA, (3) Amphetamine, (4) Methamphetamine and (5) Others. Most of the seizures (86.6 percent) were classified in this last category. The country of origin of the seizure was also provided.

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

The study involved a three-year evaluation of two efforts to target crime stemming from the Southern Border of the United States - one which funded greater participation by local officers on four FBI-led multi-jurisdictional task forces (MJTFs) and another that created a new multi-jurisdictional team. As part of this evaluation, researchers documented the level of inter-agency collaboration and communication when the project began, gathered information regarding the benefits and challenges of MJTF participation, measured the level of communication and collaboration, and tracked a variety of outcomes specific to the funded MJTFs, as well as three comparison MJTFs. Multiple methodologies were used to achieve these goals including surveys of task forces, law enforcement stakeholders, and community residents; law enforcement focus groups; program observations; and analysis of archival data related to staffing costs; task force activities; task force target criminal history; and prosecution outcomes.

The study is comprised of several data files in SPSS format:

• Imperial County Law Enforcement Stakeholder Survey Data (35 cases and 199 variables)
• Imperial County Resident Survey (402 cases and 70 variables)
• Imperial Task Force Survey (6 cases and 84 variables)
• Prosecution Outcome Data (1,973 cases and 115 variables)
• San Diego County Resident Survey (402 cases and 69 variables)
• San Diego Law Enforcement Stakeholder Survey (460 cases and 353 variables)
• San Diego Task Force Survey (18 cases and 101 variables)
• Staff and Cost Measures Data (7 cases and 61 variables)
• Criminal Activity Data (110 cases and 50 variables)

Additionally, Calls for Service Data, Countywide Arrest Data, and Data used for Social Network Analysis are available in Excel format.

The Drug Market Intervention (DMI) has been identified as a promising practice for disrupting overt-drug markets, reducing the crime and disorder associated with drug sales, and improving police-community relations. Montgomery County, Maryland; Flint, Michigan; Guntersville, Alabama; Lake County, Indiana; Jacksonville, Florida; New Orleans, Louisiana; and Roanoke, Virginia applied for and received DMI training and technical assistance from Michigan State University in 2010 and 2011. This study followed the seven sites that were trained in the program to determine how the program was implemented, how the DMI affected the targeted drug market, whether the program affected crime and disorder, whether the program improved police-community relations, and how much the program cost.

The Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement (CJRP), conducted every other year, asks juvenile residential custody facilities in the United States to describe all youth assigned a bed in the facility on a specified reference date. In 2011, the reference date was Wednesday, October 26 (the last Wednesday in October).

Each record in the data provides information on a juvenile in a residential facility on the reference date, including information on placement (e.g. placing agency), the judicial process (e.g. court adjudication status), and demographics (e.g. age). Each record that provides information about a juvenile also includes information about institutional characteristics (e.g. facility type, use of locked doors or gates), treatment services, and population of the facility in which the juvenile was held. Therefore, CJRP data can be analyzed at the individual or facility level.

Some state and regional agencies provide CJRP data for more than one facility under their jurisdiction. The census was not sent to adult facilities or to facilities exclusively for drug or mental health treatment or for abused or neglected children.

The Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement (CJRP), conducted every other year, asks juvenile residential custody facilities in the United States to describe all youth assigned a bed in the facility on a specified reference date. In 2013, the reference date was Wednesday, October 23 (the fourth Wednesday in October).

Each record in the data provides information on a juvenile in a residential facility on the reference date, including information on placement (e.g. placing agency), the judicial process (e.g. court adjudication status), and demographics (e.g. age). Each record that provides information about a juvenile also includes information about institutional characteristics (e.g. facility type, use of locked doors or gates), treatment services, and population of the facility in which the juvenile was held. Therefore, CJRP data can be analyzed at the individual or facility level.

The census was not sent to adult facilities or to facilities exclusively for drug or mental health treatment or for abused or neglected children. Some state and regional agencies provide CJRP data for more than one facility under their jurisdiction.

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

This study examines several explanations for the observed racial/ethnic disparities in drug arrests, the consequences of drug arrest on subsequent drug offending and social bonding, and whether these consequences vary by race/ethnicity. The study is a secondary analysis of the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1997 (NLSY97).

Distributed here are the codes used for the secondary analysis and the code to compile the datasets. Please refer to the codebook appendix for instructions on how to obtain all the data used in this study.

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

The purpose of the study was to examine how court decisions and sentencing policy changes have affected sentencing behavior in federal drug trafficking cases. Changes at the district level and in mandatory minimum sentencing were a particular focus.

Data were obtained from the Defendants Sentenced Under the Sentencing Reform Act data from the United States Sentencing Commission from fiscal years 1992-2009. These data were then merged with federal district-level indicators for the 89 federal districts from the Federal Court Management Statistics website, and state level demographic data from the United States Census Bureau. Drug trafficking cases were identified by using the sentencing guideline offense, which resulted in a sample of N=376,637 cases.

The study examined the first five years of operation of Kansas senate bill 123 (November 2003-November 2008) examining individual-level and system-level outcomes over time and across community corrections districts and judicial actors. The study also assesses the impact of SB 123 on the work routines of criminal justice system actors, examining changes in sentencing and supervision practices and interactions across agencies following the implementation of SB 123.

Individual-level impacts of SB 123 on recidivism rates are assessed using sentencing and revocation data collected by the Kansas Sentencing Commission for drug possessors sentenced in Kansas between November 1, 2001 and October 31, 2008 (Dataset 1). Propensity score matching was used to compare the revocation and reconviction rates of drug possessors sentenced to SB 123 with the recidivism rates of similar individuals sentenced to regular probation (standard supervision by community corrections or court services) (Dataset 2). Supervision and program participation data provided by the Kansas Department of Corrections were used to assess the use of drug treatment services, education and employment services, and sanctions for individuals sentenced to SB 123 or standard community corrections (Dataset 3). These quantitative data were complemented by a set qualitative data derived from interviews with SB 123-eligible offenders (Dataset 4), community corrections managers, and courtroom actors (judges, prosecutors, public defenders) (Dataset 5).

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.