Search results

The National Hate Crime Investigation Study (NHCIS) collected detailed data on hate crime investigations from law enforcement agencies (LEAs) across the United States. A nationally representative sample of 2,488 local, county, and state LEAs, stratified by agency type and size, were surveyed about agency-level characteristics and hate crime incidents investigated by their agency between January 1, 2018 and December 31, 2018.

Agency-level surveys collected information about the size of the population the agency serves, the number of full-time sworn officers, total number of hate crime cases reported, National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) participation, hate crime investigation policies and procedures, and whether the agency has conducted outreach to community or local advocacy groups on hate crimes. Case-level surveys and case report data abstraction then captured extensive data about 1,230 hate crime incidents, including crime scene details, investigative strategies, arrests, charges, and court outcomes.

Suspect and victim demographic information in the Case Data file includes sex, gender identity, age, race/ethnicity, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, disability status, and immigration status.

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.

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT IN THE UNITED STATES, 1973-2018 provides annual data on prisoners under a sentence of death, as well as those who had their sentences commuted or vacated and prisoners who were executed. This study examines basic sociodemographic classifications including age, sex, race and ethnicity, marital status at time of imprisonment, level of education, and state and region of incarceration. Criminal history information includes prior felony convictions and prior convictions for criminal homicide and the legal status at the time of the capital offense. Additional information is provided on those inmates removed from death row by yearend 2018. The dataset consists of one part which contains 9,583 cases. The file provides information on inmates whose death sentences were removed in addition to information on those inmates who were executed. The file also gives information about inmates who received a second death sentence by yearend 2018 as well as inmates who were already on death row.

A major goal of juvenile justice reform is to reduce reoffending and recidivism among juvenile offenders. Advocates of trauma informed practices assert that disproportionately high rates of violence exposure and trauma symptoms exacerbate the delinquent and violent behavior of juvenile offenders, but there is little evidence of the role of trauma in reoffending, particularly for the group of juvenile offenders that are at the highest risk for reoffending: serious offenders. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to conduct secondary data analysis on data from the Pathways to Desistance Study (Mulvey et al., 2004) to enhance understanding of how continuous trauma exposure and related symptoms impact reoffending in serious juvenile offenders. This study utilized secondary data analysis on six annual waves of data from the Pathways to Desistance study (Mulvey et al., 2004), a large multi-site, longitudinal study of adolescents who had committed a serious criminal offense.

The study followed juvenile offenders into adulthood. The current study analyzed youth self-report of demographic variables, community violence exposure, trauma-related symptoms, and violent offending, as well as official records of youth offending. Regression analysis, latent transition analysis, and survival analysis were used to examine the research questions and hypotheses.

Results showed that the majority of participants experienced continuous violence exposure as witnesses to community violence, with lower rates for victimization. Further, violence exposure and trauma-related symptoms (anxiety and hostility) co-occurred over time. Also, continuous violence exposure during adolescence predicted self-reported violent reoffending in early adulthood, even after controlling for demographic factors. Victimization significantly increased the risk for re-arrest. Further, this risk of re-offending was higher for male offenders than for female offenders. Finally, callous-unemotional traits and hostility mediated the relationship between continuous violence exposure and later violent offending.

In this study, data from the Pathways to Desistance study were analyzed using SPSS and Mplus software packages, and the syntax files used to analyze the data have been included. The Pathways to Desistance study datasets are archived at the University of Michigan Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research (ICPSR), and the PI obtained the Pathways data from ICPSR.

On January 1, 2011, the Vera Institute of Justice (Vera) launched "A Natural Experiment in Reform: Analyzing Drug Law Policy in New York," which was funded by the National Institute of Justice, and conducted by Vera, with the John Jay College of Criminal Justice at the City University of New York, and the School of Criminal Justice at Rutgers University. This study sought to analyze the effects of recent changes in drug offense sentencing laws in New York State (NYS) and chronicle New York City's experience with drug law reform (DLR). This includes changes in sentencing outcomes for felony drug cases, reoffending, and cost implications, with the hope of informing NYS policy makers, and provide other states across the nation with research to inform their own DLR efforts.

Specifically, this study revolves around the following objectives: 1) describe how the DLR is reflected in actual sentencing outcomes and the extent to which practices of judges, lawyers, and defense attorneys have shifted in response to the reforms; 2) investigate how treatment diversion impacts reoffending and 3) analyze the cost implications of changing drug law sentencing policies. Researchers analyzed administrative data to describe the impacts of reforms on sentencing decisions, collected New York City arrest data for drug felonies between October 1, 2006 and September 30, 2011, and evaluated outcome data measuring recidivism and costs between pre and post DLR periods.

Numerous variables tracking offenders' progress through the criminal justice system were collected including admission to the Drug Treatment Alternative to Prison (DTAP) program, arrest and disposition jurisdictions, charges, sentencing, and drug court screening and admission. Arrestees' criminal history and rearrest figures, as well as their sex, race, and ethnic demographics were collected also.

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.

A researcher-practitioner partnership was established between the College of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Florida State University and the Florida Department of Juvenile Justice (FDJJ). The purpose of this partnership was to collaborate on three timely and policy relevant research projects--(1) juvenile civil citation (JCC), (2) juvenile visitation (JV), and (3) juvenile school-based arrests (JSBA).

This collection includes 9 Stata data files: "JV-Full-Data-Set" with 78 vars, 1,202 cases, "JCC-County-Data" with 18 vars, 938 cases, "JCC-Individual-Data" with 22 vars, 110,088 cases, "JCC-Individual-Data-with-Risk-Factors" with 35 vars, 51,263 cases, "JCC-Trend-Data" with 6 vars, 11,725 cases, "JSBA-Descriptives-Data" with 14 vars, 94,708 cases, "JSBA-Dropout-Data" with 4 vars, 94,708 cases, "JSBA-Recidivism-Data" with 51 vars, 30,723 cases, "JSBA-School-level-Data" with 45 vars, 893 cases, and 9 Stata syntax files "JV-Full-Data-Set-Syntax.do", "JCC-County-Data.do", "JCC-Individual-Data.do", "JCC-Individual-Data-with-Risk-Factors.do", "JCC-Trend-Data.do", "JSBA-Descriptives-Code.do", "JSBA-Dropout-Code.do", "JSBA-Recidivism-Code.do", and "JSBA-School-level-Code".

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 purpose of this study was to answer the following research questions:

• Do domestic violence courts reduce recidivism?
• Do domestic violence courts hold defendants accountable through the use of more severe case outcomes and sentences?
• What, if any, court-level policies make these courts more or less effective (e.g., related to eligibility, program mandates, compliance monitoring, or victim service)?
• What, if any community characteristics make these courts more or less effective (e.g., related to population size, racial composition, or socioeconomic characteristics)?
• Based on individual characteristics (e.g., age, criminal history, or current charges), which categories of defendants are at a high risk of re-offending; and are certain categories particularly responsive to the domestic violence court intervention?

Outcome were compared between matched samples of defendants (Full File Data, n=17,718 and Convicted File Data, n=7,306) processed in the 24 domestic violence courts and in conventional courts operating in the same 24 jurisdictions in New York state prior to the opening of the specialized court. Cases processed in each domestic violence court during its first two full calendar years of operations comprised the domestic violence court sample. Cases processed in conventional courts during the two full calendar years preceding the opening of the specialized court comprised the comparison sample. Data on court policies and practices was drawn from two survey instruments administered to each of the 24 courts (Court and Community Characteristics Data, n=48). The first survey was administered statewide in 2008; the second was a supplemental survey administered in 2010.

The Pathways to Desistance study was a multi-site study that followed 1,354 serious juvenile offenders from adolescence to young adulthood in two locales between the years 2000 and 2010. Enrolled into the study were adjudicated youths from the juvenile and adult court systems in Maricopa County (Phoenix), Arizona (N=654), and Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania (N=700).

The official arrests records of all 1,354 youth were obtained from multiple sources. For arrest/petitions under the age of 18, this information is based on petitions appearing in the juvenile and adult court records in each site. In Philadelphia, this information was gathered based on a hand review of juvenile and adult court documents; in Phoenix, the information is based on reports from two computerized court tracking systems (JOLTS--Juvenile On-Line Tracking System for juvenile court information, ICIS--Maricopa County Superior Court database for adult court information). For arrests/petitions over 18, FBI arrest records are the source of information. There is no self-reported information contained in this set of data.

Information from these different data sources is consolidated into the following categories:

1. Information regarding petitions with a date that falls prior to the baseline interview date ("prior petitions").
2. Information regarding the study index petition (also called the "initial referring petition"; this is the adjudication that prompted study enrollment). Information regarding the study index petition can be found by accessing the "type" variable associated with the prior petitions (specific variable name: Official Record Prior PetitionXX: Petition type). Depending on the investigator's needs, this petition can remain combined with the "priors" or be used as a stand-alone petition.
3. Information regarding arrests and court petitions with a date which falls after the baseline interview date in the Pathways study ("rearrests").