Search results

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.

Despite the critical information security issues faced by academic institutions, little research has been conducted at the policy, practice, or theoretical levels to address these issues, and few policies or cost-effective controls have been developed. The purpose of this research study was three-fold: (1) to create an empirically-based profile of issues and approaches, (2) to develop a practical road map for policy and practice, and (3) to advance the knowledge, policy, and practice of academic institutions, law enforcement, government, and researchers. The study design incorporated three methods of data collection: a quantitative field survey, qualitative one-on-one interviews, and an empirical assessment of the institutions' network activity.

Survey data collection involved simple random sampling of 600 academic institutions from the Department of Education's National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) database, recruitment via postcard, telephone, and email, Web-based survey administration, and three follow-ups. Results are contained in Part 1, Quantitative Field Survey Data. Interview data collection involved selecting a sample size of 15 institutions through a combination of simple random and convenience sampling, recruitment via telephone and email, and face-to-face or telephone interviews. Results are contained in Part 2, Qualitative One-on-One Interview Data. Network analysis data collection involved convenience sampling of two academic institutions, recruitment via telephone and email, installing Higher Education Network Analysis (HENA) on participants' systems, and six months of data collection. Results are in Part 3, Subject 1 Network Analysis Data, and Part 4, Subject 2 Network Analysis Data.

The Quantitative Field Survey Data (Part 1) contains 19 variables on characteristics of institutions that participated in the survey component of this study, as well as 263 variables derived from responses to the Information Security in Academic Institutions Survey, which was organized into five sections: Environment, Policy, Information Security Controls, Information Security Challenges, and Resources. The Qualitative One-on-One Interview Data (Part 2) contains qualitative responses to a combination of closed-response and open-response formats. The data are divided into the following seven sections: Environment, Institution's Potential Vulnerability, Institution's Potential Threat, Information Value and Sharing, End Users, Countermeasures, and Insights. Data collected through the empirical analysis of network activity (Part 3 and Part 4) include type and protocol of attack, source and destination information, and geographic location.

Information and communication technology (ICT) are playing an important role in the criminal justice chain, but very little is known about public prosecutor's offices, while there is a strong need to exchange information among practitioners, decision makers, and scholars in order to share experiences, knowledge, and facilitate the adoption of common ICT solutions and practices in a cost-effective way.

This Research Project stresses the need to pursue judicial cooperation in the area of criminal law, and it contributes to fostering mutual knowledge of European legal and judicial systems as well as best practices and technological solutions. The Project is not limited to legal literature, but it has an inter-disciplinary approach, and it focuses on practical experiences and policies implemented. The project will lead to a conference to disseminate the information collected, to pass on knowledge of immediate use in carrying on professional activities, as well as to increase the number of practitioners, academics, and policy makers who will take advantage of and profit from the research. The research entails six in-depth case studies. Four of them will be carried on by the organizations' partners in this research: England and Wales, Finland, Italy, the Netherlands, two others are in the process to be identified.

After a description of the governance system of public prosecution in the countries considered in this study, since ICT application are not developed in a vacuum, the research will describe, study, and compare through an in-depth analysis: (1) the use of ICT in case investigations, (2) the use of ICT for case management, (3) the ICT interoperability between public prosecutor's offices, courts, police and prisons, and (4) the use of ICT for sharing prosecutorial information between countries.

The research will allow to: (a) detect the valuable and successful implementations of ICT in criminal investigations (e.g. decision support systems, access to data bases, multimedia applications), (b) disseminate technical information about these applications, (c) explore the feasibility for cross-border exchange of data such as criminal history records and illegal immigration records, (d) develop a network of scholars and practitioners about ICT for public prosecutor's offices.

This report structure, should serve as a guide to the researchers working on the various countries. It is divided into three main sections. Section 1 will deal with the institutional setting of public prosecutor. Section 2 will deal with ICT history, governance and infrastructures. Section 3 will deal with technologies for investigation and prosecution of crimes.

Overview. The purpose of this data infrastructure project was to foster efficient and sophisticated use by an interdisciplinary set of investigators of very large administrative health datasets for observational comparative effectiveness research (CER) related to the care and treatment of patients with multiple chronic conditions. Specifically, the research team proposed to supplement and build the necessary administrative data infrastructure to enable Washington University and collaborating partners to use state and national healthcare datasets for observational CER by:

1. Purchasing, storing, and maintaining multiple large administrative databases that can be used for comparative effectiveness health services research.
2. Providing training and support on the ethical and secure use of administrative data for CER.
3. Providing a library of standard programming code for use with large administrative databases to create an economy of scale for efficient CER.
4. Facilitating the collaboration among interdisciplinary investigators using administrative databases for CER.
5. Utilizing the infrastructure to support initiation of new comparative effectiveness studies.
6. Educating physicians, junior investigators, and public health trainees in the use of administrative data for CER.

No data was collected for this infrastructure project. Administrative data were purchased from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (Chronic Condition Warehouse 5 percent random sample, all files except Part D, 2007), AHRQ (nationwide from 1998-2010 and multiple states from 2000-2010), Claritas (2005-2008), and the American Hospital Association Annual Survey (2000-2008).

Data Access. These data are not available from ICPSR. The data are restricted to use by investigators at Washington University (WU) who have a signed Data Use Agreement with the involved agency. Data cannot be shared or removed from the WU Center for Administrative Data secure, HIPAA-compliant server without permission from the involved agency. Questions about the data should be directed to Margaret Olsen, PhD, MPH ([email protected]).