Search results

This study examined a pressing racial equity problem in early childhood education: the disproportionate suspension and expulsion of Black and Brown children and children with disabilities from early learning opportunities. The study centered on the legislative process conducted in Oregon during 2021 and 2022 when a grassroot led bill to eliminate the use of exclusionary practices in preschool setting was introduced to the Oregon legislature.

This dataset contains a complete anonymized dataset for each of the three bills involved in the process Senate Bill 236 (2021), House Bill 2166 (2021), and House Bill 5202 (2022).

In the original study, discourse analysis was used to investigate support and opposition to structural remedies to a systemic racial equity problem.

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.

After a decade of efforts to combat human trafficking in the United States through legislation, law enforcement, victim services, and public awareness, it was critical to begin to assess what legislative, legal, and civic responses have been most effective in achieving the desired outcome of reducing opportunities and instances of human trafficking. This study began to fill gaps in the understanding of effective anti-trafficking responses by evaluating three strategic platforms to combat human trafficking in the United States.

1. Researchers examined the effectiveness of state-level human trafficking legislation.
2. Investigators described how state human trafficking laws have been used to prosecute human trafficking offenders.
3. Researchers explored public opinion on human trafficking through a nationally representative survey containing embedded experiments.

The collection includes 2 Stata data files: (1) Effective Countertrafficking Law_Legislation Dataset.dta (n=500; 32 variables) and (2) Effective Countertrafficking_State Case Data-ICPSR.dta (n=479; 109 variables). Data from the public opinion survey are not available at this time.

The primary goal of this project was to create a comprehensive database of all state regulations and legislation that can be used by food safety stakeholders to efficiently analyze relevant foodborne illness-related legislation. To that end, project staff compiled state statutes and regulations pertaining to foodborne illness reporting requirements and coded many of their features in a database. The coded information covers reporting requirements for establishments and healthcare providers; investigation authority over establishments and individuals; enforcement regarding suspected/confirmed foods; protection of patient and business confidentiality; and reporting requirements for illness caused by specific pathogens such as Campylobacter, Clostridium botulinum, Clostridium perfringens, Cryptosporidium, Cyclospora, Listeria monocytogenes, Norovirus, Salmonella (nontyphoidal), Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli O157:H7, Shigella, Staphylococcus aureus, Toxoplasma gondii, Vibrio, and Yersinia. Additional information recorded in the data include state population size; state per capita income; state participation in the Foodborne Diseases Surveillance Network (FoodNet), Environmental Health Specialist Network (EHS-Net), and Food Emergency Response Network (FERN); and whether or not the state has a FDA FoodCORE regional program, Food Safety Integrated Center for Excellence (FSICE), or FDA Rapid Response Team (RRT) grant.

This data collection comprises a Microsoft Access database with 44 data tables and the Final Exported Dataset which was derived from the database. The Access database contains a draft of the information in the Final Exported Dataset and some information not included in it. The Final Exported Dataset describes the laws and regulations that were current in 2013. The Access database covers the period 2011-2013.

To facilitate the use of this data collection, every data table in the Access database is also provided as a separate data file (Datasets 3-46). In addition, the codebook includes copies of the data entry forms in the Access database .

Adoption of Innovations in Private Alcohol and Drug Treatment Centers is a multi-wave longitudinal study conducted between 2009 and 2013. The study goal was to measure the adoption and implementation of evidence-based treatment practices in treatment centers that received more than 50 percent of their total operational funding from sources that were not guaranteed from year to year. This definition is based on the concept of entrepreneurship, namely the necessity for the treatment organization to respond to changing conditions in the external political and economic environment in order to obtain half or more of its funding. The innovations considered are of three types usually specific to organizations treating substance use disorders:

• medication-assisted treatments
• psychosocial treatments
• managerial practices

This data set consists of one of the multiple "waves" of data collection. The data was collected at four points in time. The baseline data, collected from June 2009 through October 2011 from 327 treatment centers, were obtained through face-to-face onsite interviews ranging from 1 to 4 hours in duration. These interviews were conducted with administrators of the respective treatment centers. In 70 of the 327 treatment centers, an administrator of the overall center and the administrator of clinical operations separately completed administrative and clinical interviews. In the remaining 257 centers, all of the administrative and clinical data were collected from the administrator of the overall center since there was no specialized administrator of clinical operations. The baseline data available here merge the data collected through these two different procedures so that the variables measured are identical for all centers regardless of the procedure.

The collected data include detailed information on Medication Assisted Treatment (MAT) and other treatment strategies used by the center to treat opioid use disorder (OUD) and alcohol use disorder (AUD). In cases where medications were not used by a center questions were asked for reasons why available medications were not used in treatment. Other sections of the interviews covered data on the organizations, their management, and other clinical practices implemented for OUD, AUD, and substance use disorder (SUD).

Three follow-up interviews were conducted via telephone at six month intervals following the previous interview. These follow-up interviews were much shorter compared to the baseline interview. The interviews centered on key changes in the center's operation and on the adoption of key innovations. But a focus of the follow-up interviews still focused on medications provided for treatment.

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 constructed a comprehensive, longitudinal dataset of all counties nested within U.S. States from 1970 to 2012. The study's main purpose was to facilitate research that would further understanding on firearm legislation and its impacts on violence. This comprehensive data collection effort included information on firearm legislation implemented across U.S. States over time in combination with multiple measures of firearm-related violence and injury. Moreover, to better understand the conditions under which firearm legislation is more or less effective, incorporation of county characteristics allowed for examination of whether the effectiveness of state-level firearm legislation depends upon particular characteristics of counties. The researchers conducted a secondary analysis utilizing a variety of archived external government and census sources.

The Study's Dataset Include two Stata Files:

• CJRC_firearms_research.dta (95 Variables, 129,027 Cases)
• state_law_data.dta (19 Variables, 2,168 Cases)

In 1996, the United States Congress enacted two policies to regulate the use of the legal system by state prisoners. They were the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) and the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA). The purpose of this research project was to examine whether the PLRA and the AEDPA had their intended effects of reducing the number of Section 1983 lawsuits and habeas corpus petitions, respectively, at both the national and circuit court levels. The researchers obtained data, from the Research and Statistics Division of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, on the number of civil rights suits and the number of habeas corpus petitions filed by state prisoners in district courts from April 1992 to December 2000. These data were organized into monthly increments. Dataset 1, Civil Rights Suits Filed, contains 105 cases, and Dataset 2, Habeas Corpus Petitions Filed, also contains 105 cases. The trends in civil rights suits filed (Dataset 1) and habeas corpus petitions filed (Dataset 2) were measured by the number of petitions filed per 10,000 state prisoners. Filing rates were measured at the level of district courts, grouped together by the circuit court that has jurisdiction over them.

Variables in Dataset 1, Civil Rights Suits Filed, include filing date and the number of civil rights suits filed per 10,000 state prisoners at the national level as well as for district courts within each of the 11 circuits and the District of Columbia. An intervention flag variable is also included. Variables in Dataset 2, Habeas Corpus Petitions Filed, include filing date and the number of habeas corpus petitions filed per 10,000 state prisoners at the national level, as well as for district courts within each of the 11 circuits and the District of Columbia. A pulse flag variable and two intervention flag variables are also included.