Search results

Showing 1 – 8 of 8 results.

Curated

Assessing the Impact of Pre-Adjudication Assessment Approaches on Racial/Ethnic Disparities in Oregon, 2014-2018 (ICPSR 37595)

Released/updated on: 2022-11-10

Time period: 2005-01-01--2018-01-01

This study examines two counties in Oregon (Multnomah and Yamhill) that have utilized a pre-adjudication risk assessment (PAA) to inform criminal case negotiation since 2014. This study seeks to answer these core questions:

has the introduction of a PAA into the court decision-making process impacted racial and ethnic disparities in sentencing outcomes over time in each county;
does one PAA process appear to produce more promising results in impacting racial/ethnic disparities;
using interviews and visual observations, how does the PAA influence case discussion and negotiation, decision-making, and workgroup norms and culture;
does validation of the PAA tool yield significant mean score differences across racial groups and/or predictive biases?

A number of jurisdictions have turned to pre-adjudication risk assessments (PAA) as a tool to potentially lower or stabilize incarceration rates by identifying the best suitable cases for community-based supervision. Questions have been raised about using risk assessment tools to help with the negotiation of sentencing outcomes in the pre-adjudication stages of criminal cases, particularly the potential for exacerbating disparate racial/ethnic sentencing outcomes.

Curated

Bethlehem [Pennsylvania] Police Family Group Conferencing Project, 1993-1997 (ICPSR 2679)

Released/updated on: 2006-03-30

Geographic coverage: United States, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania

Time period: 1993-01-01--1997-01-01

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the implementation of conferencing as a restorative policing practice. Family group conferencing is considered an important new development in restorative justice practice as a means of dealing more effectively with young first-time offenders by diverting them from court and involving their extended families and victims in conferences to address their wrongdoing. Cases deemed eligible for the study were property crimes including retail and other thefts, criminal mischief and trespass, and violent crimes including threats, harassment, disorderly conduct, and simple assaults. A total of 140 property crime cases and 75 violent crime cases were selected for the experiment, with two-thirds of each type randomly assigned to a diversionary conference (treatment group) and one-third of each type assigned to formal adjudication (control group). Participation in the conference was voluntary. If either party declined or if the offender did not admit responsibility for the offense, the case was processed through normal criminal justice channels. Those cases constituted a second treatment group (decline group). The Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, Police Department and the Community Service Foundation conducted a two-year study on the effectiveness of police-based family group conferencing. Beginning on November 1, 1995, 64 conferences were conducted for the study. Approximately two weeks after their cases were disposed, victims, offenders, and offenders' parents in the three experimental groups (control, conference, decline) were surveyed by mail, in-person interviews, or telephone interviews. Those who participated in conferences (Parts 4, 6, and 8) received a different questionnaire than those whose cases went through formal adjudication (Parts 5, 7, and 9), with similar questions to allow for comparison and some questions particular to the type of processing used on their case. Disposition data on cases were collected from five district magistrates in Bethlehem from January 1, 1993, to September 12, 1997. Data on recidivism and outcomes of the control and decline group cases were obtained from (1) the Bethlehem Police Department arrest database (Part 1) and (2) a database of records from the five district magistrates serving Bethlehem, drawn from a statewide magistrate court database compiled by the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts (Part 2). An attitudinal and work environment survey was administered to the Bethlehem Police Department on two occasions, just before the conferencing program commenced (pre-test) and eighteen months later (post-test) (Part 3). Part 1 variables include offender age, year of offense, charge code, amounts of fine and payments, crime type, offender crime category, and disposition. Part 2 collected disposition data on cases in the study and officers' observations on the conferences. Demographic variables include offender's age at current arrest, ethnicity, and gender. Other variables include type of charge, arrest, disposition, sentence, and recidivism, reason not conferenced, current recorded charge class, amounts of total fines, hours of community service, and conditions of sentence. Part 3 collected information on police attitudes and work environment before and after the conferencing program. Variables on organizational issues include ratings on communication, morale, co-workers, supervision, administration, amenities, equipment, and promotions. Variables on operational issues include ratings on danger, victims, frustration, external activities, complaints, workload, and driving. In Parts 4 to 9, researchers asked offenders, parents of offenders, and victims about their perceptions of how their cases were handled by the justice system and the fairness of the process, their attitudes and beliefs about the justice system, and their attitudes toward the victim and offender. Variables include whether the respondent was satisfied with the way the justice system handled the case, if the offender was held accountable for the offense, if meeting with the victim was helpful, if the respondent was surprised by anything in the conference, if the respondent told the victim/offender how he/she felt, if there was an opportunity to reach an agreement acceptable to all, if the offender/parents apologized, if the victim/parents had a better opinion of the offender after the conference, what the respondent's attitude toward the conference was, if the respondent would recommend a conference to others, if the offender was pressured to do all the talking, if the offender was treated with respect, if victim participation was insincere, if the respondent had a better understanding of how the victim was affected, if the victim only wanted to be paid back, and if conferences were responsive to needs.

Curated

Simple Crosstabs

An Evaluation of 24/7 Sobriety Program Implementation, North Dakota, 2001-2015 (ICPSR 37369)

Released/updated on: 2024-01-30

Geographic coverage: United States, North Dakota

Time period: 2001-01-01--2015-01-01

The 24/7 Sobriety Program was created in South Dakota in 2005 to reduce repeat driving under the influence (DUI) offenses and jail populations, with the idea being to compel DUI defendants to abstain from alcohol and/or drug use for a period of time (Jackley and Long, 2017). The evidence-based program works as a continuous monitoring program where DUI defendants submit to scheduled and/or random testing for controlled substances. If a participant does not appear for testing or tests positive, they are subject to swift, certain, proportional, and consistent sanctions (e.g., immediate short-term incarceration). Compliant participants receive immediate positive feedback. As of March 2017, 24/7 Sobriety programs were authorized in 9 states: South Dakota, North Dakota, Montana, Washington, Idaho, Wyoming, Wisconsin, Utah, and Alaska.

In this study, the research team examined the implementation of the 24/7 Sobriety program in South Dakota, Montana, North Dakota, Jacksonville (Duval County), Florida, and Yavapai County, Arizona. The researchers sought to answer questions about the program's mechanics and effectiveness across several states, and to illuminate what aspects of program delivery are central to achieving outcomes that are relevant to criminal justice researchers and practitioners, such as recidivism, public safety, and alternatives to incarceration. This multi-site, mixed-methods evaluation consisted of secondary analysis of administrative program data and arrest records from North Dakota, case studies of pilot programs in Jacksonville and Yavapai County involving stakeholder interviews and on-site observations, and secondary analysis of breathalyzer test results from South Dakota, North Dakota, and Montana.

The North Dakota 24/7 Sobriety implementation and outcomes data are a county-by-month panel of driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) arrest events compiled from state Department of Transportation reports and a set of variables based on restricted 24/7 Sobriety program data describing program implementation by county in North Dakota from 2008 to 2015, with pre-program arrest data dating back to 2001.

Curated

Evaluation of the Impact of System-Wide Drug Testing in Multnomah County, Oregon, 1991-1992 (ICPSR 2589)

Released/updated on: 2006-03-30

Geographic coverage: Oregon, United States

Time period: 1991-01-01--1992-10-01

The Multnomah County Drug Testing and Evaluation (DTE) program was established to help clients rid themselves of drug abusing behavior. To that end, the DTE program provided random, weekly drug tests to all clients in the program. These urinalysis tests allowed DTE to monitor each client's compliance with release conditions and progress in treatment programs, and to intervene appropriately when a client showed signs of a drug abuse problem. The DTE program supplemented drug testing with client drug evaluations and treatment recommendations, which were provided to the client's probation officer or case manager. This study was a program evaluation of two of DTE's divisions: the Pretrial Release Supervision Program (PRSP) and the probation and parole program. The pretrial division was chosen because it was the first opportunity for the criminal justice system to supervise and control the drug use of potential DTE clients. The probation and parole program was selected for three reasons: it was the largest component of the DTE program, it linked the pretrial and post-sentence DTE programs, and the experience of this program could be readily applied to the development of other such programs in other jurisdictions. The programs were evaluated using administrative data collected by corrections technicians, case managers, probation and parole officers, and the DTE central office. Part 1 (Pretrial Data) variables include dates of entry into and exit from the program, number of drug tests, number of positive tests for various drugs, type of offense and arrest date for each offense, and need assessment rating for medical, employment, legal, family, psychological, and drug addiction problems. Part 2 (Probation and Parole Data) variables include a probation or parole indicator, prior drug arrests, prior non-drug arrests, prior convictions, technical violations, drug use, and new drug crimes committed during the program. Demographic variables for both files include age, race, and gender.

Curated

Integrating the Ion Mobility Spectrometer Into Drug Monitoring at the New Orleans Pretrial Diversion Program, 1996 (ICPSR 3213)

Released/updated on: 2005-11-04

Geographic coverage: United States, Louisiana, New Orleans

This project was designed to evaluate the use of a drug detection instrument, the ion mobility spectrometer (IMS), and to integrate its use into an ongoing pretrial diversion program for nonviolent, first-time, drug-abusing offenders. The Pretrial Diversion Program in Orleans Parish, Louisiana, targeted offenders with limited arrest histories of nonviolent felony or misdemeanor violations. The majority of eligible participants were violators of simple drug possession statutes, primarily crack/cocaine or marijuana. Persons charged with drug distribution offenses were not eligible. In order to qualify for diversion, persons had to admit guilt regarding the acts for which they were arrested. The program was entirely voluntary. One of the unique aspects of this program was its aggressive use of drug testing, including urinalysis and hair analysis. This project evaluated the ability of the IMS to provide complete drug profile information to supervising agencies and assessed its usefulness to field staff engaged in drug monitoring duties. The project was based on the premise that enhanced information on offenders diverted into this program could create or improve several key aspects of program operation, such as client assessment, monitoring of compliance and progress, dispositional decision-making, client motivation, and staff morale. The study was designed to integrate the IMS into the normal operation of the New Orleans Pretrial Diversion Program with as little modification of existing treatment and supervision protocols as possible. Each client in the diversion program underwent an intensive intake assessment including an intake radioimmunoassay (RIA) hair assay and an additional RIA hair assay every 60 days. Each client was urine-tested at intake and assigned to a random test pool. The modified protocol for the project added an IMS-based scan or a hair specimen, skin wipe, and ten-second vacuum scan of clothing, hands, and axillae at intake. At each subsequent visit each client had a repeat IMS scan utilizing a skin swab and a scan of clothing or body area. Variables include self-reported cocaine use, self-reported marijuana use, IMS date, urinalysis date, hair assay results, urinalysis results, IMS detection, nicotine use, maximum amplitude, delta, cumulative amplitude, number of detections, whether the IMS showed a positive result, and the age, sex, and race of the client.

Curated

National Evaluation of Operation Drug Test, 1998-1999 (ICPSR 3259)

Released/updated on: 2006-01-18

Geographic coverage: United States

Time period: 1998-01-01--1999-01-01

This study is an evaluation of Operation Drug TEST (ODT), a pretrial intervention program that was implemented in fiscal year 1997 in 25 of the 94 federal judicial districts in the United States. The name of the program, "TEST," is both a reference to testing and an acronym representing the program's three objectives: (1) Testing to identify drug-involved defendants before their first court appearance, (2) Effective Sanctions when defendants on release were found to be using drugs, and (3) Treatment referrals for drug-using defendants, as needed. The program was based on the view that drug testing, when closely linked to sanctions and treatment placements in response to ongoing drug use, can reduce drug use among defendants on pretrial release. The overall goal of the program was to deter drug use and its adverse consequences among defendants on pretrial release. The purposes of the evaluation were to describe the process of program implementation and to document ODT's impact on sanctioning and treatment. Data for this evaluation were gathered from official records collected from the ODT database, which was maintained by the Administrative Office of the United States Courts (AOUSC). Parts 1 and 2 contain data from fiscal year 1998 for initial drug tests and subsequent drug tests, respectively. Data from fiscal year 1999 (Parts 3 and 4) were divided into two groups, depending on the model of ODT implementation and the stage at which initial drug testing took place. DOJ and AOUSC determined that districts could choose to implement the program under either of two models. Model 1 (Part 3) followed the original concept, namely, initial testing at the pre-bail stage. In Model 2 (Part 4), the initial test was to occur as soon as possible after the defendant's first court appearance, if he/she was being released, but before release into the community. Variables unique to Part 1 include date of birth, arrest date, initial hearing date, hearing date, decision date, and release date. Variables for all parts include the district name, its circuit and office, which model a defendant conformed to, current or prior drug charges, and drug history. Additional variables for all parts include whether the defendant tested positive for amphetamines, cocaine, cannabis, opiates, PCP, and other drugs, whether testing had increased, type of test administered, if treatment was added or had increased, whether a test was taken by pretrial services or by a contractor, and if by pretrial services, where it was taken, testing devices used, whether an outside laboratory was used, and if results were reported to the court.

Curated

Pretrial Release Data, 1969 (ICPSR 7538)

Released/updated on: 1992-02-16

This data collection contains information gathered about pretrial release policies, procedures, and outcomes in a 1969 survey of police chiefs, judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, and bail project directors in 72 cities across the United States (with a higher proportion in Illinois). The research objectives included: (1) developing a model designed to determine the optimum percentage of defendants to hold prior to trial, (2) developing a model designed to make decisions on whether a defendant should be released or held in jail prior to trial, (3) comparing cities having bail reform projects with cities not having them, (4) comparing cities that required arrested persons to provide 10 percent of the bond with cities requiring 100 percent of the bond, and (5) determining the causes and effects of variations across cities in the percentage of defendants held in jail prior to trial. The survey focused on the processing of arrested persons prior to trial. Respondents answered questions about the organization and procedures in pretrial release, supplied approximate statistical data (e.g., percent of arraigned individuals who were released prior to their trial and failed to appear in court for their trial), estimated statistical trends in pretrial release during the previous five years, reported on attitudes in their communities toward administration of bail, rated the importance of several criteria when determining if a defendant was to be allowed pretrial release, and indicated whether their city had a bail reform program, and if so, its characteristics. Demographic data (ranging from population to income to crime rates) about the 72 cities represented in the survey are also included in the file.

Curated

Research on District Attorneys' Pretrial Diversion Programs: A Proposal for a Comprehensive Multi-Method Study, Vermont, Illinois, and Wisconsin, 2012-2016 (ICPSR 37084)

Released/updated on: 2023-01-30

Geographic coverage: Vermont, Milwaukee, United States, Chittenden County, Illinois, Cook County, Wisconsin

Time period: 2012-01-01--2016-01-01

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.