Showing 1 – 3 of 3 results.
Curated
Performance Measures in Prosecution and Their Application to Community Prosecution at Two Sites in the United States, 2005-2006 (ICPSR 20401)
Released/updated on: 2008-10-31
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 2005-01-01--2006-09-30
The purpose of this study was to explore empirical evidence to support the performance measurement framework identified by the American Prosecutors Research Institute's (APRI) Prosecution Study for the 21st Century. The framework included promoting the fair, impartial, and expeditious pursuit of justice and ensuring public safety. Two prosecutors' offices participated in the study. One was a traditional office, and the other was a more community-oriented office. Each site submitted monthly data on the identified performance measures for analysis. APRI also designed and administered a public safety survey to assess a number of factors related to the performance of prosecutors' offices, but for which data could not be provided by the offices. The public safety surveys were administered by phone using random digit dialing (RDD). Part 1, Site 1 Administrative Data, contains 15 months of data, and Part 2, Site 2 Administrative Data, contain 6 months of data on the identified performance measures for analysis from each site. Part 3, Public Safety Survey Data, contains variables that provide some basic demographic data about the respondents and several variables in response to Likert-style questions measuring attitudes and opinions on six factors. These include the seriousness of local crime, safety of the environment, organizational behavior of the prosecutor's office, participation in the community, community education, and task performance.
Curated
Partially restricted
Response to Terrorism by Local Prosecutors in 70 Large Jurisdictions in the United States, 2004 (ICPSR 20262)
Released/updated on: 2007-10-16
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 2001-09-01--2003-10-31
The American Prosecutors Research Institute (APRI) conducted an exploratory study to examine how prosecutors can best respond to terrorism in a post-September 11 legislative environment. Because the passage of anti-terrorism legislation at the state level has the potential to have an impact on local prosecutors, who are responsible for enforcing state laws, the American Prosecutors Research Institute (APRI) designed a survey to examine local prosecutors' involvement in homeland security and the ways in which their offices' organizational structure have changed to facilitate their involvement. Surveys were mailed or faxed to the 112 largest jurisdictions in the country. The survey instrument was divided into the following seven sections: (1) Background Information on the Jurisdiction, (2) Experience With State Legislation, (3) Organizational Changes, (4) Challenges Facing Local Prosecutors, (5) Methods Used to Overcome Challenges, (6) Coordination With Other Agencies, and (7) Training Needs. The survey questions focused on the legal framework and organizational structure in which local prosecutors operate.
Curated
Restricted
Testing the Efficacy of the SANE-SART Programs in Kansas, Massachusetts, and New Jersey, 1997-2001 (ICPSR 20341)
Released/updated on: 2008-10-01
Geographic coverage: United States, Massachusetts, Kansas, New Jersey
Time period: 1997-01-01--2001-12-31
The purpose of the study was to explore the impact of interventions by Sexual Assault Nurse Examiners/Sexual Assault Response Teams (SANE/SART) on the judicial process. The goal was to test the efficacy of SANE/SART programs as a tool in the criminal justice system. The American Prosecutors Research Institute and Boston College tested the hypotheses that SANE/SART exams increase arrest and prosecution rates. The researchers collected case information from SANE/SART, police, and prosecution files in three jurisdictions: Monmouth County (Freehold), New Jersey, Sedgwick County (Wichita), Kansas, and Suffolk County (Boston), Massachusetts. At each study site, the project team randomly selected up to 125 sexual assault cases in which there was a SANE or SART intervention and 125 cases in which there was no SANE/SART intervention from cases that were opened and closed between 1997 and 2001. Comparisons were sought between SANE/SART cases (both SANE only and SANE/SART combined) and non-SANE/SART cases to determine if the intervention predicted the likelihood of certain criminal justice system outcomes. These outcomes included identification/arrest of a suspect, the filing of charges, case disposition, type of penalty, and length of sentence. In addition, researchers collected information on a number of other variables that could impact or mitigate the effect of SANE/SART interventions and case outcomes. The researchers abstracted information from case files maintained by SANE programs, police incident/arrest reports, and prosecution files during intensive five-day site visits. Three standardized records abstraction forms were developed to collect data: (1) the incident form was designed to collect data from police reports and the prosecution files about the actual sexual assault, (2) the case abstraction form was designed to collect prosecution data and case outcome data from the prosecutors' case files, and (3) the SANE/SART data collection form collected information from the SANE/SART files about the SANE/SART intervention. Specific information regarding the evidence collected during the victim's exam, nature of the assault, evidence/forensic kits collected, victim's demeanor, weapon(s) used, number of assailants, and the victim/offender relationship were collected.