Search results

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.

Before the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) of 2003, it was not clear the extent to which state departments of corrections (DOCs) were addressing sexual violence in systematic ways. In fact, little information existed about what strategies were being put into practice in prison systems across the country. PREA changed the way DOCs addressed prison sexual violence (PSV). Mandatory recordkeeping and a push for eliminating such incidents moved many DOCs to develop specific responses to PSV or to further refine approaches already in place. The purpose of this project was to provide a national snapshot of DOC initiatives to address PSV, as well as to identify specific practices that seemed to be, in the absence of formal evaluations, particularly promising or innovative in nature.

Researchers conducted three tasks: (1) The Survey of State Correctional Administrators (SSCA) involving written surveys and follow-up phone interviews with leaders of state DOCs. During the survey, state administrators described the state's overall approach to PSV and nominated specific strategies as particularly promising; (2) The Survey of Promising Practices (SPP) involving phone interviews with DOC representatives who spoke about promising practices nominated during the SSCA. Interviews were conducted with facility directors, service providers, or other state personnel affiliated with nominated approaches; and (3) Case studies involving site visits to states that researchers determined could provide the most informative lessons on addressing sexual violence in prison to the largest audience of practitioners, researchers, and policymakers.

The collection includes 2 Access databases, one each for the SSCA (ASCA_4_6_2006.directors.mdb) and the SSP (ASCA_FAC_4_6_2006.prompractices.mdb). The data related to the Case Studies are not available at this time.

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 Urban Institute, in collaboration with Tahirih Justice Center, sought to examine forced marriages in the United States via an exploratory study of the victimization experiences of those subjected to and threatened with forced marriage. The study also sought to begin to understand elements at the intersection of forced marriage with intimate partner and sexual violence, such as: how perpetrators threaten and actually force victims into marriages; the elements of force, fraud, or coercion in the tactics used to carry out victimization; other case demographics and dynamics (e.g., overseas marriages versus those in the United States); factors that put individuals at risk of forced marriage or that trigger or elevate their risk of related abuses; help-seeking behavior; the role of social, cultural, and religious norms in forced marriage; and the ability (or lack thereof) of service providers, school officials, and government agencies with protection mandates (law enforcement, child protection, and social workers) to screen for, and respond to, potential and reported cases of forced marriage.

This collection contains 1 Stata file: ICPSR-Data-File.dta (21007 cases; 48 variables).

The qualitative data are not available as part of this data collection at this time.

The Urban Institute, in collaboration with the Correctional Leaders Association (CLA), the National Center on Victims of Crime (NCVC), and the Center for Effective Public Policy (CEPP), and with funding from the National Institute of Justice, conducted a two-tiered, 33-month, exploratory mixed methods study of the policies, programs, and practices used nationwide to address the needs of incarcerated women with prior trauma and victimization experiences and prevent in-custody victimization, aiming to generate actionable information for policymakers, practitioners, and program developers.

This is the first single, comprehensive study documenting the extent to which facilities implement trauma-informed and gender-responsive approaches to address women's victimization experiences, whether they offer victim services, the range of services offered, and the prevalence of trauma-informed practices in state-level women's correctional facilities. It establishes foundational knowledge for the field regarding the scope, structure, and composition of these approaches, including their trauma-informed components and use in women's correctional facilities.

The Multi-Site Adult Drug Court Evaluation (MADCE) study included 23 drug courts and 6 comparison sites selected from 8 states across the country. The purpose of the study was to: (1) Test whether drug courts reduce drug use, crime, and multiple other problems associated with drug abuse, in comparision with similar offenders not exposed to drug courts, (2) address how drug courts work and for whom by isolating key individual and program factors that make drug courts more or less effective in achieving their desired outcomes, (3) explain how offender attitudes and behaviors change when they are exposed to drug courts and how these changes help explain the effectiveness of drug court programs, and (4) examine whether drug courts generate cost savings.

Offenders in all 29 sites were surveyed in 3 waves, at baseline, 6 months later, and 18 months after enrollment. The research comprises three major components: process evaluation, impact evaluation, and a cost-benefit analysis. The process evaluation describes how the 23 drug court sites vary in program eligibility, supervision, treatment, team collaboration, and other key policies and practices. The impact evaluation examines whether drug courts produce better outcomes than comparison sites and tests which court policies and offender attitudes might explain those effects. The cost-benefit analysis evaluates drug court costs and benefits.

The project focused specifically on strategies and approaches explicitly intended to reduce gun-related violence committed by young people between the ages of 10 and 25 who may also be associated with gangs/groups, including interventions that solely or primarily serve youth. The study team did not focus on all strategies designed to reduce youth violence, nor on gang prevention and intervention efforts not expressly intended to reduce gun violence and homicide. Based on this framing, the study team focused on interventions that are immediate responses to an acute problem, rather than those that address risk factors associated with violence broadly. This work drew on three main models of interventions: Spergel Model of Gang Intervention and Suppression ("Spergel")/Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) Comprehensive Gang Model (CGM) intervention models, focused deterrence models, and public health models. Both the review of literature and scan of practice include some interventions that do not fit into any of these models.

The review of literature included identification and synthesis of research on the implementation and impact of relevant violence prevention, reduction, and control strategies. The literature review only included interventions that have published research about their efficacy. The scan of practice identified 14 interventions and conducted 13 virtual site visits including interviews and observations. Site selection was based on criteria and with input from a group of subject-matter experts, National Institute of Justice (NIJ), and OJJDP. The scan of practice was not a comprehensive scan and did not include a representative sample by type or location of intervention.