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.

This study was a randomized controlled trial of a dating violence and sexual harassment (DV/H) prevention program called the Shifting Boundaries (SB) Program. Thirty-five public middle schools in New York City were randomly assigned to one of four treatment conditions of the SB program. The project includes a baseline and two follow-up surveys with 6th, 7th and 8th grade students to assess short to medium term impact on rates of DV/H. The classroom curriculum intervention (SBC) covered the consequences for perpetrators of DV/H, state laws and penalties for DV/H, and respectful relationships. The school (building-level) intervention (SBS) included the use of school-based restraining orders, higher levels of faculty and security presence in areas identified through student mapping of safe/unsafe "hot spots," and the use of posters to increase awareness and reporting of DV/H.

The project examined (1) the effects of saturating a school environment by providing the SB intervention to all three middle school grades compared to only two grades or one grade and (2) the effects of two dosages of SB across two years compared to one dosage of the SB intervention across one year which was explored in two prior evaluations of the program.

This data collection contains data from the 2020 Census of Publicly Funded Forensic Crime Laboratories (CPFFCL). The CPFFCL collected data on organizational characteristics, functions, budget, staffing, workload, resources, and quality assurance practices of publicly funded forensic crime laboratories operating in the U.S. and serving federal, state, and local jurisdictions. The CPFFCL includes crime labs that employed one or more full-time scientists who possess a minimum of a bachelor's degree in chemistry, physics, biology, criminalistics, forensic science or a closely related field and whose principal functions are examining physical evidence in criminal matters and providing reports and testimony to courts of law with respect to such evidence. Private laboratories were excluded from the CPFFCL. Laboratories may operate independently or as part of a larger system. Respondents to the CPFFCL could choose to respond as individual labs or as one system. A total of 423 individual labs, constituting 326 standalone labs and multilab systems, received the questionnaire. A total of 382 (90%) individual labs responded to the 2020 CPFFCL and 293 (90%) standalone labs and multilab systems responded. For the 2020 study, data were collected from July 2021 to February 2022.

The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) first surveyed forensic crime laboratories in 1998, focusing solely on agencies that performed DNA analysis. The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) funded the 1998 study as part of its DNA Laboratory Improvement Program. The BJS' National Study of DNA Laboratories was repeated in 2001. An expanded version of the data collection, called the Census of Publicly Funded Forensic Crime Laboratories, was first conducted among all forensic crime laboratories in 2002.

The 2012 Census of State and Federal Correctional Facilities (CSFCF) was the eighth enumeration of state institutions and the fifth enumeration of federal institutions sponsored by the Bureau of Justice Statistics and its predecessors. Earlier censuses were conducted in 1974, 1979 (ICPSR 7852), 1984 (ICPSR 8444), 1990 (ICPSR 9908), 1995 (ICPSR 6953), 2000 (ICPSR 4021), and 2005 (ICPSR 24642). For each facility in the 2012 census, information was provided on security level, facility operator, sex of inmates housed, one-day counts by sex, percentage of inmates authorized to leave the facility, and anticipated changes to or closures of the facility.

The census counted prisoners held in the facilities, a custody count. Some inmates in custody in one jurisdiction may be held for a different jurisdiction. The custody count is distinct from a count of inmates under a correctional authority's jurisdiction, which includes all inmates over whom a correctional authority exercises control, regardless of where the inmate is housed. A jurisdictional count is more inclusive than a prison custody count and includes state and federal prisoners housed in local jails or other non-correctional facilities.

The 2019 Census of State and Federal Adult Correctional Facilities (CCF) was the ninth enumeration of state institutions and the sixth enumeration of federal institutions sponsored by the Bureau of Justice Statistics and its predecessors. Earlier censuses were completed in 1979 (ICPSR 7852), 1984 (ICPSR 8444), 1990 (ICPSR 9908), 1995 (ICPSR 6953), 2000 (ICPSR 4021), 2005 (ICPSR 24642), and 2012 (ICPSR 37294). The 2019 CCF consisted of two data collection instruments - one for confinement facilities and one for community-based facilities. For each facility, information was provided on facility operator; sex of prisoners authorized to be housed by facility; facility functions; percentage of prisoners authorized to leave the facility; one-day counts of prisoners by sex, race/ethnicity, special populations, and holding authority; number of walkaways occurring over a one-year period; and educational and other special programs offered to prisoners. Additional information was collected from confinement facilities, including physical security level; housing for special populations; capacity; court orders for specific conditions; one-day count of correctional staff by payroll status and sex; one-day count of security staff by sex and race/ethnicity; assaults and incidents caused by prisoners; number of escapes occurring over a one-year period; and work assignments available to prisoners. Late in the data collection to avoid complete nonresponse from facilities, BJS offered the option of providing critical data elements from the two data collection instruments. These elements included facility operator; sex of prisoners authorized to be housed by facility; facility functions; percentage of prisoners authorized to leave the facility; one-day counts of prisoners by sex, and holding authority. Physical security level was an additional critical data element for confinement facilities.

The census counted prisoners held in the facilities, a custody count. Some prisoners who are held in the custody of one jurisdiction may be under the authority of a different jurisdiction. The custody count is distinct from a count of prisoners under a correctional authority's jurisdiction, which includes all prisoners over whom a correctional authority exercises control, regardless of where the prisoner is housed. A jurisdictional count is more inclusive than a prison custody count and includes state and federal prisoners housed in local jails or other non-correctional facilities.

The goal of this mixed-methods study was to evaluate the effectiveness of community based cross-age mentoring to reduce negative outcomes related to violence exposure/engagement and promote positive development among African-American and Latinx youth from multiple sites serving four low-income, high violence urban neighborhoods, using youth mentors from the same high-risk environment. The program was named by youth mentors, "Saving Lives, Inspiring Youth" (or SLIY henceforth). Cross-age peer mentoring programs promise to solve problems and ineffectiveness of other types of mentoring programs, but few have been systematically studied in high-poverty, high-crime communities. In collaboration with several community organizations, a prospective approach was implemented to follow cross-age mentors and mentees for up to one year of mentoring. Both quantitative and qualitative methods were employed to examine possible changes in a number of relevant constructs, and to understand program impact in greater depth.

Mentoring sessions lasting one hour took place each week, with an hour debriefing session for mentors following each mentoring session. Quantitative data were collected pre, post and at a 9-12 month follow-up. Throughout the mentoring intervention, several forms of qualitative data were gathered to make it possible for youth voices to permeate understanding findings, to illuminate program processes that youth perceived as helpful and not helpful, and to provide multiple perspectives on youths' resilience and their understanding of the risks they faced. Both mentors and community collaborators were trained and engaged as community researchers. School-based data were also collected. Demographic variables include participants' age, race, and grade in school.

The overall goals of this project were to develop a clear theoretical understanding of coercive control and to develop a measure of "nonviolent coercive control" for use in the measurement of intimate partner violence (IPV). The psychometric properties of the newly developed coercive control measure were assessed between February and September 2004 in a total sample of 757 that included 302 males and 448 females from the metropolitan Washington, DC, and Boston areas. Of this sample, 139 reporting IPV victimization only, 39 reported IPV perpetration only, 245 reported both IPV victimization and perpetration, and 334 reported neither IPV victimization nor perpetration.

Respondents were recruited from community agencies involving identified IPV victims and perpetrators, agencies providing non-IPV services to demographically similar participants, community college settings, and general public community settings, e.g., fast food restaurants. The sample was a convenience, not a representative, sample. Selection criteria included the following: (1) involvement in an intimate partner relationship within the past 12 months, and (2) being 18 years of age or older. Respondents were excluded if they exhibited signs of intoxication or other indications of a lack of coherence sufficient to complete the survey.

Both data files contain demographic information. Respondents were asked several series of questions including those pertaining to demands received from their partner, whether their partner did anything to find out if the respondent had done what the partner had demanded, if their partner made them feel the partner might do something if the respondent did not do what the partner wanted, and whether they had done certain things when their partner demanded something. Respondents were then asked the same series of questions conversely. Respondents were read a statement and asked how often they felt this way in the past month, asked whether in the last 12 months they had experienced certain physical abuse or abused their partner physically, and they were asked whether in the last 12 months they had experienced certain types of emotional abuse or had abused their partner emotionally. Respondents were read a series of statements regarding their relationships with people in general and asked to tell whether the statement was true or false, asked how often they had experienced problems in response to a trauma, and asked how likely their partner might attempt to abuse the respondent in specific ways in the next year.

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 purpose of this was to leverage an existing randomized controlled trial of The Second Step anti-bullying program, which was implemented when the sample of students was in middle school, by measuring related aggressive behaviors (e.g. bullying, cyberbullying, sexual violence) during the high school years. The objectives of this study were to determine treatment effects of the Second Step middle school program on reductions in youth aggression (including bullying), sexual violence, substance use, and teen dating violence when in high school, as well as to assess middle school belonging as a mediator of these treatment effects on targeted problem behaviors in high school.

Demographic variables included as part of this collection are students' age, gender, race, and household characteristics. The collection contains 3 SPSS data files:

• analysis4_de-identified_2.sav (n=2143; 304 variables)

• RCT-WAVE-1-4-ITEMS_RECODED_de-identified_2.sav (n=4718; 741 variables)

• RCT---WAVE-5-7-ITEMS_RECODED_de-identified_2.sav (n=3064; 887 variables)

This study evaluated CeaseFire, a program of the Chicago Project for Violence Prevention. The evaluation had both outcome and process components.

The outcome evaluation assessed the program's impact on shootings and killings in selected CeaseFire sites. Two types of crime data were compiled by the research team: Time Series Data (Dataset 1) and Shooting Incident Data (Dataset 2). Dataset 1 is comprised of aggregate month/year data on all shooting, gun murder, and persons shot incidents reported to Chicago police for CeaseFire's target beats and matched sets of comparison beats between January 1991 and December 2006, resulting in 1,332 observations. Dataset 2 consists of data on 4,828 shootings that were reported in CeaseFire's targeted police beats and in a matched set of comparison beats for two-year periods before and after the implementation of the program (February 1998 to April 2006).

The process evaluation involved assessing the program's operations and effectiveness. Researchers surveyed three groups of CeaseFire program stakeholders: employees, representatives of collaborating organizations, and clients.

The three sets of employee survey data examine such topics as their level of involvement with clients and CeaseFire activities, their assessments of their clients' problems, and their satisfaction with training and management practices. A total of 154 employees were surveyed: 23 outreach supervisors (Dataset 3), 78 outreach workers (Dataset 4), and 53 violence interrupters (Dataset 5).

The six sets of collaborating organization representatives data examine such topics as their level of familiarity and contact with the CeaseFire program, their opinions of CeaseFire clients, and their assessments of the costs and benefits of being involved with CeaseFire. A total of 230 representatives were surveyed: 20 business representatives (Dataset 6), 45 clergy representatives (Dataset 7), 26 community representatives (Dataset 8), 35 police representatives (Dataset 9), 36 school representatives (Dataset 10), and 68 service organization representatives (Dataset 11).

The Client Survey Data (Dataset 12) examine such topics as clients' involvement in the CeaseFire program, their satisfaction with aspects of life, and their opinions regarding the role of guns in neighborhood life. A total of 297 clients were interviewed.

The evaluation of the Honest Opportunity Probation with Enforcement Demonstration Field Experiment (HOPE DFE) was a four-site, randomized controlled trial replicating a Hawaii probation program widely touted as successful in reducing drug use, violations, and reincarceration. HOPE is based on "swift, certain, and fair" principles, beginning with a warning hearing from a judge and requiring strict adherence to supervision requirements, including random drug testing, with all violations followed by hearings and jail sanctions. Treatment is for those who repeatedly fail random tests. Grants and technical assistance were provided to the sites (Saline County, Arkansas; Essex County, Massachusetts; Clackamas County, Oregon; Tarrant County, Texas) by the Bureau of Justice Assistance to facilitate implementation. The evaluation documented implementation and fidelity, tested outcomes (primarily recidivism), and estimated costs.

1,504 individuals who met eligibility criteria for HOPE were randomly assigned to HOPE or to probation as usual (PAU) between August 2012 and September 2014. Phases of the study included a process evaluation with fidelity analysis, outcomes evaluation, and cost evaluation. Data collection activities included site visits, documentation review, stakeholder interviews, procuring administrative records, conducting interviews for probationers at three different timepoints (baseline, 6 months, 12 months), drug testing oral swabs, and a weekly telephone-based interview with a subset of probationers to assess attitudinal changes.