Search results

This mixed methods study examined several aspects of the use of civil protection orders (CPOs) by adolescents and young adults (aged 14 to 24 years) in one county in Washington. The first aim examined the effectiveness of CPOs among adolescents and young adults with a history of intimate partner violence (IPV) on IPV recidivism rates of: 1) physical IPV; 2) psychological IPV; and 3) IPV-related property crimes. The second aim explored the knowledge, perceptions, and barriers to and facilitators of adolescent and young adult IPV victims' use of CPOs to best identify next steps in improving access and uptake among this population.

The collection includes a survival analysis dataset (DS1) containing data from county court records and CPO filings from IPV events, and documentation from IPV victim interviews (DS2). Demographic information includes victim, offender, and interview respondent ages, and interview respondent gender, race and ethnicity.

Sexual assault is the most common violent crime committed on college campuses today. One in five women have experienced a completed or attempted sexual assault as an undergraduate. In one study, 28% of first-year college women experienced unwanted sexual contact and 7% experienced sexual assault or attempted sexual assault in the first semester of their first year of college, while 7% of college men reported an attempted or completed assault during their college experience. Growing evidence suggests the effectiveness of using online tools and video games for public health intervention and education.

Because of the positive impact of these digital strategies, researchers saw a need to bring this research to sexual violence prevention, where there has been limited use of digital applications. The goal of this project was to design and evaluate the pedagogical effectiveness and cost effectiveness of a video game to reduce sexual and relationship violence. It was hypothesized that the video game could enhance the self-confidence of male and female late adolescents (ages 18-24) to practice safe, appropriate, and effective approaches for intervening in situations where sexual and/or relationship violence (including stalking) is occurring, has the potential to occur, or recently occurred.

These data are part of NACJD's Fast Track Release and are distributed as they there received from the data depositor. The files have been zipped by NACJD for release, but not checked or processed except of the removal of direct identifiers. Users should refer to the accompany readme file for a brief description of the files available with this collections and consult the investigator(s) if further information is needed.

To assess the current practices in cold-case investigations, this study utilized a national online survey of law enforcement agencies (Cold Case Survey Data, n = 1,051) to document the range of ways in which cold-case work is conducted and assess how this organization affects cold-case clearance rates. In November 2008, the chiefs of police in the sample were sent a letter explaining the purpose of the survey and inviting them to participate. Potential respondents were directed to the web-based survey instrument through a provided web address. The results from the national survey were used to select sites for an analysis of case files. Researchers chose three jurisdictions that conducted a large number of cold-case homicide investigations: the District of Columbia, Baltimore, Maryland, and Dallas, Texas (Cold Case Homicide Data, n = 429). To these three sites, researchers added Denver, Colorado (Cold Case Sexual Assault Data, n = 105) because it had received a Department of Justice grant to conduct testing of DNA material in sexual assault cold cases. At all four sites, cold cases were examined for seven categories of data including victim's characteristics, crime context, motivation, human capital, physical evidence, basis for cold-case investigations and cold-case actions.

The Annual Survey of Jails (ASJ) is the only data collection effort that provides an annual source of data on local jails and jail inmates. Data on the size of the jail population and selected inmate characteristics are obtained every five to six years from the Census of Jails. In each of the years between the complete censuses, a sample survey of jails is conducted to estimate baseline characteristics of the nation's jails and inmates housed in these jails. The 2014 Annual Survey of Jails is the 27th such survey in a series begun in 1982.

The ASJ supplies data on characteristics of jails such as admissions and releases, growth in the number of jail facilities, changes in their rated capacities and level of occupancy, growth in the population supervised in the community, changes in methods of community supervision, and crowding issues. The ASJ also provides information on changes in the demographics of the jail population, supervision status of persons held, and a count of non-citizens in custody.

Starting in 2010, BJS enhanced the ASJ survey instruments to address topics on the number of convicted inmates that are unsentenced or sentenced and the number of unconvicted inmates awaiting trial/arraignment, or transfers/holds for other authorities. In order to reduce respondent burden, the ASJ no longer collects data on conviction status by sex. Also new to the survey, data are collected on jails' operational capacity and design capacity. Incorporating enhanced capacity measurements enables BJS to describe more accurately the variation and volatility of inmate bed space and crowding, especially as they relate to safety and security in jails.

To address more directly issues related to overcrowding and safety and security in jails, BJS started collecting data on staff and assaults against staff from the largest jails. In the modifications to the ASJ, starting in 2010, 335 jail jurisdictions (370 respondents) included with certainty in the ASJ sample survey were asked to provide additional information (forms CJ-5D or CJ-5DA) on the flow of inmates going through jails and the distribution of time served, staff characteristics and assaults on staff resulting in death, and inmate misconduct.

The data presented in this study were collected in the Annual Survey of Jails, 2014. These data are used to track growth in the number of jails and the capacities nationally, changes in the demographics of the jail population and supervision status of persons held, the prevalence of crowding issues, and a count of non-United States citizens within the jail population. The data are intended for a variety of users, including federal and state agencies, local officials in conjunction with jail administrators, researchers, planners, and the public. The reference date for the survey is June 30, 2014.

The Annual Survey of Jails (ASJ) is the only data collection effort that provides an annual source of data on local jails and jail inmates. Data on the size of the jail population and selected inmate characteristics are obtained every five to six years from the Census of Jails. In each of the years between the complete censuses, a sample survey of jails is conducted to estimate baseline characteristics of the nation's jails and inmates housed in these jails. The 2015 Annual Survey of Jails is the 28th such survey in a series begun in 1982.

The ASJ supplies data on characteristics of jails such as admissions and releases, growth in the number of jail facilities, changes in their rated capacities and level of occupancy, growth in the population supervised in the community, changes in methods of community supervision, and crowding issues. The ASJ also provides information on changes in the demographics of the jail population, supervision status of persons held, and a count of non-U.S. citizens in custody.

The data presented in this study were collected in the Annual Survey of Jails, 2015. These data are used to track growth in the number of jails and the capacities nationally, changes in the demographics of the jail population and supervision status of persons held, the prevalence of crowding issues, and a count of non-U.S. citizens within the jail population. The data are intended for a variety of users, including Federal and State agencies, local officials in conjunction with jail administrators, researchers, planners, and the public. The reference date for the survey is December 31, 2015.

The Annual Survey of Jails (ASJ) is the only data collection effort that provides an annual source of data on local jails and jail inmates. Data on the size of the jail population and selected inmate characteristics are obtained every five to six years from the Census of Jails. In each of the years between the complete censuses, a sample survey of jails is conducted to estimate baseline characteristics of the nation's jails and inmates housed in these jails. The 2016 Annual Survey of Jails is the 29th such survey in a series begun in 1982.

The ASJ supplies data on characteristics of jails such as admissions and releases, growth in the number of jail facilities, changes in their rated capacities and level of occupancy, growth in the population supervised in the community, changes in methods of community supervision, and crowding issues. The ASJ also provides information on changes in the demographics of the jail population, supervision status of persons held, and a count of non-U.S. citizens in custody.

The data presented in this study were collected in the Annual Survey of Jails, 2016. These data are used to track growth in the number of jails and the capacities nationally, changes in the demographics of the jail population and supervision status of persons held, the prevalence of crowding issues, and a count of non-U.S. citizens within the jail population. The data are intended for a variety of users, including Federal and State agencies, local officials in conjunction with jail administrators, researchers, planners, and the public. The reference date for the survey is December 31, 2016.

The Annual Survey of Jails (ASJ) is the only data collection effort that provides an annual source of data on local jails and jail inmates. Data on the size of the jail population and selected inmate characteristics are obtained every five to six years from the Census of Jails. In each of the years between the complete censuses, a sample survey of jails is conducted to estimate baseline characteristics of the nation's jails and inmates housed in these jails. The 2017 Annual Survey of Jails is the 30th such survey in a series begun in 1982.

The ASJ supplies data on characteristics of jails such as admissions and releases, growth in the number of jail facilities, changes in their rated capacities and level of occupancy, growth in the population supervised in the community, changes in methods of community supervision, and crowding issues. The ASJ also provides information on changes in the demographics of the jail population, supervision status of persons held, and a count of non-U.S. citizens in custody.

The data presented in this study were collected in the Annual Survey of Jails, 2017. These data are used to track growth in the number of jails and the capacities nationally, changes in the demographics of the jail population and supervision status of persons held, the prevalence of crowding issues, and a count of non-U.S. citizens within the jail population. The data are intended for a variety of users, including Federal and State agencies, local officials in conjunction with jail administrators, researchers, planners, and the public. The reference date for the survey is June 30, 2017.

The Annual Survey of Jails (ASJ) is the only data collection effort that provides an annual source of data on local jails and jail inmates. Data on the size of the jail population and selected inmate characteristics are obtained every five to six years from the Census of Jails. In each of the years between the complete censuses, a sample survey of jails is conducted to estimate baseline characteristics of the nation's jails and inmates housed in these jails. The 2018 Annual Survey of Jails is the 31st such survey in a series begun in 1982.

The ASJ supplies data on characteristics of jails such as admissions and releases, growth in the number of jail facilities, changes in their rated capacities and level of occupancy, growth in the population supervised in the community, changes in methods of community supervision, and crowding issues. The ASJ also provides information on changes in the demographics of the jail population, supervision status of persons held, and a count of non-U.S. citizens in custody.

The data presented in this study were collected in the Annual Survey of Jails, 2018. These data are used to track growth in the number of jails and the capacities nationally, changes in the demographics of the jail population and supervision status of persons held, the prevalence of crowding issues, and a count of non-U.S. citizens within the jail population. The data are intended for a variety of users, including Federal and State agencies, local officials in conjunction with jail administrators, researchers, planners, and the public. The reference date for the survey is June 29, 2018.

The Annual Survey of Jails (ASJ) is the only data collection effort that provides an annual source of data on local jails and jail inmates. Data on the size of the jail population and selected inmate characteristics are obtained every five to six years from the Census of Jails. In each of the years between the complete censuses, a sample survey of jails is conducted to estimate baseline characteristics of the nation's jails and inmates housed in these jails. The 2020 Annual Survey of Jails is the 32nd such survey in a series begun in 1982.

The ASJ supplies data on characteristics of jails such as admissions and releases, growth in the number of jail facilities, changes in their rated capacities and level of occupancy, growth in the population supervised in the community, changes in methods of community supervision, and crowding issues. The ASJ also provides information on changes in the demographics of the jail population, supervision status of persons held, and a count of non-U.S. citizens in custody.

The data presented in this study were collected in the Annual Survey of Jails, 2020. These data are used to track growth in the number of jails and the capacities nationally, changes in the demographics of the jail population and supervision status of persons held, the prevalence of crowding issues, and a count of non-U.S. citizens within the jail population. The data are intended for a variety of users, including Federal and State agencies, local officials in conjunction with jail administrators, researchers, planners, and the public. The reference date for the survey is June 30, 2020.

The 2020 ASJ included a special module to collect data on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on local jails from March 1, 2020, to June 30, 2020. Items included:

• number of jail inmates at the end of each month from January 2020 to May 2020
• number of expedited releases from jail due to the pandemic
• number of COVID-19 tests conducted on confined inmates
• number of positive tests
• number of jail staff that tested positive
• number of jail inmates and staff that died from COVID-19

The data on COVID-19 tests and deaths are in the restricted-use version of the 2020 ASJ data file only

The Annual Survey of Jails (ASJ) is the only data collection effort that provides an annual source of data on local jails and jail inmates. Data on the size of the jail population and selected inmate characteristics are obtained every five to six years from the Census of Jails. In each of the years between the complete censuses, a sample survey of jails is conducted to estimate baseline characteristics of the nation's jails and inmates housed in these jails. The 2021 Annual Survey of Jails is the 33rd such survey in a series begun in 1982.

The ASJ supplies data on characteristics of jails such as admissions and releases, growth in the number of jail facilities, changes in their rated capacities and level of occupancy, growth in the population supervised in the community, changes in methods of community supervision, and crowding issues. The ASJ also provides information on changes in the demographics of the jail population, supervision status of persons held, and a count of non-U.S. citizens in custody.

The data presented in this study were collected in the Annual Survey of Jails, 2021. These data are used to track growth in the number of jails and the capacities nationally, changes in the demographics of the jail population and supervision status of persons held, the prevalence of crowding issues, and a count of non-U.S. citizens within the jail population. The data are intended for a variety of users, including Federal and State agencies, local officials in conjunction with jail administrators, researchers, planners, and the public. The reference date for the survey is June 30, 2021.

The 2021 ASJ included a special module to collect data on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on local jails from July 1, 2020, to December 31, 2020. Items included:

• number of jail inmates at the end of each month from July 2020 to December 2020
• number of expedited releases from jail due to the pandemic
• number of COVID-19 tests conducted on confined inmates
• number of positive tests
• number of jail staff that tested positive
• number of jail inmates and staff that died from COVID-19

The data on COVID-19 tests and deaths are in the restricted-use version of the 2021 ASJ data file only

The Annual Survey of Jails (ASJ) is the only data collection effort that provides an annual source of data on local jails and jail inmates. Data on the size of the jail population and selected inmate characteristics are obtained every five to six years from the Census of Jails. In each of the years between the complete censuses, a sample survey of jails is conducted to estimate baseline characteristics of the nation's jails and inmates housed in these jails. The 2022 Annual Survey of Jails is the 34th such survey in a series begun in 1982.

The ASJ supplies data on characteristics of jails such as admissions and releases, growth in the number of jail facilities, changes in their rated capacities and level of occupancy, growth in the population supervised in the community, changes in methods of community supervision, and crowding issues. The ASJ also provides information on changes in the demographics of the jail population, supervision status of persons held, and a count of non-U.S. citizens in custody.

The data presented in this study were collected in the Annual Survey of Jails, 2022. These data are used to track growth in the number of jails and the capacities nationally, changes in the demographics of the jail population and supervision status of persons held, the prevalence of crowding issues, and a count of non-U.S. citizens within the jail population. The data are intended for a variety of users, including Federal and State agencies, local officials in conjunction with jail administrators, researchers, planners, and the public. The reference date for the survey is June 30, 2022.

The Annual Survey of Jails (ASJ) is the only data collection effort that provides an annual source of data on local jails and jail inmates. Data on the size of the jail population and selected inmate characteristics are obtained every five to six years from the Census of Jails. In each of the years between the complete censuses, a sample survey of jails is conducted to estimate baseline characteristics of the nation's jails and inmates housed in these jails. The 2023 Annual Survey of Jails is the 35th such survey in a series begun in 1982.

The ASJ supplies data on characteristics of jails such as admissions and releases, growth in the number of jail facilities, changes in their rated capacities and level of occupancy, growth in the population supervised in the community, changes in methods of community supervision, and crowding issues. The ASJ also provides information on changes in the demographics of the jail population, supervision status of persons held, and a count of non-U.S. citizens in custody.

The data presented in this study were collected in the Annual Survey of Jails, 2023. These data are used to track growth in the number of jails and the capacities nationally, changes in the demographics of the jail population and supervision status of persons held, the prevalence of crowding issues, and a count of non-U.S. citizens within the jail population. The data are intended for a variety of users, including Federal and State agencies, local officials in conjunction with jail administrators, researchers, planners, and the public. The reference date for the survey is June 30, 2023.

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 examined how police managers would use information about their officers' performance in procedural justice terms. The project provided for the injection of citizen assessment of service quality into systems of police performance measurement and accountability. Information on the quality of police-citizen encounters was drawn from surveys of citizens who had contact with the police in each of two cities, Schenectady and Syracuse, New York. Following the accumulation of survey data to form a baseline, survey results on citizens' satisfaction and judgments about procedural justice in their police contacts were summarized and reported to command staffs on a monthly basis through the departments' respective Compstat meetings. In this way the project provided for measures of police performance with respect to procedural justice with sufficient periodicity that the information was potentially useful in managing performance.

The study addressed four specific questions:

1. Does performance on these outcomes - procedural justice and citizen satisfaction - improve when information on these outcomes is incorporated into departments' systems of performance measurement and accountability?
2. What do police managers do with this information, and how (if at all) are field supervisors and patrol officers affected by it?
3. Are survey-based measures of citizens' subjective experiences valid measures of police performance, that is, do they reflect the procedural justice with which police act?
4. Can survey based measures be deployed economically (e.g., through targeted sampling), and can other, less expensive measures of the quality of police-citizen encounters be substituted for survey-based measures?

To answer these questions, researches used a mixed methods data collection plan. In both Schenectady and Syracuse, a survey was administered to people who had recent contact with the police. Semi-monthly samples were randomly drawn from police records of calls for service, stops, and arrests from mid-July, 2011, through mid-January, 2013. Across the 18 months of surveying, 3,603 interviews were completed. Also carried out, was a survey of key informants in each city - neighborhood association leaders - in order to extend the assessment of public perceptions of the local police beyond those who have direct contact with police to the larger community. Interviews with patrol officers and supervisors were also conducted in both sites, once at about the mid-point of the 18-month police services survey and again at the conclusion of the surveying. Interviews were conducted with the commanders shortly after the project was introduced to them in October of 2011. Finally, in Schenectady, "armchair" observation of a subset of the 1,800 encounters about which the citizen had already been interviewed was conducted.

The collection contains 7 SPSS data files and 6 Syntax files:

1. archive_Census_beat.sav (n=30; 28 variables)
2. archive_keyinformant_analysis.sps
3. archive_keyinformant_survey.sav (n=90; 28 variables)
4. archive_obs_byenc.sav (n=476; 79 variables)
5. archive_obs_byobserver.sav (n=1,078; 476 variables)
6. archive_obs_enc_analysis.sps
7. archive_obs_enc_var_construction.sps
8. archive_police_data.sav (n=3,603; 9 variables)
9. archive_policeservices_survey_analysis.sps
10. archive_policeservices_survey_closed.sav (n=3,603; 148 variables)
11. archive_policeservices_survey_open.sav (n=1,218; 23 variables)
12. archive_policeservices_survey_var_construction.sps
13. Syntax to replicate results - list by table.pdf

For confidentiality reasons, the qualitative interviews with citizens, police sergeants, patrol officers, and commanders regarding their experiences are not available as part of this collection.

This study aimed to improve the understanding of procedural justice during police-citizen encounters with a comprehensive approach including officer surveys, systematic social observations, and citizen surveys.

First, the study used officer surveys to evaluate the effectiveness of a procedural justice training program in Norfolk, Virginia. In 2017, an eight-hour training was conducted for all Norfolk police officers. A pretest and posttest survey was given to each officer during the training, which asked about their opinions on a multitude of statements representing the key elements of procedural justice in policing (e.g., voice, respect, trustworthiness, and neutrality). In 2019, the officers were given a second-wave survey to assess the long-term effects of the training.

The study also examined officers' procedurally fair behavior during interactions and citizens' behavioral responses through systematic social observations of police-citizen interactions captured by the police body-worn cameras. Patrol shifts were randomly selected and observed between December 2017 and March 2019.

The third component included a survey of citizens who interacted with the police during the observation period. Randomly selected officers were, prior to the shift, encouraged to hand out survey cards to all citizens they encountered. These cards invited the citizens to take a survey online. Citizens could also give their phone numbers to the officers so that they could be contacted to take the survey over the phone. The goal of the citizen survey was to obtain information about the citizens' opinions of the Norfolk police in general and the specific encounters they had with the Norfolk police.

Taken together, the three components of this study offered a systematic understanding of the policing issues related to procedural justice, including officers' perceptions about procedural justice, officers' procedurally fair behavior during interactions, citizens' behavioral responses, and citizens' subjective evaluations of their encounters.

The purpose of the study was to evaluate the extent to which deterrence or cooperative strategies motivated firms and their facilities to comply with environmental regulations. The project collected administrative data (secondary data) for a sample of publicly owned, United States companies in the pulp and paper, steel, and oil refining industries from 1995 to 2000 to track each firm's economic, environmental, and enforcement compliance history. Company Economic and Size Data (Part 1) from 1993 to 2000 were gathered from the Standard and Poor's Industrial Compustat, Mergent Online, and Securities and Exchange Commission, resulting in 512 company/year observations. Next, the research team used the Directory of Corporate Affiliations, the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Toxic Release Inventory (TRI), and the EPA's Permit Compliance System (PCS) to identify all facilities owned by the sample of firms between 1995 and 2000. Researchers then gathered Facility Ownership Data (Part 2), resulting in 15,408 facility/year observations.

The research team gathered various types of PCS data from the EPA for facilities in the sample. Permit Compliance System Facility Data (Part 3) were gathered on the 214 unique major National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits issued to facilities in the sample. Although permits were given to facilities, facilities could have one or more discharge points (e.g., pipes) that released polluted water directly into surface waters. Thus, Permit Compliance System Discharge Points (Pipe Layout) Data (Part 4) were also collected on 1,995 pipes.

The EPA determined compliance using two methods: inspections and evaluations/assessments. Permit Compliance System Inspections Data (Part 5) were collected on a total of 1,943 inspections. Permit Compliance System Compliance Schedule Data (Part 6) were collected on a total of 3,336 compliance schedule events. Permit Compliance System Compliance Schedule Violation Data (Part 7) were obtained for a total of 246 compliance schedule violations. Permit Compliance System Single Event Violations Data (Part 8) were collected on 75 single event violations. Permit Compliance System Measurement/Effluent and Reporting Violations Data (Part 9) were collected for 396,479 violations. Permit Compliance System Enforcement Actions Data (Part 10) were collected on 1,730 enforcement actions.

Occupational Safety and Health Administration Data (Part 11) were collected on a total of 2,243 inspections. The OSHA data were collected by company name and include multiple facilities owned by each company and were not limited to facilities in the Permit Compliance System. Additional information about firm noncompliance was drawn from EPA Docket and CrimDoc systems. Administrative and Judicial Docket Case Data (Part 12) were collected on 40 administrative and civil cases. Administrative and Judicial Docket Case Settlement Data (Part 13) were collected on 36 administrative and civil cases. Criminal Case Data (Part 14) were collected on three criminal cases.

For secondary data analysis purposes, the research team created the Yearly Final Report Data (Part 15) and the Quarterly Final Report Data (Part 16). The yearly data contain a total of 378 company/year observations; the quarterly data contain a total of 1,486 company/quarter observations.

The research team also conducted a vignette survey of the same set of companies that are in the secondary data to measure compliance and managerial decision-making. Concerning the Vignette Data (Part 17), a factorial survey was developed and administered to company managers tapping into perceptions of the costs and benefits of pro-social and anti-social conduct for themselves and their companies. A total of 114 respondents from 2 of the sampled corporations read and responded to a total of 384 vignettes representing 4 scenario types: technical noncompliance, significant noncompliance, over-compliance, and response to counter-terrorism.

Part 1 contains 19 economic and size variables. Part 2 contains a total of eight variables relating to ownership. Part 3 contains 67 variables with regard to facility characteristics. Part 4 contains 31 variables relating to discharge points and pipe layout information. Part 5 contains 13 inspections characteristics variables. Part 6 contains 13 compliance schedule event characteristics variables. Part 7 contains 11 compliance schedule violation characteristics variables. Part 8 contains 10 single event violation characteristics variables. Part 9 contains 79 variables including variables for matching limits and discharge monitoring reports, actual limits (permitted levels) variables, standardized limits variables, statistical base codes variables, reported units on limits variables, units for standardized limits variables, sampling information variables, additional limits information, actual DMR reports for each limit, effluent violations, and variables relating to technical aspects of reporting. Part 10 contains 26 enforcement actions variables. Part 11 contains 24 Occupational Safety and Health Administration inspection variables. Part 12 contains 39 administrative and judicial court case characteristics variables. Part 13 contains 21 court case settlement characteristics variables. Part 14 contains 9 criminal case characteristics variables. Part 15 contains 95 variables created for final report analyses by year. Part 16 contains 46 variables created for final report analyses by quarter. Part 17 contains 157 variables including pro-social variables with security/over-compliance intentions, noncompliance variables with technical/significant noncompliance intentions, vignette characteristics variables, other variables derived from survey questions, environmental norms variables, and demographic characteristics variables.

In October 2013, the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation (PIRE), in partnership with Big Brothers Big Sisters of Kentuckiana (BBBS-KY), was funded by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) to implement a mentoring research best practices project that explored whether three types of parent/guardian level variables (psychosocial parent/family characteristics, parent engagement in the mentoring match, and parenting style) influence match quality, match length, and youth outcomes.

This study was designed to describe these factors, as well as investigate how these factors impact match length, match strength, and youth program outcomes. Data to inform both objectives was collected using a longitudinal multimode approach with youth, mentors and parents in the BBBS-KY program in the metro Louisville area. In addition, data from 16 local school districts provided measures of academic performance, school attendance, and disciplinary suspensions. Data were collected at multiple time points from youth, volunteer mentors, and parents/guardians. These data included BBBS-America standard surveys (Youth Outcomes Survey, and Volunteer and Youth Strength of Relationship Surveys). PIRE supplemented the standard BBBS data collection efforts with project-specific baseline volunteer mentor survey and several formative and outcome based inserts to supplement the data that was regularly collected from youth and mentors. The PIRE and BBBS-KY teams also created a project-specific parent/guardian survey to better understand the impact of parental factors on match dynamics and youth mentoring program outcomes. Due to low literacy levels of parents/guardians, this survey was administered as a mixed-mode, audio-computer assisted interview (ACASI). Additional data sources for this study included data from (a) coding of qualitative case review notes for selected aspects of matches by BBBS-KY match support specialists, (b) academic data collected from school districts, and (c) data collected on general match characteristics (e.g., match closure status) collected by BBBS-KY as part of their standard business operations. Most measures were collected early in the match (either match formation or three months into the match) and at 12 months into the match.

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 was designed to begin to build a knowledge base to address the challenges of crossover youth in Maryland - those involved at some point in their lives in the dependency and delinquency systems. Employing a mix of qualitative and quantitative methods, the research focused on the five most populous jurisdictions in the state, Baltimore City, and Anne Arundel, Montgomery, Prince George's, and Baltimore Counties.

This collection includes 4 SPSS data files:

1. CINA BCity_Archive_final_Corrected-ICPSR.sav (n=400; 64 variables)
2. CY Stakeholder Survey_Archive_final_Corrected_Update2016-ICPSR.sav (n=164; 302 variables)
3. Delinquency_Risk_Archive_final_Corrected_Update2016-ICPSR.sav (n=1,127; 62 variables)
4. Needs_Archive_final-ICPSR.sav (n=700; 67 variables)

Data from interviews with 26 officials in state and local agencies to collect information on policies and practices affecting crossover youth in Maryland are not available as part of this collection.

The Assessment of National and State Tip Line Technology as a Strategy for Identifying Threats to School Safety was conducted by RTI International, in partnership with the Oregon State Police, from 2018 through 2021. The project was designed to describe the national prevalence and characteristics of school safety tip lines, and to develop lessons learned on successful implementation approaches by conducting a case study with the SafeOregon tip line. The three main goals of the project were to:

1. Describe the prevalence and variability of tip line technology in public middle and high schools across the U.S. through a national survey of school administrators (Component 1).
2. Evaluate the relationship between tip line technology implementation and school safety by augmenting the national survey data with publicly available data on student disciplinary and school safety outcomes from the Department of Education's Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC) (Component 2).
3. Assess the implementation experiences, outputs, and costs through an in-depth case study in the state of Oregon (Component 3).

For component 1, RTI conducted a national survey of public middle and high school administrators. For component 2, RTI conducted a national evaluation of school tip lines and measures of school safety, merging the national survey findings with eleven offense categories schools reported to the Department of Education's Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC).

For Component 3, the team set out to better understand how tip lines are implemented, the characteristics or features of these systems, challenges school administrators face during implementation and use, and perceived effectiveness. Using a mixed-methods design, researchers analyzed the efforts to implement and operate Oregon's SafeOregon statewide school tip line program and present data from the national survey for context. Case study objectives included identifying the (1) prevalence and school characteristics of tip line use; (2) basic operational characteristics of tip lines, including partnerships, staffing, tip submission and triage processes, and anonymity and confidentiality; (3) barriers and challenges involved in tip line implementation; and (4) perceived impact of tip lines. This qualitative assessment was informed by interviews with key stakeholders, school administrators and students. As part of the final component, RTI analyzed tip line data from the SafeOregon statewide tip line program (2018-2020).

Data and documentation from the qualitative interviews (student focus groups and school-level stakeholders) will be made available at a future date.

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 reports the findings of a randomized controlled trial (RCT) involving more than 400 police officers and the use of body-worn cameras (BWC) in the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (LVMPD). Officers were surveyed before and after the trial, and a random sample was interviewed to assess their level of comfort with technology, perceptions of self, civilians, other officers, and the use of BWCs. Information was gathered during ride-alongs with BWC officers and from a review of BWC videos.

The collection includes 2 SPSS data files, 4 Excel data files, and 2 files containing aggregated treatment groups and rank-and-treatment groups, in Stata, Excel, and CSV format:

• SPSS: officer-survey---pretest.sav (n=422; 30 variables)
• SPSS: officer-survey---posttest2.sav (n=95; 33 variables)
• Excel: officer-interviews---form-a.xlsx (n=23; 52 variables)
• Excel: officer-interviews---form-b.xlsx (n=27; 52 variables)
• Excel: ride-along-observations.xlsx (n=72; 20 variables)
• Excel: video-review-data.xlsx (n=53; 21 variables)
• Stata: hours-and-compensation-rollup-to-treatment-group.dta (n=4; 42 variables)
• Excel: hours-and-compensation-rollup-to-treatment-group.xls (n=4; 42 variables)
• CSV: hours-and-compensation-rollup-to-treatment-group.csv (n=4; 42 variables)
• Stata: hours-and-compensation-rollup-to-rank-and-treatment-group.dta (n=12; 43 variables)
• Excel: hours-and-compensation-rollup-to-rank-and-treatment-group.xls (n=12; 43 variables)
• CSV: hours-and-compensation-rollup-to-rank-and-treatment-group.csv (n=12; 43 variables)

These data are part of NACJD's Fast Track Release and are distributed as they there received from the data depositor. The files have been zipped by NACJD for release, but not checked or processed except of the removal of direct identifiers. Users should refer to the accompany readme file for a brief description of the files available with this collections and consult the investigator(s) if further information is needed.

This study conducted an experimental investigation of two potential contributors to invalid testimony within adversarial litigation involving forensic evidence. First, the experts' knowledge of their party representation (i.e., prosecution vs. defense counsel), and secondly the lack of input from the relevant scientific community. The study used an experimental survey design with a realistic criminal case to examine the effects of blinding experts to their party representation and consensus feedback from a panel of experts to quantify and reduce testimonial bias.

This study tests a brief intervention designed to reduce adolescent dating abuse (ADA) perpetration in a healthcare setting used primarily by low income, Black, and Hispanic youth. The Project READY (Reducing Aggression in Dating Relationships for Youth) is a theory-driven, empirically supported, brief intervention. READY intercepts youth who utilize an urban emergency department for non-urgent health care (e.g., sprains), provides them with tailored feedback about their relationship behavior, and uses motivational interviewing to move them towards non-violence and respect. READY was designed to avoid victim-blaming and is responsive to the gendered dynamic of ADA. A small feasibility pilot test of READY was completed in 2013 (N=27).

Participants were 173 youth ages 15-19 years old who were patients of an urban pediatric emergency department. Youth who perpetrated at least 1 act of physical or sexual ADA 3 months prior to baseline were eligible. The proposed experimental evaluation of READY used a randomized controlled trial (RCT) design, with 3- and 6-month follow-ups to assess changes in knowledge, attitude and perpetration behavior.

The hypotheses are: (1) Youth who participate in the brief intervention session and telephone booster call will report improved knowledge and attitudes, and less self-reported ADA perpetration up to 6 months post-intervention as compared to youth in the control group; and (2) the cost of providing the intervention will be less than the cost of the violence that occurs in its absence. Mixed effects linear and logistic models were used to analyze longitudinal data.

The Center for Court Innovation, in partnership with independent consultants from the public defender's office of certain tribes, conducted a comprehensive survey of tribal justice system stakeholders, focused on the existing use of risk-needs assessments and similar tools, and existing data collection/technology used by tribal jurisdictions around the country. The survey results create a comprehensive portrait of tribal court system risk and need assessment, data collection, management, and challenges reported by those directly involved in managing and working with people in the system.

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 files for a brief dscription of the files available with this collection and consult the investigator(s) if further information is needed.

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

Numerous high-profile events involving student victimization on school buses have raised critical questions regarding the safety of school-based transportation for children, the efforts taken by school districts to protect students on buses, and the most effective transportation-based behavioral management strategies for reducing misconduct. To address these questions, a national web-based survey was administered to public school district-level transportation officials throughout the United States to assess the prevalence of misconduct on buses, identify strategies to address misconduct, and describe effective ways to reduce student misbehavior on buses. Telephone interviews were also conducted with a small group of transportation officials to understand the challenges of transportation-based behavioral management, to determine successful strategies to create safe and positive school bus environments, and to identify data-driven approaches for tracking and assessing disciplinary referrals.

The collection includes 10 Stata data files:

• BVSBS_analysis file.dta (n=2,595; 1058 variables)
• Title Crosswalk File.dta (n=2,594; 3 variables)
• Lessons Learned and Open Dummies.dta (n=1,543; 200 variables)
• CCD dataset.dta (n=12,494; 89 variables)
• BVSB_REGION.dta (n=4; 3 variables)
• BVSB_SCHOOLS.dta (n=3; 3 variables)
• BVSB_STUDENTS.dta (n=3; 3 variables)
• BVSB_URBAN.dta (n=8; 3 variables)
• BVSB_WHITE.dta (n=3; 3 variables)
• FINALRAKER.dta (n=2,595; 2 variables)

These data are part of NACJD's Fast Track Release and are distributed as they there received from the data depositor. The files have been zipped by NACJD for release, but not checked or processed except of the removal of direct identifiers. Users should refer to the accompany readme file for a brief description of the files available with this collections and consult the investigator(s) if further information is needed.

This study tested a model of individual, familial, and peer variables that additively and synergistically increased or decreased the risk for sexual and teen dating violence based on bullying experiences in early adolescence. The study surveyed 1,162 students from three cohorts in four Midwestern middle schools, who were then followed into three high schools. Five waves of surveys collected information about the level of violence in student homes with parents and siblings or with other children, physical abuse, sexual abuse, exposure to domestic violence, frequency of bullying, self-reported delinquency, and exposure to delinquent friends during the middle school years. Waves six and seven were collected during high school and sexual violence and teen dating violence measures were added to the surveys.

In 2018, the Association of American Universities (AAU) assembled 33 schools to participate in the spring of 2019 as a follow-up to the 2015 survey. For those who participated in the 2015 AAU survey and others who had implemented the AAU survey on their own, the 2019 survey provided a means to track trends for key types of victimization and climate outcomes.

The AAU sought to examine the prevalence of and assess the campus climate regarding sexual assault and misconduct at colleges and universities. The goal of these surveys was to gather as much information about the issue as possible to help inform member schools as they create policies and strategies to combat sexual assault and misconduct on their campuses.

The study reported on the following research questions:

• How extensive is nonconsensual sexual contact?
• How extensive are sexual harassment, stalking, and intimate partner violence (IPV)?
• What are students' experiences with campus programs and resources?
• What are students' perceptions and experiences related to sexual assault and other sexual misconduct?
• Have the prevalence, knowledge, and perceptions of risk for sexual assault or misconduct changed since 2015?

A total of 181,752 students out of a total student sample size of 830,936 completed the survey. Within this sample, there were 108,221 undergraduate respondents and 73,531 graduate and professional respondents; 95,975 respondents from private institutions and 85,777 respondents from public institutions. Demographic variables include age, year in school/program, year enrolled, race, citizenship, gender, sexual orientation, marital status, and disability status.

This study includes 3 data files. The first two files are respondent-level and incident-level data, respectively. The respondent-level file (DS1) contains all the survey data; this includes the survey items, derived variables, weight variables, and ID variables. The incident-level file (DS2) contains only a subset of the survey items; these include the Detail Incident Form (DIF) items (variables that start with 'GA'), the COMPLETE indicator, derived variables related to the DIF, ID, and weight variables. A third SAS data file (DS3) is provided that has the replicate weight factors for use with survey procedures that utilize replicate weights for variance estimation.

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT IN THE UNITED STATES, 1973-2018 provides annual data on prisoners under a sentence of death, as well as those who had their sentences commuted or vacated and prisoners who were executed. This study examines basic sociodemographic classifications including age, sex, race and ethnicity, marital status at time of imprisonment, level of education, and state and region of incarceration. Criminal history information includes prior felony convictions and prior convictions for criminal homicide and the legal status at the time of the capital offense. Additional information is provided on those inmates removed from death row by yearend 2018. The dataset consists of one part which contains 9,583 cases. The file provides information on inmates whose death sentences were removed in addition to information on those inmates who were executed. The file also gives information about inmates who received a second death sentence by yearend 2018 as well as inmates who were already on death row.

To reduce respondent burden for the 2013 collection, the Census of Jails was combined with the Deaths in Custody Reporting Program (DCRP). The census provides the sampling frame for the nationwide Survey of Inmates in Local Jails (SILJ) and the Annual Survey of Jails (ASJ). Previous jail enumerations were conducted in 1970 (ICPSR 7641), 1972 (ICPSR 7638), 1978 (ICPSR 7737), 1983 (ICPSR 8203), 1988 (ICPSR 9256), 1993 (ICPSR 6648), 1999 (ICPSR 3318), 2005 (ICPSR 20367), and 2006 (ICPSR 26602). The RTI International collected the data for the Bureau of Justice Statistics in 2013. The United States Census Bureau was the collection agent from 1970-2006.

The 2013 Census of Jails gathered data from all jail detention facilities holding inmates beyond arraignment, a period normally exceeding 72 hours. Jail facilities were operated by cities and counties, by private entities under contract to correctional authorities, and by the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP).

Excluded from the census were physically separate temporary holding facilities such as drunk tanks and police lockups that do not hold persons after being formally charged in court. Also excluded were state-operated facilities in Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Alaska, which have combined jail-prison systems. Fifteen independently operated jails in Alaska were included in the Census.

The 2013 census collected facility-level information on the number of confined and nonconfined inmates, number of inmates participating in weekend programs, number of confined non-U.S. citizens, number of confined inmates by sex and adult or juvenile status, number of juveniles held as adults, conviction and sentencing status, offense type, number of inmates held by race or Hispanic origin, number of inmates held for other jurisdictions or authorities, average daily population, rated capacity, number of admissions and releases, program participation for nonconfined inmates, operating expenditures, and staff by occupational category.

To reduce respondent burden for the 2019 collection, the Census of Jails was combined with the Deaths in Custody Reporting Program (DCRP). The census provides the sampling frame for the nationwide Survey of Inmates in Local Jails (SILJ) and the Annual Survey of Jails (ASJ). Previous jail enumerations were conducted in 1970 (ICPSR 7641), 1972 (ICPSR 7638), 1978 (ICPSR 7737), 1983 (ICPSR 8203), 1988 (ICPSR 9256), 1993 (ICPSR 6648), 1999 (ICPSR 3318), 2005 (ICPSR 20367), 2006 (ICPSR 26602), and 2013 (ICPSR 36128). The RTI International collected the data for the Bureau of Justice Statistics in 2013 and 2019. The United States Census Bureau was the collection agent from 1970-2006.

The 2019 Census of Jails gathered data from all jail detention facilities holding inmates beyond arraignment, a period normally exceeding 72 hours. Jail facilities were operated by cities and counties, by private entities under contract to correctional authorities, and by the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP).

Excluded from the census were physically separate temporary holding facilities such as drunk tanks and police lockups that do not hold persons after being formally charged in court. Also excluded were state-operated facilities in Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Alaska, which have combined jail-prison systems. Fifteen independently operated jails in Alaska were included in the Census.

The 2019 census collected information on the number of confined inmates, number of persons supervised outside jail, number of inmates participating in weekend programs, number of confined non-U.S. citizens, number of inmates by sex and adult or juvenile status, number of juveniles held as adults, number of inmates who were parole or probation violators, number of inmates by conviction status, number of inmates by felony or misdemeanor status, number of inmates held by race or Hispanic origin, number of inmates held for other jurisdictions or authorities, average daily population, rated capacity, admissions and releases, number of staff employed by local jails, facility functions, and number of jails under court orders and consent decrees.

The 2019 census also included a module to collect data on the effects of the opioid epidemic on local jails and jail responses to the epidemic. Items included:

• Jail practices on opioid use disorder testing, screening, and treatment.
• Number of local jail admissions screened during June 2019.
• Number of positive screens.
• Number of admissions treated for opioid use disorder.
• Number of jail inmates treated for opioid withdrawal at midyear 2019.

The Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement (CJRP), conducted every other year, asks juvenile residential custody facilities in the United States to describe all youth assigned a bed in the facility on a specified reference date. In 2011, the reference date was Wednesday, October 26 (the last Wednesday in October).

Each record in the data provides information on a juvenile in a residential facility on the reference date, including information on placement (e.g. placing agency), the judicial process (e.g. court adjudication status), and demographics (e.g. age). Each record that provides information about a juvenile also includes information about institutional characteristics (e.g. facility type, use of locked doors or gates), treatment services, and population of the facility in which the juvenile was held. Therefore, CJRP data can be analyzed at the individual or facility level.

Some state and regional agencies provide CJRP data for more than one facility under their jurisdiction. The census was not sent to adult facilities or to facilities exclusively for drug or mental health treatment or for abused or neglected children.