Alaska Plea Bargaining Study, 1974-1976 (ICPSR 7714)
Alaska Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner (SANE) Data, 1996-2006 (ICPSR 28367)
Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Program in the United States, 2001 (ICPSR 3688)
Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Program in the United States, 2002 (ICPSR 3815)
Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Program in the United States, 2003 (ICPSR 4020)
Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement, 1997-2010 -- Concatenated Data [United States] (ICPSR 27541)
Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement, 1997 [United States] (ICPSR 4673)
Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement, 1999 [United States] (ICPSR 4674)
Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement, 2001 [United States] (ICPSR 4670)
Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement, 2003 [United States] (ICPSR 23480)
Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement, 2006 [United States] (ICPSR 24300)
Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement, 2007 [United States] (ICPSR 34401)
Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement, 2010 [United States] (ICPSR 34448)
Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement, 2011 [United States] (ICPSR 36436)
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.
Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement, 2013 [United States] (ICPSR 36463)
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 2013, the reference date was Wednesday, October 23 (the fourth 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.
The census was not sent to adult facilities or to facilities exclusively for drug or mental health treatment or for abused or neglected children. Some state and regional agencies provide CJRP data for more than one facility under their jurisdiction.
Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement, 2015 [United States] (ICPSR 36871)
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 2015, the reference date was Wednesday, October 28 (the fourth 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.
The census was not sent to adult facilities or to facilities exclusively for drug or mental health treatment or for abused or neglected children. Some state and regional agencies provide CJRP data for more than one facility under their jurisdiction.
Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement, 2017 [United States] (ICPSR 37952)
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 2017, the reference date was Wednesday, October 25 (the fourth 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.
The census was not sent to adult facilities or to facilities exclusively for drug or mental health treatment or for abused or neglected children. Some state and regional agencies provide CJRP data for more than one facility under their jurisdiction.
Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement, 2019 [United States] (ICPSR 38915)
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 to a bed in the facility on a specified reference date. In 2019, the reference date was Wednesday, October 23 (the fourth 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.
The census was not sent to adult facilities or to facilities exclusively for drug or mental health treatment or for abused or neglected children. Some state and regional agencies provide CJRP data for more than one facility under their jurisdiction.
Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement, 2021 [United States] (ICPSR 38916)
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 2021, the reference date was Wednesday, October 27 (the fourth 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.
The census was not sent to adult facilities or to facilities exclusively for drug or mental health treatment or for abused or neglected children. Some state and regional agencies provide CJRP data for more than one facility under their jurisdiction.
Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement and Juvenile Residential Facility Census, 1997-2010 -- Concatenated Matched Data [United States] (ICPSR 27543)
Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement and Juvenile Residential Facility Census, 1997-2010 -- Concatenated Matched Facility-Level Data [United States] (ICPSR 27544)
Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement and Juvenile Residential Facility Census, 1997-2010 -- Concatenated Matched State-Level Data [United States] (ICPSR 27545)
Census of Juveniles on Probation, United States, 2012 (ICPSR 37438)
The purpose of the Census of Juveniles on Probation (CJP) was to collect individual-level data about youth on probation, including their numbers and characteristics. The CJP survey asked respondents to report the total number of juveniles on formal probation within their reporting jurisdiction on the reference date of October 24, 2012.
For each youth on probation, responding agencies were asked to provide the following information: sex, date of birth, race, most serious offense, state and county where most serious offense was committed, and the state and county where the juvenile resided on the census reference date.
This data collection contains the national data.
Collecting DNA at Arrest: Policies, Practices, and Implications, in 28 States, 2005-2012 (ICPSR 34682)
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 arrestee DNA laws (laws that allowed testing of arrestees DNA pre-adjudication), their implementation in the field and their subsequent effects on agency operations as well as their success in aiding investigations in the 28 states that have these laws. The study investigated five specific questions:
- What states have passed legislation authorizing the collection of DNA from arrestees?
- How do the laws and policies regarding collecting DNA from arrestees differ by state?
- How have the courts ruled on these new laws?
- How have arrestee DNA laws been implemented in each state?
- What has been the impact of requiring DNA collection from arrestees on state crime laboratories and other involved agencies?
- What evidence is available to determine the effects of collecting DNA from arrestees on public safety or other criminal justice outcomes?
To answer these questions, researchers used a mixed methods data collection plan, including reviewing relevant statutes and case law, interviewing state and federal Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) laboratory staff and other forensic experts, and collecting descriptive data from state laboratories.
Collecting DNA from Juveniles in 30 U.S. States, 2009-2010 (ICPSR 31281)
This study examined the laws, policies, and practices related to juvenile DNA collection, as well as their implications for the juvenile and criminal justice systems. DNA evidence proved valuable in solving crimes, which motivated a concerted effort to expand the categories of offenders who provided DNA samples for analysis and inclusion in the Combined DNA Index System (CODIS), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)-operated national database.
State requirements for DNA collection, which initially focused on adult offenders convicted of sexual or violent offenses, expanded to include other categories of convicted felons, convicted misdemeanants, arrestees, and juveniles. In 30 states, certain categories of juveniles handled in the juvenile justice system must now provide DNA samples. The study was designed to explore the practice and implications of collecting DNA from juveniles and addressed the following questions:
- How have state agencies, juvenile justice agencies and state laboratories implemented juvenile DNA collection laws?
- What were the number and characteristics of juveniles with profiles included in CODIS?
- How have juvenile profiles in CODIS contributed to public safety or other justice outcomes?
- What improvements to policies and practices needed to be made?
To examine these questions, researchers at the Urban Institute: (1) systematically reviewed all state DNA statutes; (2) conducted semi-structured interviews with CODIS lab representatives in states that collect DNA from juveniles to understand how the laws were implemented; (3) collected and analyzed descriptive data provided by these labs on the volume and characteristics of juvenile profiles in CODIS; (4) conducted semi-structured interviews with juvenile and criminal justice stakeholders in five case study states; and (5) convened a meeting of federal officials and experts from the forensic and juvenile justice committees to explore the broader impacts of juvenile DNA collection.
Effective Methods to Assess Exposure to Violence and Victimization Among American Indian and Alaska Native Youth: The Tribal Youth Victimization Study (TYVS), United States, 2019 (ICPSR 37945)
Evaluation of the Office for Victims of Crime Wraparound Victim Legal Assistance Network Demonstration Project, 5 U.S. states, 2013-2018 (ICPSR 38187)
The Office for Victims of Crime (OVC) created a new demonstration grant program, the OVC Wraparound Victim Legal Assistance Network Demonstration Project, to address the wide range of legal needs victims of crime have in relation to the victimization they experienced. The original four-year demonstration, which was increased to six years, included two phases: (1) a 15-month phase for planning, designing a new service delivery model in collaboration with local partners, and conducting a needs assessment, and (2) a second phase for grantees to implement the model as designed. The program originally funded six sites to plan and implement a new model of legal assistance for victims:
- Alaska Immigrant Justice Center (entire state of Alaska)
- Council on Crime and Justice (entire state of Minnesota)
- Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles (Los Angeles County, California)
- Lone Star Legal Aid (72 counties in East Texas)
- Metropolitan Family Services' Legal Aid Society (Cook County, Illinois)
- Rocky Mountain Victim Law Center (City of Denver, Colorado)
The new wraparound service delivery models were expected to facilitate the implementation of wraparound pro bono legal assistance networks to provide legal services to victims. Because victims often receive legal services from a variety of uncoordinated organizations (e.g., victim legal clinics for help with enforcing rights, and legal aid offices or law school clinics for help with other specific civil legal needs), integrated networks may be better able to provide a wide array of legal services from a single, coordinated system. The demonstration grant requirements included: creating and actively engaging a steering committee, working cooperatively with technical assistance provider(s) as needed, and employing a local research partner to help perform the needs assessment and work closely with the evaluation team.
An Exploratory Study of Labor Trafficking Among U.S. Citizen Victims, 2019-2020 (ICPSR 38137)
Recent research has identified numerous challenges facing victims of labor trafficking in the U.S. (Owens, et al., 2014; Brennan, 2014). Most of the research on labor trafficking occurring in the U.S., however, has focused on the experiences of non-citizen and foreign national victims. There are many reasons to suspect that labor trafficking victimization occurs among U.S. citizens, although the identification of this phenomenon has been difficult. For example, the homeless and those with insecure housing, individuals with intellectual and physical disability, low-wage and transitional workers, and those working in illicit economic markets or within sexualized labor services are anticipated to be at higher risk for labor trafficking victimization.
In this exploratory mixed-methods study, the research team answered four main questions to help illuminate the phenomenon of labor trafficking of U.S. citizens.
- What are the personal, economic, or structural vulnerabilities that put U.S. citizens at risk for labor trafficking?
- What does labor trafficking looks like for U.S. citizens and where does it fall on a continuum of labor exploitation?
- How are U.S. citizens recruited into, move to, experience, and escape from labor trafficking victimization?
- How do U.S. citizen labor trafficking victims seek help or exit exploitative labor situations?
These questions were answered through surveys with individuals at high risk for labor trafficking victimization across four U.S. sites (n=240), individual interviews with a subsample of survey respondents (n=27), and interviews with service providers (n=20). The surveyed population were citizens who were born in the U.S., those who were naturalized citizens at the time of their victimization, and legal permanent residents. The sampling strategy relied on several snowball and purposive sampling techniques and were developed in partnership with social service agencies, government agencies, and community contacts with knowledge of or contact with labor trafficking in each of the sites. As such, the study was not designed to generate prevalence estimation or to claim any representativeness of labor trafficking violations among U.S. citizens.
This collection only includes the quantitative survey data. Qualitative interview data are not available.
An Innovative Response to an Intractable Problem: Using Village Public Safety Officers to Enhance the Criminal Justice Response to Violence Committed Against Alaska Native Women and American Indian Women in Alaska's Tribal Communities, 2008-2011 (ICPSR 37082)
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 project set out to understand the specific contributions Alaska's village public safety officers (VPSOs) make to the criminal justice responses to violence committed against Alaska Native and American Indian women in Alaska's tribal communities. More specifically, the goal of this study was to empirically document and assess the impact Alaska's VPSO program has on the investigation and prosecution of those who commit acts of sexual and domestic violence against Alaska Native and American Indian women in Alaska's tribal communities.
The data collected for this study were compiled from detailed case record reviews of a random sample of sexual assault, sexual abuse of a minor, and domestic violence incidents investigated by the Alaska State Troopers (AST) and closed between January 1, 2008 and December 31, 2011. Data pertaining to case-level (e.g., year and month of incident report and case closure, time to report) and incident-level (e.g., assault location, weapon use, assaultive behaviors) characteristics were collected, as were demographic data describing suspects, victims, and witnesses/third parties. The study also collected data detailing suspect and victim alcohol/drug use and intoxication, injuries sustained by victims, victim resistance strategies and behaviors, and victim disclosures, among other measures. Additional charging and case resolution (referral, prosecution, conviction) data were also compiled. Finally, the study collected detailed data on the activities and roles played by VPSOs in investigations, as well as additional follow-up activities and services provided to victims.
In total, 683 sexual assault (SA) and sexual abuse of a minor (SAM) and 982 domestic violence (DV) case records were coded and analyzed.
The study collections includes 6 Stata (.dta) files. The zip file includes 2013-VW-CX-0001_DV_CASE.dta (n=982; 127 variables), 2013-VW-CX-0001_DV_CHARGE.dta (n=3711; 23 variables), 2013-VW-CX-0001_DV_INDIV.dta (n=3747; 105 variables), 2013-VW-CX-0001_SA_CASE.dta (n=683; 133 variables), 2013-VW-CX-0001_SA_CHARGE.dta (n=1060; 24 variables), 2013-VW-CX-0001_SA_INDIV.dta (n=3140; 112 variables).
Juvenile Residential Facility Census, 2000-2010 -- Concatenated Data [United States] (ICPSR 27542)
Juvenile Residential Facility Census, 2000-2010 -- Concatenated State-Level Data [United States] (ICPSR 27546)
Juvenile Residential Facility Census, 2000 [United States] (ICPSR 4672)
Juvenile Residential Facility Census, 2002 [United States] (ICPSR 23520)
Juvenile Residential Facility Census, 2004 [United States] (ICPSR 25282)
Juvenile Residential Facility Census, 2006 [United States] (ICPSR 25981)
Juvenile Residential Facility Census, 2008 [United States] (ICPSR 34402)
Juvenile Residential Facility Census, 2010 [United States] (ICPSR 34449)
Juvenile Residential Facility Census, 2012 [United States] (ICPSR 36476)
The Juvenile Residential Facility Census (JRFC), which is conducted biennially, collects basic information on juvenile residential facility characteristics, including security, capacity and crowding, injuries and deaths in custody, and facility ownership and operation. The JRFC also includes questions about facility type (such as detention center, training school, ranch, or group home) and residential services provided by the facility (such as independent living, foster care, or other arrangements).
In 2012, the JRFC was divided into four sections:
- General facility information
- Events in the 30 days prior to the census reference date
- Deaths in the year prior to the census reference date
- Space shared with other facilities
Congress requires the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) to report annually on the number of deaths of juveniles in custody; the JRFC gathers this information and offers a portrait of the nation's juvenile facilities. The census reference date was the fourth Wednesday in October.
Juvenile Residential Facility Census, 2014 [United States] (ICPSR 36512)
The Juvenile Residential Facility Census (JRFC), which is conducted biennially, collects basic information on juvenile residential facility characteristics, including security, capacity and crowding, injuries and deaths in custody, and facility ownership and operation. The JRFC also includes questions about facility type (such as detention center, training school, ranch, or group home) and residential services provided by the facility (such as independent living, foster care, or other arrangements), and detailed questions about mental health, substance abuse, and educational services provided to young persons.
In 2014, the JRFC was divided into seven sections:
- General facility information
- Mental health services
- Educational services
- Substance abuse services
- Events in the 30 days prior to the census reference date
- Deaths in the year prior to the census reference date
- Space shared with other facilities
Congress requires the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) to report annually on the number of deaths of juveniles in custody; the JRFC gathers this information and offers a portrait of the nation's juvenile facilities. The census reference date was the fourth Wednesday in October.
Juvenile Residential Facility Census, 2016 [United States] (ICPSR 37197)
The Juvenile Residential Facility Census (JRFC), which is conducted biennially, collects basic information on juvenile residential facility characteristics, including security, capacity and crowding, injuries and deaths in custody, and facility ownership and operation. The JRFC also includes questions about facility type (such as detention center, training school, ranch, or group home) and residential services provided by the facility (such as independent living, foster care, or other arrangements), and detailed questions about mental health, substance abuse, and educational services provided to young persons.
In 2016, the JRFC was divided into seven sections:
- General facility information
- Mental health services
- Educational services
- Substance abuse services
- Events in the 30 days prior to the census reference date
- Deaths in the year prior to the census reference date
- Space shared with other facilities
Congress requires the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) to report annually on the number of deaths of juveniles in custody; the JRFC gathers this information and offers a portrait of the nation's juvenile facilities. The census reference date was the fourth Wednesday in October.