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.

The study integrated neighborhood-level data on robbery and burglary gathered from local police agencies across the United States, foreclosure data from RealtyTrac (a real estate information company), and a wide variety of social, economic, and demographic control variables from multiple sources. Using census tracts to approximate neighborhoods, the study regressed 2009 neighborhood robbery and burglary rates on foreclosure rates measured for 2007-2008 (a period during which foreclosure spiked dramatically in the nation), while accounting for 2007 robbery and burglary rates and other control variables that captured differences in social, economic, and demographic context across American neighborhoods and cities for this period. The analysis was based on more than 7,200 census tracts in over 60 large cities spread across 29 states. Core research questions were addressed with a series of multivariate multilevel and single-level regression models that accounted for the skewed nature of neighborhood crime patterns and the well-documented spatial dependence of crime.

The study contains one data file with 8,198 cases and 99 variables.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:

1. What states have passed legislation authorizing the collection of DNA from arrestees?
2. How do the laws and policies regarding collecting DNA from arrestees differ by state?
3. How have the courts ruled on these new laws?
4. How have arrestee DNA laws been implemented in each state?
5. What has been the impact of requiring DNA collection from arrestees on state crime laboratories and other involved agencies?
6. 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.

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:

1. How have state agencies, juvenile justice agencies and state laboratories implemented juvenile DNA collection laws?
2. What were the number and characteristics of juveniles with profiles included in CODIS?
3. How have juvenile profiles in CODIS contributed to public safety or other justice outcomes?
4. 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.

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.

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:

1. General facility information
2. Events in the 30 days prior to the census reference date
3. Deaths in the year prior to the census reference date
4. 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.

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:

1. General facility information
2. Mental health services
3. Educational services
4. Substance abuse services
5. Events in the 30 days prior to the census reference date
6. Deaths in the year prior to the census reference date
7. 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.

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:

1. General facility information
2. Mental health services
3. Educational services
4. Substance abuse services
5. Events in the 30 days prior to the census reference date
6. Deaths in the year prior to the census reference date
7. 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.

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 the validity, reliability, equity and cost of nine juvenile justice risk assessment instruments. It was designed to provide a comprehensive examination of how several risk assessments perform in practice. This study posed the following questions:

1. Is each risk assessment instrument sufficiently reliable (i.e., inter-rater reliability) to ensure that decisions regarding level of risk and identified service needs are consistent across the organization?
2. What specific risk assessment items are associated with less reliability? What items are rated reliably by staff?
3. Is each risk assessment instrument valid? Specifically, what degree of discrimination is attained between assigned risk levels? Could the instrument be improved by adding or deleting specific factors and/or altering cut-off scores?
4. Is each risk assessment instrument valid for population subgroups: White/Caucasian, Black/African American, Hispanic/Latino, females, probationers, and youth in aftercare status? Could equity be improved by adding or deleting specific factors or altering cut-off scores?
5. What costs are associated with each risk assessment instrument?

The study collection includes 31 SPSS data files

1. all_jais_combined.sav (n=1,141; 6 variables)
2. ar_fire_final_file_ojjdp-ICPSR.sav (n=119; 205 variables)
3. AR_yls_irr_FINAL-ICPSR.sav (n=155; 136 variables)
4. azaoc_FINALFILE-ICPSR.sav (n=7,589; 438 variables)
5. AZAOC_irr_FINAL-ICPSR.sav (n=458; 101 variables)
6. AZDJC_FINAL_FILE-ICPSR.sav (n=1,265; 1,290 variables)
7. AZDJC_irr_FINAL-ICPSR.sav (n=55; 120 variables)
8. COMMITMENT_FINAL_SAMPLE2-ICPSR.sav (n=11,154; 719 variables)
9. FinalDJJReleasesWithRecid_BothYears2-ICPSR.sav (n=90,818; 31 variables)
10. FIRE_NE_COMM_FINAL_FILE_OJJDP-ICPSR.sav (n=597; 174 variables)
11. fire_ne_probation_final-ICPSR.sav (n=1,077; 237 variables)
12. FL_irr_FINAL-ICPSR.sav (n=519; 140 variables)
13. GA_irr_FINAL-ICPSR.sav (n=509; 263 variables)
14. gafire_boyscommunityALL_FINAL-ICPSR.sav (n=5,009; 781 variables)
15. gafire_communityALLforretrofit2-ICPSR.sav (n=6,943; 666 variables)
16. gafire_finalsampforanalysis_all-ICPSR.sav (n=7,412; 642 variables)
17. gafire_finalsampforanalysis_girls-ICPSR.sav (n=2,005; 768 variables)
18. jais_boys_wk_1-ICPSR.sav (n=1,989; 484 variables)
19. jais_girls_wk_1-ICPSR.sav (n=745; 484 variables)
20. NE_irr_FINAL-ICPSR.sav (n=727; 160 variables)
21. OR_irr_FINAL-ICPSR.sav (n=477; 112 variables)
22. ORE_FIRE_final-ICPSR.sav (n=12,370; 340 variables)
23. PROBATION_FINAL_BOYS_ALL-ICPSR.sav (n=20,621; 837 variables)
24. PROBATION_FINAL_GIRLS_ALL-ICPSR.sav (n=6,748; 849 variables)
25. va_boyssample-ICPSR.sav (n=1,106; 1,273 variables)
26. va_final_sample_fullscreen-ICPSR.sav (n=1,439; 1,237 variables)
27. va_girlssample-ICPSR.sav (n=333; 1,256 variables)
28. VA_irr_expert_FINAL-ICPSR.sav (n=10; 308 variables)
29. VA_irr_worker_FINAL-ICPSR.sav (n=685; 308 variables)
30. vafinalsample-ICPSR.sav (n=1,919; 1,200 variables)
31. workersurveyfinal-ICPSR.sav (n=400; 69 variables)

Statutory rape laws vary widely between U.S. states, making the measurement of its incidence in the broader U.S. population either impossible within contemporary datasets or too painstaking for researchers to pursue without support. To address this issue, this study examined the prevalence, characteristics, and consequences of statutory rape victimization and perpetration in the United States using the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1997 (NLSY97), the National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS), and the U.S. Census Bureau's American Communities Survey (ACS). To establish an empirical foundation for the study of statutory rape, this study pursued the following key objectives:

1. • Estimate nationally representative rates of statutory rape victimization and perpetration in the United States using the NLSY97, focusing on a) age-graded rates of victimization, b) age-graded rates of perpetration, and c) risk factors for statutory rape victimization and perpetration.
   • Assess situational differences between first sexual experiences that are statutory rape compared to those that are not, and assess the effectiveness of statutory rape laws across states with lax, moderate, and strict laws to affect teen sexual activity and victimization rates.
   • Estimate the likelihood of women's statutory rape victimization being reported to police, using NIBRS data on women's victimization and men's perpetration.
   • Assess the short and long-term consequences of statutory rape victimization based on a) the nature and characteristics of relationships between victims and perpetrators and b) the age difference between victims and perpetrators.

This collection includes the syntax files and data-map documentation needed to reproduce the data analysis conducted by this project, along with information describing the processes used to access NLSY97, NIBRS, and ACS data. Users should refer to the ICPSR README file for an inventory of all syntax and data-map files.

These data are part of NACJD's Rapid 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 is an evaluation of the "fast-track" program that was created to alleviate caseload pressures caused by a dramatic increase in immigration-related cases. This program allows a federal prosecutor to offer a below guideline sentence in exchange for a defendant's prompt guilty plea and a waiver of certain rights. Research questions addressed in the study included: (1) to what extent do fast-track programs impact the efficient processing of (primarily) immigration cases and (2) to what extent does prosecutorial discretion exercised in fast-track processing contribute to sentencing disparity.

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 had four goals/areas of examination.

1. Examine the current state of the National Integrated Ballistic Information Network (NIBIN) implementation nationally and at partner sites.
2. Examine the impediments and facilitators of successful implementation of NIBIN.
3. Understand the extent to which NIBIN helps identify suspects and increase arrests for firearms crimes.
4. Understand best practices for the implementation of NIBIN at agencies and for criminal investigations.