Search results

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.

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.

Criminal protection orders are a critical tool to enhance the safety and protection of victims of domestic violence (DV). However, limited research exists to elucidate the process and outcomes of these orders. The purposes of the study were to (a) elucidate the process of criminal orders as a critical strategy to reduce domestic violence, (b) increase knowledge about how criminal orders influence the daily lives of women, and children, and how they are associated with offender behavior, (c) disseminate findings to practitioners, policy makers, and academics to inform practice, policy, and future research; and (d) document in detail the relevant accounts of the collaboration to inform best practices for collaborations that lead to better policy, practice, and research. The sample is comprised of 298 female victims of DV by a male, intimate partner. Participants were recruited from two geographical area courthouses in an urban and a suburban New England community.

Information was collected in personal interviews and augmented with information from court records. Separate data files contain information about housing events as well as substance use. Qualitative data collected as part of this study are not included in this fast track release.

The collection contains 3 SPSS data files, NIJ-PO-Full-Dataset.sav (n=298; 1299 variables), NIJ-PO-Housing-TLFB-Dataset.sav (n=577; 29 variables) and NIJ-PO-Substance-Use-Dataset.sav (n=8940; 24 variables) and 1 Excel data file Living-Together-Data.xlsx (n=298; 3 variables). The collection also contains transcripts of qualitative interviews with 294 of the 298 respondents, which are not included in this release.

The cross-site evaluation of the Adult Offender Reentry Demonstration Projects (AORDP) was a seven-site study designed to 1) describe the implementation and sustainability of each AORDP project through a process evaluation, 2) determine the per capita program costs of each AORDP project through a cost study, and 3) determine the effectiveness of the programs through a multicomponent outcome study. The seven evaluation sites were located in California, Connecticut, Florida, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. The objectives of the outcome evaluation were to determine the effects of program participation on recidivism and other outcomes and assess whether program participation increased engagement in services, including substance abuse treatment and mental health services. The outcome evaluation consisted of two components:

1. Cross-site prospective study designed to collect longitudinal survey data with a sample of program participants and appropriate comparison or control subjects to assess the impact of the SCA funding on access to services and reentry outcomes, such as substance use, employment, housing, and health.

2. Site-specific recidivism analyses using administrative data to assess the impact of AORDP program participation on recidivism outcomes for all individuals enrolled in the AORDP programs and a matched comparison group in each site

This project assesses the effectiveness of a one-day, 5-hour workshop (ESSI training, hereafter) designed for joint instruction by school staff and police to all school staff. The goal was to promote positive outcomes and reduce police involvement in interactions between staff and students exhibiting inappropriate behavior through increased staff awareness of youth behavior, the functions of the juvenile justice system, and disproportionate minority contact (DMC) in disciplinary action.

1,024 school staff participated in 51 ESSI training sessions throughought the 2015/16 academic year, which also serves as the training year in the longitudinal data. Schools which did not participate in the training served as controls for the participating school. Data were drawn from a panel of students enrolled in either a training or control school, with ten schools in each group. Data on this panel of students was collected for a five-year period, from the 2013/14 through the 2017/18 academic years.

School-level data serves as the unit of analysis, as the study's main goal was to test the effects of training on school-wide outcomes. The estimated coefficient indicates small attendance reductions during the post-training phase for the training group. This indicates that most of the differences between the training and control group were statistically insignificant and that there was no pattern of statistically significant positive effects across the training schools. The second set of analyses, performed on student-level data, indicates that male and minority students are more likely to be involved in disciplinary incidents and to receive suspensions or expulsions as a consequence of their behaviors than White and female students.

The goals of this study were to examine how providing Medicaid coverage for halfway house residents may affect care seeking, improve health care usage, and decrease criminal recidivism relative to providing health care through prison or jail medical facilities. To achieve these goals, we developed a researcher-practitioner partnership with the Connecticut Department of Correction (DOC) to implement a mixed-methods research design.

Qualitative data collection included focus groups with halfway house residents; interviews with halfway house staff, correctional health providers, correctional officers, and state-level DOC officials; and site observations of DOC medical facilities. Quantitative data collection included collection of administrative and recidivism data from DOC, coding of study participants' DOC medical charts to measure their baseline health status and health care usage in prison or jail, and collection of Medicaid enrollment and claims data from Connecticut's Department of Social Services (DSS) to measure Medicaid enrollment and health care usage in the community.

Commercial sexual exploitation (CSE) is an increasingly urgent problem for criminal justice systems in the United States. Despite the staggering individual and societal consequences of CSE, evidence-based prevention and intervention programs are profoundly lacking. This study used a quasi-experimental, mixed methods, longitudinal follow-up design to evaluate a service provision program for CSE survivors or those identified as high-risk for CSE, My Life My Choice (MLMC). Researchers followed youth who received MLMC services from baseline to multiple follow-up points to see how they progressed over time in terms of building up resistance to being sexually exploited.

Youth received one of two different type of MLMC services. One group (Source 1) received one-on-one survivor mentoring, otherwise known as "tertiary prevention." Participants in this program are paired with mentors who have been trained and free from CSE for at least five years. Mentors provide long-term and consistent emotional support to exploited youth or those MLMC believes are at high-risk for exploitation. The Source 1 youth were recruited only from Massachusetts. They participated in quantitative and qualitative data collection at baseline, six months post-baseline, and 12 months post-baseline.

A second group (Source 2) received 3-10 sessions of a psychoeducational prevention group following the MLMC curriculum, otherwise known as "secondary prevention." These groups are led by trained facilitators and are intended for youth at high-risk for exploitation. Participants are taught about sexual exploitation, healthy relationships, sexual health, and how to find help. Source 2 youth received MLMC services in Massachusetts, Florida, New Jersey, or Connecticut. They participated in quantitative data collection at baseline, time of the last group session, and six months post-baseline.

Measured outcomes included instances of sexual exploitation in the past six months, frequency and type of substance use, partner abuse victimization, and housing stability. Researchers hypothesized that, among the secondary prevention group, youth who chose to interact with MLMC staff more often (in terms of attending educational sessions) would score higher on desired outcomes than those frequently absent or who do not interact with staff as often. Among the tertiary prevention group, researchers hypothesized that those who participated would demonstrate improved outcomes from baseline to six months and baseline to 12 months.

The study developed and tested the Brief Mental Health Screening Tool to enhance the identification of psychiatric disorders among adult detainees. Participants were randomly recruited within 24 to 72 hours of entering State-run jails in Connecticut. In the first phase, participants completed a 25-minute screening interview, after which 20 percent of the participants were asked to complete a longer interview 1 week later to establish a more detailed account of Axis I and Axis II psychiatric disorders and psychosocial functioning. In a second phase, the new Brief Mental Health Screening Tool was tested and validated on a new sample of participants.

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 research was conducted in two phases. Phase one analyzed a random sample of approximately 2,000 case files from 2006 through 2009 that contain forensic analyses from the Connecticut State Forensic Science Laboratory, along with corresponding police and court case file data. As with Peterson, et al. (2010), this research had four objectives: 1) estimate the percentage of cases in which crime scene evidence is collected; 2) discover what kinds of forensic are being collected; 3)track such evidence through the criminal justice system; and 4)identify which forms of forensic evidence are most efficacious given the crime investigated.

Phase two consisted of a survey administered to detectives within the State of Connecticut regarding their comparative assessments of the utility of forensic evidence. These surveys further advance our understanding of how the success of forensic evidence in achieving arrests and convictions matches with detective opinion.

This study analyzed client data from Love146, a non-profit organization that serves youth known or suspected of experiencing commercial sexual exploitation (CSE) victimization. All youth in the state of Connecticut referred to Love 146 receive a brief one-time Rapid Response intervention. A subset of these youth are then referred for Long-Term Services (LTS), intensive year-long clinical and support services. This study examines the trauma histories, service trajectories, and service outcomes for 455 youth referred to Love 146 between July 2016 and May 2021. The study compares characteristics of youth who received only Rapid Response services (n=271) to those who went on to enroll into LTS (n=185). Analyses also considered whether demographic, environmental, or adversity variables predicted successful or unsuccessful LTS service trajectories for youth. Researchers found that youth enrolled in the Love146 LTS program were significantly more likely than those who just received Rapid Response services to be younger and have confirmed (versus suspected) CSE victimization. With the exception of regular school attendance at the time of referral, adversity and risk profiles did not distinguish youth who successfully completed LTS from those who did not. Implications for improving services for this population of youth are discussed.

Policy makers and advocates have urged the development of interventions and programs that can provide children and youth who have experienced commercial sexual exploitation (CSE) with needed services to reduce the likelihood of re-victimization and improve physical health, mental health, and education goals. Communities have responded by developing a variety of service models. However, there is little information about which youth can access CSE services or what service trajectories and outcomes look like for these youth. The non-profit organization Love146 has provided services to youth impacted by CSE through their Survivor Care program since 2014. The current study analyzes five years of de-identified client data from this program to understand the adversity histories of referred youth, and to identify which youth are most likely to access services over longer periods of time, with more successful outcomes.

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.