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.

Institutional misconduct, especially violent misconduct, poses a problem for all prisons. To address the misconduct concern, this study tested whether an evidence-based, cognitive behavioral treatment (CBT) program would reduce misconduct, including incidents of violent misconduct, and post-release arrests compared to non or less intensive CBT programming. The Delaware Department of Correction (DOC) implemented CBT-based programs in their institutions, which included the Cognitive Behavioral Interventions - Core Curriculum (CBI-CC) developed at the University of Cincinnati. The three programs addressed in this study include Thinking Things Through (TTT), Road to Recovery (R2R), and Reflections. TTT consisted of the instruments and materials of the CBI-CC, whereas R2R and Reflections focused on CBT skills and techniques. The Center for Drug and Health Studies (CDHS) in collaboration with DOC evaluated the impact of the program using administrative records and surveys with program participants.

Results indicated that all treatment groups performed better than the control group in terms of rearrest and incarceration. The group who received the intensive CBT treatment performed significantly better than all other groups. Intensive CBT treatment was thus effective in reducing recidivism. In terms of CBI-CC programming, participants had the highest rates of misconduct but saw a significant decrease after completing programming. In addition, both R2R and TTT have the lowest rates of rearrest after completing treatment programming compared to all other groups. This can be credited to the length and intensity of programming, as well CBT implemented within the programs.

This study examined the relationship between social preference game behavior and offender status, while testing whether this relationship was attributed to genuine prosocial preferences or confounded by individual differences in future orientation, sensation seeking, and risk-taking.

The research team administered a hypothetical crime scenario (assault), which allowed for the experimental manipulation of certain key situational and contextual characteristics (e.g., rewards, peers) and framing considerations. The scenarios were crafted to be realistic for both the offender and non-offender respondents.

The research team collected specific measures of parameters of the offender utility function, including measures of risk preferences, items that measure their discount rate and preferences for immediate vs. delayed rewards and costs, the magnitude of their motivation or craving for crime, and their decision-making style (intuitive vs. cognitive). Additionally, this study includes other measures of offender preferences, including fairness and social considerations, as well as related cognitive and behavioral measures (e.g., sensation-seeking, impulsivity).

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 "Design Your Time" (DYT) program was designed to test, in a real world setting, the efficacy of systematically providing increased monitoring of probationers coupled with known, certain and quickly enforced sanctions to reduce substance use and increase positive probationer outcomes. Developed from a model of deterrence, the program informed eligible probationers of what exactly was required of them, what would happen to them when they failed to meet requirements (increased sanctions), and how to reduce their level of monitoring once they violated and triggered increased sanctions (reduced sanctions and garnered rewards). The program utilized a model based on deterrence in which certainty and speed, rather than immediate severity, were the key elements. It also empowered the probationer by clearly informing him or her of the elements of the program, thus allowing them to "Decide Your Time." The program focused on those offenders who tested positive for drugs at intake and involved frequent urinalysis for offenders, coupled with increasing sanctions and referral to treatment.

The collection includes 1 SPSS data file with 404 variables and 400 cases. Data from qualitative interviews with probationers, day to day observations in the probation office, qualitative interviews with the DYT probation officers conducted three months after that program launched, and a focus group with the DYT officers at the conclusion of the study are not available.

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 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.

The study used a multi-method approach including 1. a process evaluation in all eight sites involving yearly site visits from 2012 to 2014 with key stakeholder interviews, observations, and participant focus groups; 2. a prospective impact evaluation (in four sites) including interviews at release from jail or prison and at 12 months after release (as well as oral swab drug tests) with reentry court participants and a matched comparison group; 3. a recidivism impact evaluation (in seven sites) with a matched comparison group tracking recidivism for 2 years post reentry court entry and 4. a cost-benefit evaluation (in seven sites) involving a transactional and institutional cost analysis (TICA) approach. Final administrative data were collected through the end of 2016.

This collection includes four SPSS data files: "interview_archive2.sav" with 746 variables and 412 cases, "NESCCARC_Archive_File_3.sav" with 518 variables and 3,710 cases, "Interview Data1.sav" with 1,356 variables and 412 cases, "NESCCARC Admin Data File.sav" with 517 variables and 3,710 cases, and three SPSS syntax files: "Interview Syntax.sps", "archive_2-17.sps", and "NESCCARC Admin Data Syntax.sps".

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.