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 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 implementation of a pilot parole-based intervention, known as the Next Generation of Parole Supervision (NG). Drs. Caleb Lloyd and Ralph Serin developed the NG model with funding from the National Institute of Justice (NIJ), and the National Institute of Corrections developed the NG curriculum for parole officers to implement. The Bureau of Justice Assistance funded the implementation of NG in three study sites: Dallas, Texas; Denver, Colorado; and Des Moines, Iowa.

This mixed-methods study focused on understanding how NG was implemented as it was piloted in the three sites, and assessed NG-trained parole officers' fidelity to the NG model. In order to better understand NG's implementation and the business as usual practices it was intended to replace, the study also included a second group of parole officers who were not trained in NG. The groups were not randomly assigned. Data collected for this study included interview data, parole officer questionnaires related to concepts of the NG curriculum, coaching logs providing measures of whether officers received coaching and its frequency, video recordings of parole supervision meetings, and parole caseload data.

Demographic variables included as part of this collection are parole officers' age and sex, and site location. The data collection includes 3 SAS data files:

• Parole officer-level data (archive_raf170831_po): Includes 31 cases and 26 variables.
• Video-level data (archive_raf170831_video): Includes 241 cases and 15 variables.
• Questionnaire-level data (archive_raf180719_tests): Includes 50 cases and 8 variables.

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.

Using a multi-methods research design, this study classified the contents of cyberbullying messages, measured their frequency and associations with offline bullying, and examined whether and how peer groups in social networks promote these behaviors.

Beginning in January 2015, 164 adolescents from 2 Iowa middle schools, grades 6 through 8, were surveyed. Two surveys, one at the start of the spring semester and one at the end of spring 2015, gathered self-reported information on perpetration, victimization, and witnessing of online and offline bullying and the structure of peer networks. A total of 77 students furthermore participated in an electronic capture period from January through May 2015. Participant smartphones were equipped with an application that collected incoming and outgoing text messages and Facebook and Twitter activity, and also surveyed them weekly about their bullying experiences. Demographic information collected included age, grade, gender, ethnicity, parents' marital status, household composition, religiosity, and socioeconomic status.

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 is a secondary analysis of data from ICPSR Study Number 27101, Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative (SVORI) Multi-site Impact Evaluation, 2004-2011 [United States]- specifically the adult male dataset -to examine the associations among child support obligations, employment and reentry outcomes. The study addressed the following research questions:

1. Are the demographic, criminal justice and employment-related characteristics of incarcerated men with child support orders significantly different in any important way from incarcerated males without child support orders?
2. Did SVORI clients receive more support and services related to child support orders and modification of debt after release from prison compared to non-SVORI participants?
3. Does having legal child support obligations decrease the likelihood of employment in later waves, net of key demographic and criminal justice history factors?
4. How does employment influence the relationship between child support debt and recidivism? and
5. Is family instrumental support a significant predictor of reduced recidivism or increased employment in models assessing the relationship between child support obligations, employment and recidivism?

The study includes one document (Syntax_ChildSupport_Reentry_forICPSR_2012-IJ-CX-0012.docx) which contains SPSS and Stata syntax used to create research variables.

Nearly half of the law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty in the United States were due to automobile crashes. Driver distraction has been identified as a common causal factor leading to the crash, with the primary source of distractions being the mobile computer. While there is plenty of literature on officer safety, what is lacking is an understanding of the needs of the officers to interact with the control or communication equipment while driving and how that interaction impacts distraction and, consequently, officer safety. To examine these issues, the research team conducted focus group discussions with law enforcement officers from local, county, and state agencies in four states. The two primary topics of discussion were:

1. Officer requirements to operate different pieces of equipment while driving, and
2. Different software and systems being used in patrol cars.

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, with assistance from the National Institute of Justice's Data Resources Program (FY2012), is a reanalysis of data from the national evaluation of the federal Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative (SVORI). SVORI provided funding to 69 agencies across the United States to enhance reentry programs and coordination between corrections and community services. The national evaluation covered 16 of these sites, twelve of which provided services to the 2,054 adult ex-prisoners who are the focus of the present study.

The purpose of this study is to understand whether or not offenders receive the services they say they need, and whether the degree of 'fit' between this self-reported criminogenic need and services received is related to recidivism. This study analyzes data from the SVORI multisite evaluation to assess the potential explanations for the mixed effectiveness of reentry programs. The goal is to understand whether or not service-risk/need fit is related to successful reentry outcomes, or whether the needs of returning prisoners are unrelated to their risk of recidivism regardless of how well they are addressed. For the present study researchers obtained the SVORI (ICPSR 27101) outcome evaluation datasets from the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data (NACJD). The archive holds four separate datasets from the evaluation: Adult Males Data (Part 1, N=1,697), Adult Females Data (Part 2, N=357), Juvenile Males Data (Part 3, N=337) and official recidivism and reincarceration data (Part 4, N=35,469), which can be linked on a one-to-many basis with the individual-level data in the other three datasets. To prepare the SVORI data for analysis researchers merged Datasets 1 and 2 (Adult Males and Adult Females) and created seven separate datasets containing Waves 1 through 4 survey data, National Crime Information Center (NCIC) crime data, administrative data, and sampling weights.

This deposit to NACJD is intended to complement the existing SVORI dataset (ICPSR 27101). It contains an R syntax file to be used with the datasets contained in the ICPSR 27101 collection.

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.

The Link for Schools project was a longitudinal study evaluating the implementation and administration of a school-based violence prevention program, Link for Schools (also referred to as Link), in a high-risk school district in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. Study populations consisted of school staff and community members who participated in a two-tiered training program aimed at preventing and intervening with violence, and a sample of children in grades 1-8 who attended a school where the program was implemented. Study procedures took place during three academic years, starting in 2017 and ending in 2020.

The Link program was built upon the principles of trauma-informed care (TIC) and psychological first aid (PFA) based in motivational interviewing to identify and intervene on mental health and behavioral precursors of violence, and to mitigate the immediate impacts of violence among exposed youth. TIC training for the entire school community served as the first tier of support, then a safety net of staff trained in PFA and screening for non-specific stress and referral (referred to as Link interventionists) served as a second tier. Students whose needs exceeded the existing school resources were directly referred to appropriate care.

This collection contains the following data types:

• Case management records for each encounter interventionists had with students during the study time period (DS1) and linkages to other supports (DS2)
• Pre- and post-program survey data from school staff (DS4, DS7)
• Post-training survey data from school staff or parents who completed trauma-informed care (TIC) training (DS3), and staff who completed Link interventionist trainings (DS5, DS6)
• Costs of program administration, implementation, and training to estimate cost effectiveness (DS8)
• Student administrative records shared by the school district to determine initial eligibility for the intervention and track outcomes related to disciplinary action (DS9)

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 was a two-year panel study of how the receipt of civil legal services provided by Iowa Legal Aid (ILA), influences safety, psychological well-being and economic self-sufficiency outcomes for women who experienced Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) residing in metro and non-metro communities in Iowa. The study looked at both the provision of family law services (divorce, child custody, child support) and CPOs. Also examined was the impact of the quality of the attorney-client relationship on women's sense of empowerment on these outcomes. Five waves of data were collected, starting with an initial assessment interview with four follow-up interviews conducted at 6-month intervals. Information collected includes women's history of IPV, measures of repeat abuse, psychological well-being and parenting, quality of the attorney-client relationship, and empowerment.