Search results

In October 2013, the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation (PIRE), in partnership with Big Brothers Big Sisters of Kentuckiana (BBBS-KY), was funded by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) to implement a mentoring research best practices project that explored whether three types of parent/guardian level variables (psychosocial parent/family characteristics, parent engagement in the mentoring match, and parenting style) influence match quality, match length, and youth outcomes.

This study was designed to describe these factors, as well as investigate how these factors impact match length, match strength, and youth program outcomes. Data to inform both objectives was collected using a longitudinal multimode approach with youth, mentors and parents in the BBBS-KY program in the metro Louisville area. In addition, data from 16 local school districts provided measures of academic performance, school attendance, and disciplinary suspensions. Data were collected at multiple time points from youth, volunteer mentors, and parents/guardians. These data included BBBS-America standard surveys (Youth Outcomes Survey, and Volunteer and Youth Strength of Relationship Surveys). PIRE supplemented the standard BBBS data collection efforts with project-specific baseline volunteer mentor survey and several formative and outcome based inserts to supplement the data that was regularly collected from youth and mentors. The PIRE and BBBS-KY teams also created a project-specific parent/guardian survey to better understand the impact of parental factors on match dynamics and youth mentoring program outcomes. Due to low literacy levels of parents/guardians, this survey was administered as a mixed-mode, audio-computer assisted interview (ACASI). Additional data sources for this study included data from (a) coding of qualitative case review notes for selected aspects of matches by BBBS-KY match support specialists, (b) academic data collected from school districts, and (c) data collected on general match characteristics (e.g., match closure status) collected by BBBS-KY as part of their standard business operations. Most measures were collected early in the match (either match formation or three months into the match) and at 12 months into the match.

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.

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.

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 evaluates the impacts of re-entry programs developed by seven grantees awarded funds under the Second Chance Act (SCA) Adult Demonstration Program to reduce recidivism by addressing the challenges faced by adults returning to their communities after incarceration.

The collection contains 3 SAS data files: admin30.sas(n=966; 111 variables), MIS.sas(n=606; 48 variables), and survey.sas(n=789; 273 variables) and 1 SAS syntax file.

Recently there has been an influx of changes in gun legislation in the United States. There is now a growing trend in states adopting "constitutional carry" laws, which allow citizens of legal age who have not been legislatively denied the right, to legally and publicly possess and carry a concealed firearm without a permit. As of April 2019, fifteen states have passed constitutional carry (i.e., permit-less) firearm legislation. Two additional states, Kentucky and Oklahoma, will become the 16th and 17th states to allow constitutional carry before the end of 2019, and additional states (e.g., Alabama) are currently considering adopting constitutional carry in the future. Though arguments for (e.g., deterrent effects) and against (e.g., increased exposure to firearms in public) the relaxation of concealed carry laws often cite the potential impact of such laws on public safety, a review of available research provides limited insight on the effects of constitutional carry legislation on crime, violence, and other outcomes. There is also little known about the impact of constitutional carry on changes in police-citizen encounters, officer safety, and changes in police training.

The proposed study seeks to fill this void in empirical knowledge through a multi-phase analytical approach using data gathered from three cities within two states that recently passed constitutional carry laws. Specifically, this study seeks to examine the impact of constitutional carry legislation on 1) firearm and offense counts in Lexington (KY), Oklahoma City (OK), and Tulsa (OK); 2) arrest reports related to firearm arrests; and (3) officer perceptions of safety, training, and police-citizen encounters. Each data source aligns with a specific analytic approach, including interrupted time series analysis and frequency/bivariate analyses

This study will contribute to the body of research using a strong multi-methodological approach, address a gap in rigorous empirical scholarship regarding the impact of gun legislation and crime and public/police safety.

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.

This project examined civil protective orders in Kentucky from multiple perspectives in order to examine rural and urban jurisdictional differences in the protective order process, protective order outcomes, and costs of protective orders, as well as potential avoided costs to society due to the protections that protective orders are supposed to provide. Although partner violence can be perpetrated by both men and women, the vast majority of serious partner violence and protective order use is for cases of male violence against female partners. Thus, this project focused on women victims of partner violence. The study was comprised of three substudies.

The first substudy examined rural and urban key informant perceptions along with court records and other secondary data to provide an in-depth picture of jurisdictional differences in the protective order process.

The second substudy provided a picture of women's self-reported experiences with violence and the protective order system and its outcomes. This substudy not only provided a description of those who obtain protective orders, but also provided a detailed look at the process of obtaining a protective order as well as the sacrifices and barriers that women experience in obtaining protective orders and trying to get them enforced. This substudy also provided detailed information about protective order effectiveness and enforcement outcomes.

The third substudy examined the social and personal costs of abuse and violence, the costs of protective orders, and the potential avoided costs due to the protection protective orders provide. These costs were provided for the sample of women interviewed and were also extrapolated from the sample to the population of victims who obtained protective orders issued in 2007 in Kentucky in order to expand the policy implications of the findings from this substudy.

The data file for Part 1 (Key Informant - Substudy 1) contains 188 cases and 502 variables. The data file for Part 2 (Interview data - Substudies 2 and 3) contains 213 cases and 14,644 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.