Impact of Legal Representation on Child Custody Decisions among Families with a History of Intimate Partner Violence in King County, Washington, 2000-2010 (ICPSR 35356)
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 major aim of this study was to test the hypothesis that legal representation of the Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) victim in child custody decisions leads to greater legal protections being awarded in these decisions compared to similar cases of unrepresented IPV victims. A retrospective cohort study was conducted among King County couples with minor children filing for marriage dissolution in King County, Washington between January 1, 2000 and December 31, 2010 who had a history of police or court documented intimate partner violence (IPV). The study examined the separate effects of private legal representation and legal aid representation relative to propensity score-matched, unrepresented comparison subjects. Primary study outcomes were measured at the time the first "Final Parenting Plan" was awarded. Researchers also examined the two-year period post-decree among the subset of cases with filing between January 1, 2000 and December 31, 2009 for post-decree court proceedings indicative of continued child custody or visitation disputes.
Improving the Production and Use of Forensic Science, 5 U.S. counties, 2006-2009 (ICPSR 36727)
This study collection sought to thoroughly understand the creation, testing, and use of forensic science in five jurisdictions across the country. A random sample was selected of recent criminal cases in the following jurisdictions and tracked from investigation to adjudication to understand how forensic evidence functions:
- Sacramento County, CA: 990 cases
- Segwick County, KS: 936 cases
- Allegheny County, PA: 978 cases
- Bexar County (San Antonio), TX: 936 cases
- King County, WA: 892 cases
The Principal Investigator sought answers to the following seven primary research questions:
- How often is forensic evidence collected and analyzed and how is it used pre-arrest?
- What are the outcomes of forensic evidence testing?
- What is the effect of forensic evidence on arrest and charging?
- How does forensic evidence affect the plea-bargaining process?
- What effect does forensic evidence have on conviction and sentencing outcomes?
- Does the turnaround time for analysis of forensic evidence have any impact on case disposition?
- Does the institutional configuration of the crime laboratory have any effect on its productivity?
Data for the following types of forensic testing are included in this data collection: hair, fibers, glass, paint, gas chromatography / mass spectrometry (GC/MS), Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR), scanning electron microscopy / energy dispersive x-ray spectroscopy (SEM/EDX), physical match, drug identification, toxicology, serology, combined DNA index system (CODIS), DNA short tandem repeat (Y-STR), blood pattern, test fire, and comparison scope.