Search results

This study tests a brief intervention designed to reduce adolescent dating abuse (ADA) perpetration in a healthcare setting used primarily by low income, Black, and Hispanic youth. The Project READY (Reducing Aggression in Dating Relationships for Youth) is a theory-driven, empirically supported, brief intervention. READY intercepts youth who utilize an urban emergency department for non-urgent health care (e.g., sprains), provides them with tailored feedback about their relationship behavior, and uses motivational interviewing to move them towards non-violence and respect. READY was designed to avoid victim-blaming and is responsive to the gendered dynamic of ADA. A small feasibility pilot test of READY was completed in 2013 (N=27).

Participants were 173 youth ages 15-19 years old who were patients of an urban pediatric emergency department. Youth who perpetrated at least 1 act of physical or sexual ADA 3 months prior to baseline were eligible. The proposed experimental evaluation of READY used a randomized controlled trial (RCT) design, with 3- and 6-month follow-ups to assess changes in knowledge, attitude and perpetration behavior.

The hypotheses are: (1) Youth who participate in the brief intervention session and telephone booster call will report improved knowledge and attitudes, and less self-reported ADA perpetration up to 6 months post-intervention as compared to youth in the control group; and (2) the cost of providing the intervention will be less than the cost of the violence that occurs in its absence. Mixed effects linear and logistic models were used to analyze longitudinal data.

In 2018 law enforcement agencies gained access to a federally created, nationwide, interoperable first responder broadband communications network, called the National Public Safety Broadband Network, also known as FirstNet. The RAND Corporation was funded to conduct research and provide guidance to law enforcement agencies on how to best transition to the broadband communication network. To this end, the RAND Corporation performed a literature review, interviewed subject-matter experts, and developed coverage maps for select areas. The interviews covered topics such as the current state of deployment, system governance, system reliability, vendors used, and plans for migration.

This data collection includes select quotes and interview notes from the interviews with subject-matter experts. The literature review and coverage maps for select areas are not included in this collection.

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 were collected as part of a mixed-methods study to develop a comprehensive youth bias crime violence exposure instrument, the Youth Bias Victimization Questionnaire (YBVQ). With input from a panel of violence and delinquency experts, the research team produced initial drafts of the questionnaire, then conducted focus groups and cognitive interviews with youth and young adults to inform development and item comprehension. To pilot test the YBVQ, a sample of 854 youth aged 11-21 were surveyed across three research sites: 1) Boston (n=262); 2) Philadelphia (n=318); and 3) Appalachian areas of Tennessee (n=274). This convenience sample was recruited using an intercept strategy, with a combination of recruitment occurring at youth-serving organizations, community festivals or events, and schools. Participants completed the YBVQ through a computer-assisted self-interview (CASI) on a tablet or through an online link to a web-based survey.

Only the pilot survey data are available in this collection. Measures include demographic variables (gender, race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion, age, grade level), bias victimization based on six potential target characteristics, incident specifics, witnessing bias victimization, school and neighborhood climate, alcohol use, resiliency, emotional distress, and other experiences of bias, microaggressions, and victimization.

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

The overall goals of this project were to develop a clear theoretical understanding of coercive control and to develop a measure of "nonviolent coercive control" for use in the measurement of intimate partner violence (IPV). The psychometric properties of the newly developed coercive control measure were assessed between February and September 2004 in a total sample of 757 that included 302 males and 448 females from the metropolitan Washington, DC, and Boston areas. Of this sample, 139 reporting IPV victimization only, 39 reported IPV perpetration only, 245 reported both IPV victimization and perpetration, and 334 reported neither IPV victimization nor perpetration.

Respondents were recruited from community agencies involving identified IPV victims and perpetrators, agencies providing non-IPV services to demographically similar participants, community college settings, and general public community settings, e.g., fast food restaurants. The sample was a convenience, not a representative, sample. Selection criteria included the following: (1) involvement in an intimate partner relationship within the past 12 months, and (2) being 18 years of age or older. Respondents were excluded if they exhibited signs of intoxication or other indications of a lack of coherence sufficient to complete the survey.

Both data files contain demographic information. Respondents were asked several series of questions including those pertaining to demands received from their partner, whether their partner did anything to find out if the respondent had done what the partner had demanded, if their partner made them feel the partner might do something if the respondent did not do what the partner wanted, and whether they had done certain things when their partner demanded something. Respondents were then asked the same series of questions conversely. Respondents were read a statement and asked how often they felt this way in the past month, asked whether in the last 12 months they had experienced certain physical abuse or abused their partner physically, and they were asked whether in the last 12 months they had experienced certain types of emotional abuse or had abused their partner emotionally. Respondents were read a series of statements regarding their relationships with people in general and asked to tell whether the statement was true or false, asked how often they had experienced problems in response to a trauma, and asked how likely their partner might attempt to abuse the respondent in specific ways in the next year.

The evaluation of the Honest Opportunity Probation with Enforcement Demonstration Field Experiment (HOPE DFE) was a four-site, randomized controlled trial replicating a Hawaii probation program widely touted as successful in reducing drug use, violations, and reincarceration. HOPE is based on "swift, certain, and fair" principles, beginning with a warning hearing from a judge and requiring strict adherence to supervision requirements, including random drug testing, with all violations followed by hearings and jail sanctions. Treatment is for those who repeatedly fail random tests. Grants and technical assistance were provided to the sites (Saline County, Arkansas; Essex County, Massachusetts; Clackamas County, Oregon; Tarrant County, Texas) by the Bureau of Justice Assistance to facilitate implementation. The evaluation documented implementation and fidelity, tested outcomes (primarily recidivism), and estimated costs.

1,504 individuals who met eligibility criteria for HOPE were randomly assigned to HOPE or to probation as usual (PAU) between August 2012 and September 2014. Phases of the study included a process evaluation with fidelity analysis, outcomes evaluation, and cost evaluation. Data collection activities included site visits, documentation review, stakeholder interviews, procuring administrative records, conducting interviews for probationers at three different timepoints (baseline, 6 months, 12 months), drug testing oral swabs, and a weekly telephone-based interview with a subset of probationers to assess attitudinal changes.

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.

This project convened experts and practitioners in the areas of program evaluation, radicalization to violent extremism, and social media analytics in order to generate and integrate scientifically derived knowledge into strategies for effective prevention and intervention against domestic radicalization and violent extremism in the United States. More specifically, we generated substantive evaluation data, which can be used by practitioners and policy makers to enhance the creation and dissemination of effective counter-narratives for reducing the threat of ideologically-motivated violence in the US. We used a mixed-methods approach to evaluate an existing nationwide initiative, Peer-to-Peer (P2P): Challenging Extremism, which aims at engaging youth in countering violent extremism in schools and online arenas.

The project had four specific objectives: 1) Evaluate the content and dissemination of the P2P Initiative social media products, 2) evaluate the impact of the P2P Initiative on youth engaged in its development, 3) evaluate the impact of youth exposure to the P2P educational activities, and 4) assess the drivers of success and barriers in the implementation of the initiative.

To complete these objectives, the following research phases were conducted:

A secondary review of 150 P2P social media products created between fall 2015 and spring 2017, including data on end-users interactivity.

Phone and in-person group interviews with faculty and students engaged in the P2P Initiative.

A prospective cohort study evaluating the impact of the Kombat with Kindness (KWK) campaign on Utah secondary school students, using a pre-post intervention design.

A randomized control study evaluating the impact of the Operation 250 (OP250) on Massachusetts secondary school students, using a pre-post intervention design.

Phone interviews with faculty who implemented the P2P Initiative.

With the third highest rates of overdose fatalities in the state and complexities with providing treatment in a rural setting, Franklin County Sheriff's Office (FCSO) in Massachusetts made a strategic decision in 2011 to shift their jail facility away from simply operating as a place to contain people, to becoming a jail that played an important role in the treatment solution to the opioid use epidemic. After more than 10 years of this transformation, FCSO has been able to offer all three federally approved Medications for Opioid Use Disorders (MOUD) (i.e., buprenorphine, methadone, and naltrexone), provide high quality individual and group counseling, and facilitate a continuum of treatment care upon reentry. In 2020, at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, FCSO capitalized on its previously built infrastructure and system partners to continue to offer its services. FCSO also continued offering individual and group counseling via telehealth throughout the pandemic and shifted to a mix of telehealth and in-person services in 2022.

From 2020 to 2023, the research team partnered with FCSO to study how their jail approached MOUD treatment, particularly via telehealth during the COVID-19 pandemic. The mixed-methods study aimed to understand whether treatment and individual counseling as its critical component could be done remotely, what facilitated or hindered its successful application, and how clients (i.e., incarcerated people) and the professionals supporting them perceived the effects.

Recent research has identified numerous challenges facing victims of labor trafficking in the U.S. (Owens, et al., 2014; Brennan, 2014). Most of the research on labor trafficking occurring in the U.S., however, has focused on the experiences of non-citizen and foreign national victims. There are many reasons to suspect that labor trafficking victimization occurs among U.S. citizens, although the identification of this phenomenon has been difficult. For example, the homeless and those with insecure housing, individuals with intellectual and physical disability, low-wage and transitional workers, and those working in illicit economic markets or within sexualized labor services are anticipated to be at higher risk for labor trafficking victimization.

In this exploratory mixed-methods study, the research team answered four main questions to help illuminate the phenomenon of labor trafficking of U.S. citizens.

1. What are the personal, economic, or structural vulnerabilities that put U.S. citizens at risk for labor trafficking?
2. What does labor trafficking looks like for U.S. citizens and where does it fall on a continuum of labor exploitation?
3. How are U.S. citizens recruited into, move to, experience, and escape from labor trafficking victimization?
4. How do U.S. citizen labor trafficking victims seek help or exit exploitative labor situations?

These questions were answered through surveys with individuals at high risk for labor trafficking victimization across four U.S. sites (n=240), individual interviews with a subsample of survey respondents (n=27), and interviews with service providers (n=20). The surveyed population were citizens who were born in the U.S., those who were naturalized citizens at the time of their victimization, and legal permanent residents. The sampling strategy relied on several snowball and purposive sampling techniques and were developed in partnership with social service agencies, government agencies, and community contacts with knowledge of or contact with labor trafficking in each of the sites. As such, the study was not designed to generate prevalence estimation or to claim any representativeness of labor trafficking violations among U.S. citizens.

This collection only includes the quantitative survey data. Qualitative interview data are not available.