Search results

This study focused on transportation deprivation in women offenders. For the purpose of exploring transportation disadvantage for women on community supervision, interviews were conducted with 75 women on probation or parole. These interviews focused on women's struggles with transportation and featured questions regarding whether they have driving licenses, have social support, are stressed or unsafe when they travel, and whether transportation problems have impacted supervision violations or recidivism events.

The interviews were used to explore the following themes:

• Women's insights and experiences about getting from place to place while under supervision
• Their strategies for increasing transportation resources and access
• The connections of transportation access to attending required/needed programming and supervision appointments
• Whether any violations or new offenses resulted from inadequate transportation access

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.

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.

Drawing on the principles of Whole Person Dementia Assessment (Mast, 2011) and Appelbaum and Grisso's (1988) decision-making model, this project developed a tool, the Lichtenberg Financial Decision Rating Scale (LFDRS). The conceptual model for the LFDRS questionnaire integrates the measurement of contextual variables with financial capacity assessment. The purpose of the study was to establish reliability and validity of the LFDRS and to collect data on normative financial decision-making by older adults.

The researchers posited that as financial exploitation of older adults increases, investigation and prosecution of these cases remains difficult for criminal justice professionals who must balance protection of older adults with their right to autonomy; and that both under and over-protection of older adults can lead to damaging consequences. The project goal was to develop a set of new financial decision-making screening and comprehensive measures for criminal justice professionals and non-criminal justice professionals to aid in detecting and prosecuting financial exploitation of older adults. The LFDRS (described above) is meant to be used by mental health professionals, specially trained in assessment of older adults. In addition, the researchers developed a 10-item screening tool, the Lichtenberg Financial Decision Screening Scale or Short Scale (LFDSS), that was tested by multiple professionals working in diverse settings (e.g., APS workers, elder law attorneys, law enforcement personnel).

Family members are another group that are often aware of an older adult's vulnerability to financial exploitation and therefore, the researchers developed the Lichtenberg Financial Decision Rating Scale -- Family and Friends version (LFDRS - Family and Friends also known as the LFDRS Informant) to allow concerned professionals to interview confidantes of older adults to help measure financial capacity of a loved one. This tool may be particularly useful for Adult Protective Services to interview multiple people regarding their concerns about an older adult.

The collection contains 3 SPSS data files:

• LFDRS-Data-for-ICPSR.sav (200 cases, 109 variables)
• LFDRS_Informant-Data-for-ICPSR.sav (150 cases, 45 variables)
• LFDSS_Screener-Data-for-ICPSR.sav (213 cases, 24 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.

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 examined arrestee DNA laws (laws that allowed testing of arrestees DNA pre-adjudication), their implementation in the field and their subsequent effects on agency operations as well as their success in aiding investigations in the 28 states that have these laws. The study investigated five specific questions:

1. What states have passed legislation authorizing the collection of DNA from arrestees?
2. How do the laws and policies regarding collecting DNA from arrestees differ by state?
3. How have the courts ruled on these new laws?
4. How have arrestee DNA laws been implemented in each state?
5. What has been the impact of requiring DNA collection from arrestees on state crime laboratories and other involved agencies?
6. What evidence is available to determine the effects of collecting DNA from arrestees on public safety or other criminal justice outcomes?

To answer these questions, researchers used a mixed methods data collection plan, including reviewing relevant statutes and case law, interviewing state and federal Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) laboratory staff and other forensic experts, and collecting descriptive data from state laboratories.

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.

The four primary goals of The Detroit Sexual Assault Kit Action Research Project (DSAK-ARP) were:

1. To assess the scope of the problem by conducting a complete census of all sexual assault kits (SAKs) in police property.
2. To identify the underlying factors that contributed to why Detroit had so many un-submitted SAKs.
3. To develop a plan for testing SAKs and to evaluate the efficacy of that plan.
4. To create a victim notification protocol and evaluate the efficacy of that protocol.

To conduct the census and investigate factors that contributed to untested SAKs, The study investigated police and other public records, interviewed public officials and employees and manually cataloged untested SAKs to conduct the census and gather information as to the decision making processes as to why the SAKs remained untested.

A random sample of 1,595 SAKs were tested as part of developing a SAK testing plan. Kits were divided into four testing groups to examine the utility of testing SAKs for stranger perpetrated sexual assaults, non-stranger perpetrated sexual assaults and sexual assaults believed to be beyond the statute of limitations. The final testing group split SAKs randomly into two addition sample sets as part of an experimental design to examine whether the testing method of selective degradation was a quicker and more cost efficient approach that offered satisfactory levels of accuracy when compared to standard DNA testing methods.

A two stage protocol was created to inform sexual assault victims that their SAKs had been tested, discuss options for participating with the investigation and prosecution process and connect the victim with community services.

After a sexual assault, victims are advised to have a medical forensic exam, including the collection of a sexual assault kit (SAK) to preserve forensic evidence of the crime. The SAK samples can be analyzed for DNA, which can help prosecute assailants and prevent future assaults. However, police do not routinely submit SAKs for forensic DNA testing, and large stockpiles of untested kits have been documented in over 41 jurisdictions. To address this growing national problem, many cities are now testing all of their older rape kits. Re-contacting survivors to inform them that their SAK had not been tested and now will be/has been tested is referred to as 'victim notification.' This study explored how victim notifications can support survivors' well-being and promote justice. Researchers conducted qualitative interviews with 32 sexual assault survivors in Detroit, MI. All participants had experienced a Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) Hit Re-Engagement Victim Notification, in which law enforcement personnel contacted survivors to inform them that their SAKs had been tested and the testing yielded a suspect DNA match in the FBI's national criminal database CODIS. All survivors agreed to re-engage with the criminal legal system and participate in the investigation and prosecution of these cases. Researchers also completed qualitative interviews with 12 community-based advocates about their experiences providing advocacy and support to these survivors throughout their notification and re-engagement experiences. They used semi-structured interviews to document:

1. Survivors' CODIS Hit Re-Engagement Victim Notification experiences;
2. Survivors' decision-making processes regarding re-engagement with the criminal legal system;
3. Survivors' re-engagement experiences with the criminal legal system and the extent to which their court experiences provided procedural, distributive, retributive, and/or restorative justice;
4. Survivors' advocacy experiences from victim notification through criminal legal system re-engagement.

This project studied the capacity of family group conferencing (FGC) to enhance public safety by equipping returning citizens with the skills and insight to repair relationships and reintegrate successfully into their communities and families. FGC is guided by the philosophy of restorative justice, meaning that crime primarily causes harm to people and relationships and, in turn, creates an obligation to repair that harm. FGC brings together the people most affected by a crime to discuss what happened, learn how people have been affected, and decide what needs to be done to repair the harm.

The project evaluated an FGC program implemented by Supporting Restorative Reentry in Detroit at a residential reentry center in Detroit, Michigan. Researchers used a randomized control trial with high-risk, formerly incarcerated participants still under Michigan Department of Corrections supervision with the goal of assessing the programs ability to reduce recidivism and increase quality of life for returning citizens, their families, and their communities. Variables include measures of criminal identity, optimism, personal agency, social bonds, the FGC process, risk scores, and twelve-month recidivism follow-up. Participants' age, gender, and race demographics are also collected.

The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) and the Office for Violence Against Women (OVW) has evaluated the implementation process and impact of the U.S. Department of Justice's Domestic Violence Homicide Prevention Demonstration Initiative. The evaluation was conducted by a team of investigators from Yale University and Michigan State University.

The demonstration initiative (DI) included 3 implementation sites (California, North Carolina and Illinois). In addition, 2 comparison or typically implementing sites (Michigan and Tennessee) were included in the evaluation. The sites implemented the Lethality Assessment Program (LAP) developed by the Maryland Network Against Domestic Violence.

A web-based survey was used to gather data to assess changes in collaboration within each of the sites. Respondents from agencies providing support to victims of domestic violence and their offenders reported on their level of collaboration with other named agencies in their networks at two or three time points. Data sets are at the site level. Social network analysis was conducted to assess how the network changes over time.

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 research sought to analyze the length of time served by state prisoners in Michigan from 1985 to 2008. It was conducted to address research that showed Michigan had the longest prison stays in the United States of America, the substantial impact that time served had upon state prison populations, and to assess the effect of parole and sentencing policy on time-served. The research utilized National Corrections Reporting Program (NCRP) data available through the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data (NACJD) in order to build upon past-research and contribute to the understanding of state-specific patterns and trends across offenses and racial groups.

In order to address policy effects upon time served, the purpose of this study was to contextualize patterns of time served across 20 years within the parole and sentencing policy changes in Michigan; the impact of reforms in 1999 were of particular focus.

There are no data files available with this study. Only syntax files used by the researcher(s) are provided.

The primary objective of this study was to determine the histological features associated with fracture repair in the human cranial vault, and to derive the trajectory of these features over the course of healing. Variations in the fracture repair process due to decedent age and type of injury were explored. The impacts of laboratory techniques, including decalcification and histological staining, upon the quality of fracture histology slides were also assessed. Calvarial fracture samples were collected from medical examiner cases and body donations from January 1, 2017 to November 31, 2020 for use in the analyses and for the creation of the Repository of Antemortem Injury Response (REPAIR), a deidentified online database of known-age cranial fractures and defects.