Search results

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.

This study followed the outcomes of the Bridge of Faith program. Bridge of Faith is an expansion project based on efforts of the Aim4Peace Violence Prevention Program, serving youth 13-24 years of age living in a prioritized area of Kansas City, Missouri. Bridge of Faith created goals and objectives that strategically address a continuum from response to violence exposure, intervention for violence survivors, and preventing of violence exposure. Activities were designed to target a reduction in risk factors and improvement in resiliency factors associated with the use of violence, as well as improve access to care and quality of services for those who are survivors of violence to reduce the probability of violence and exposure to others in the future. The overall purpose was to improve the health, social, and economic outcomes for youth and families who have been exposed to trauma and/or violence and prevent further violence from occurring. The project will facilitate these outcomes in specific goals and objectives to expand access to evidence-based programs and services for youth survivors through a new platform for collaborating agencies to link survivors of violence to additional wrap around services, and enhance the performance of service agencies through training, strengthening knowledge and skill development to ensure quality, trauma-informed, and culturally competent care.

This study on the Bridge of Faith Project was split into two datasets, Participant Survey Data and Police Data. Individuals were the unit of analysis measured in the Participant Survey Data, and criminal acts were the unit of analysis measured in the Police Data. Participant Survey Data contains 22 variables and 12 cases. Police Data contains 26 variables and 9 cases.

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 multi-year study investigated the causes and consequences of school victimization (e.g., property theft, minor assault, bullying, cyberbullying) as well as factors contributing to safe learning environments (e.g., school disciplinary practices, students' willingness to report dangerous behavior, availability and utilization of victim services). The project includes three annual surveys of students initially enrolled in 12 middle schools in St. Louis County; a summer component consisting of semi-structured interviews with a subsample of 197 students, including in-depth interviews with 37 students the following summer; and two surveys of school personnel. There are three areas of interest that guide this project and are associated with better understanding of the root causes and consequences (i.e., correlates) of school violence:

(1) Identification of patterns of school violence: the principal investigators surveyed two student cohorts over three years as they transitioned from middle to high school (7th/8th grades to 9th/10th grades)

(2) Identification of correlates of school violence relying on multiple sources, including: the individual (e.g., gang membership, attitudes toward violence), the school and school climate (e.g., willingness to report, awareness and utilization of victim services, views on the procedural justice of school disciplinary practices, gang presence at the school) and the situation (e.g., where, when, and with whom violence occurs)

(3) A specific examination of bullying and cyberbullying as unique forms of school violence with regard to their correlates stemming from each source identified above

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 measures the size and structure of the underground commercial sex economy in eight major US cities: San Diego, Seattle, Dallas, Denver, Washington, DC, Kansas City, Atlanta, and Miami. The goals of this study were to derive a more rigorous estimate of the underground commercial sex economy (UCSE) in eight major US cities and to provide an understanding of the structure of this underground economy.

Researchers relied on a multi-method approach using both qualitative and quantitative data to estimate the size of UCSE including:

1. Collecting official data on crime related to the underground weapons and drugs economies
2. Conducting semi-structured interviews with convicted traffickers, pimps, child pornographers, and sex workers at the federal, state, and local levels
3. Conducting semi-structured interviews with local and federal police investigators and prosecutors to inform our analysis of the interrelationship across different types of underground commercial sex activity.

These data are part of NACJDs 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 two central objectives of this project were (1) to evaluate the effect on crime of a targeted patrol strategy mounted by the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department (SLMPD) and (2) to evaluate the researcher-practitioner partnership that underlay the policing intervention.

The study addressed the following research questions:

1. Do intensified police patrols and enforcement in crime hot spots result in larger reductions in firearm assaults and robberies than in similar areas subject to routine police activity?
2. Do specific enforcement tactics decrease certain type of crime?
3. Which enforcement tactics are most effective?
4. Does video surveillance reduce crime?
5. How does the criminal justice system respond to firearm crime?
6. Do notification meetings reduce recidivism?
7. Does community unrest increase crime?
8. Did crime rates rise following the Ferguson Killing?

To answer these questions, researchers used a mixed methods data collection plan, including interviews with local law enforcement, surveillance camera footage, and conducting ride-alongs with officers.

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.

The overall purpose of this mixed methods, multi-site study was to explore the use of restrictive housing in United States prisons and jails from the perspective of incarcerated individuals and corrections officers who work in restrictive housing units. Restrictive housing, also known as solitary confinement or segregation, is defined as keeping an incarcerated person in their cell for 22 or more hours per day.

To study the extent to which exposure to restrictive housing affects outcomes (i.e., mental/physical health problems, deterrence from future misconduct) for incarcerated individuals, the research team collected administrative records of housing moves ("stints") from the Colorado Department of Corrections and Missouri Department of Corrections. Records are available for all individuals incarcerated between January 1, 2015 and December 31, 2017. Data from Colorado includes roughly 1.3 million observations from 39,849 incarcerations. Data from Missouri includes roughly 1.1 million observations from 79,208 incarcerations. To study the impact of working in restrictive housing units on officers' physical, emotional, and mental wellbeing, the team administered surveys to officers working in correctional facilities in Missouri (n=376), North Carolina (n=249), and Oregon (site 1 n=47, site 2 n=133).

The research team also conducted officer focus groups, interviews with agency leadership, observations of restrictive housing and general population units, and a national comprehensive survey about the use of restrictive housing in jails. Only the administrative records and officer wellbeing survey data are available in this 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, 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.