Search results

This study is designed to address the ongoing need to create forensically relevant linkages between persons, places, and objects by developing the untapped potential of the human viral microbiome (virome). The human virome is a source of rich genetic diversity that needs to be examined to determine if it is stable, transferable, and provides a sufficient power of discrimination to be used as an alternative to traditional human forensic deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) tests when such tests are infeasible. The human bacterial microbiome is already being examined as an alternative method for human identification in forensically relevant cases. The human virome offers some advantages as the viral genomes are even smaller than those of bacteria, and thus are potentially more physically stable, have a variety of morphologies (double- and single-stranded) increasing the possible number of discriminating markers, and is present throughout the human body, including the skin and body fluids, making it transferable.

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.

With the aim of improving precision in sex trafficking victim identification and investigations, this exploratory, mixed-methods study had two objectives: 1) To investigate whether there are indicators that differentiate online escort ads related to sex trafficking from ads for non-trafficked sex work, and 2) if so, to determine which indicators are most likely to predict whether the ad represents a case of sex trafficking.

Research activities took place over a three-year period (2018-2021). First, the research team developed the set of indicators to test based on previous literature and insight from three sets of focus groups: law enforcement and victim advocates, trafficking survivors, and non-trafficked sex workers. Focus groups also provided insight into indicators that may be misinterpreted and into how advertising practices have changed, especially since the passage of FOSTA (Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act) and SESTA (Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act), and the shutdown of Backpage.com by the FBI.

Second, the researchers collected investigative file information on closed cases involving escort ads from several locations in the United States, using phone numbers identified in each case to pull associated ads missing from case files from one of three web scraper databases (the MEMEX archive and the active TellFinder and HTI Labs' Law Enforcement Assistant for Dismantling Sex Trafficking Networks (LEADS) web scrapers). The final dataset includes 318 closed commercial sex and massage cases investigated in seven states, with 1,586 unique associated ads covering 35 U.S. states and Ontario, Canada. Researchers also pulled additional ads not present in the case files from the scraper archives to conduct three case studies of trafficking movement patterns, network management, and advertising structures to provide context for the hypothesis test results.

Finally, after analysis of the ad- and case-level data, a second round of focus groups was conducted to obtain each group's responses to the results, advice on interpretation, and input on recommendations.

The case-level (DS1) and ad-level (DS2) quantitative data are currently available in this collection. The qualitative data will be released at a future date. Please refer to the ICPSR README and the study documentation for more information about the files.

This study is to understand how perceptions and the organization of school safety and security are associated with the level and type of law enforcement engagement in rural schools. A triangulation mixed methods design was used to collect and examine individual, school, and community level quantitative and qualitative data. The social-ecological theory of violence prevention guides the research by predicting that an interplay of factors at multiple levels influences the type and level of law enforcement engagement in rural schools.

Specifically, it was predicted that the more organized and coordinated a school is in the area of safety and security, the more likely it is to be formally engaged with law enforcement. Formal engagement is defined as use of some version of the school resource officer (SRO) model or defined roles and responsibilities for law enforcement in schools that are articulated in documents such as a memorandum of agreement or understanding.

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.

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 the validity, reliability, equity and cost of nine juvenile justice risk assessment instruments. It was designed to provide a comprehensive examination of how several risk assessments perform in practice. This study posed the following questions:

1. Is each risk assessment instrument sufficiently reliable (i.e., inter-rater reliability) to ensure that decisions regarding level of risk and identified service needs are consistent across the organization?
2. What specific risk assessment items are associated with less reliability? What items are rated reliably by staff?
3. Is each risk assessment instrument valid? Specifically, what degree of discrimination is attained between assigned risk levels? Could the instrument be improved by adding or deleting specific factors and/or altering cut-off scores?
4. Is each risk assessment instrument valid for population subgroups: White/Caucasian, Black/African American, Hispanic/Latino, females, probationers, and youth in aftercare status? Could equity be improved by adding or deleting specific factors or altering cut-off scores?
5. What costs are associated with each risk assessment instrument?

The study collection includes 31 SPSS data files

1. all_jais_combined.sav (n=1,141; 6 variables)
2. ar_fire_final_file_ojjdp-ICPSR.sav (n=119; 205 variables)
3. AR_yls_irr_FINAL-ICPSR.sav (n=155; 136 variables)
4. azaoc_FINALFILE-ICPSR.sav (n=7,589; 438 variables)
5. AZAOC_irr_FINAL-ICPSR.sav (n=458; 101 variables)
6. AZDJC_FINAL_FILE-ICPSR.sav (n=1,265; 1,290 variables)
7. AZDJC_irr_FINAL-ICPSR.sav (n=55; 120 variables)
8. COMMITMENT_FINAL_SAMPLE2-ICPSR.sav (n=11,154; 719 variables)
9. FinalDJJReleasesWithRecid_BothYears2-ICPSR.sav (n=90,818; 31 variables)
10. FIRE_NE_COMM_FINAL_FILE_OJJDP-ICPSR.sav (n=597; 174 variables)
11. fire_ne_probation_final-ICPSR.sav (n=1,077; 237 variables)
12. FL_irr_FINAL-ICPSR.sav (n=519; 140 variables)
13. GA_irr_FINAL-ICPSR.sav (n=509; 263 variables)
14. gafire_boyscommunityALL_FINAL-ICPSR.sav (n=5,009; 781 variables)
15. gafire_communityALLforretrofit2-ICPSR.sav (n=6,943; 666 variables)
16. gafire_finalsampforanalysis_all-ICPSR.sav (n=7,412; 642 variables)
17. gafire_finalsampforanalysis_girls-ICPSR.sav (n=2,005; 768 variables)
18. jais_boys_wk_1-ICPSR.sav (n=1,989; 484 variables)
19. jais_girls_wk_1-ICPSR.sav (n=745; 484 variables)
20. NE_irr_FINAL-ICPSR.sav (n=727; 160 variables)
21. OR_irr_FINAL-ICPSR.sav (n=477; 112 variables)
22. ORE_FIRE_final-ICPSR.sav (n=12,370; 340 variables)
23. PROBATION_FINAL_BOYS_ALL-ICPSR.sav (n=20,621; 837 variables)
24. PROBATION_FINAL_GIRLS_ALL-ICPSR.sav (n=6,748; 849 variables)
25. va_boyssample-ICPSR.sav (n=1,106; 1,273 variables)
26. va_final_sample_fullscreen-ICPSR.sav (n=1,439; 1,237 variables)
27. va_girlssample-ICPSR.sav (n=333; 1,256 variables)
28. VA_irr_expert_FINAL-ICPSR.sav (n=10; 308 variables)
29. VA_irr_worker_FINAL-ICPSR.sav (n=685; 308 variables)
30. vafinalsample-ICPSR.sav (n=1,919; 1,200 variables)
31. workersurveyfinal-ICPSR.sav (n=400; 69 variables)