Search results

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.

The use of common operational picture (COP) technology can give law enforcement and its public safety response partners the capacity to develop a shared situational awareness to support effective and timely decision-making. These technologies collate and display information relevant for situational awareness (e.g., the location and what is known about a crime incident, the location and operational status of an agency's patrol units, the duty status of officers).

CNA conducted a mixed-methods study including a technical review of COP technologies and their capacities and a set of case studies intended to produce narratives of the COP technology adoption process as well as lessons learned and best practices regarding implementation and use of COP technologies.

This study involved four phases over two years: (1) preparation and technology review, (2) qualitative case studies, (3) analysis, and (4) development and dissemination of results. This study produced a market review report describing the results from the technical review, including common technical characteristics and logistical requirements associated with COP technologies and a case study report of law enforcement agencies' adoption and use of COP technologies. This study provides guidance and lessons learned to agencies interested in implementing or revising their use of COP technology. Agencies will be able to identify how they can improve their information sharing and situational awareness capabilities using COP technology, and will be able to refer to the processes used by other, model agencies when undertaking the implementation of COP technology.

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 exploratory study used the case of Palisades Park, New Jersey, to examine five problem areas: the political economy of migrant labor, prevalence and patterns of criminal victimization against undocumented migrant workers (UMWs), prevalence and patterns of violence against women among UMWs, police-migrant interactions, and criminal offending of UMWs. Data collection efforts were concentrated on the recruitment and survey of 160 male day laborers and 120 female migrant workers in face-to-face interviews. Additional data from focus group and key informant interviews were gathered to provide in-depth information on specific concerns and issues.

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 Detection of Crime, Resource Deployment, and Predictors of Success: A Multi-Level Analysis of Closed-Circuit Television (CCTV) in Newark, NJ collection represents the findings of a multi-level analysis of the Newark, New Jersey Police Department's video surveillance system. This collection contains multiple quantitative data files (Datasets 1-14) as well as spatial data files (Dataset 15 and Dataset 16). The overall project was separated into three components:

• Component 1 (Dataset 1, Individual CCTV Detections and Calls-For-Service Data and Dataset 2, Weekly CCTV Detections in Newark Data) evaluates CCTV's ability to increase the "certainty of punishment" in target areas;
• Component 2 (Dataset 3, Overall Crime Incidents Data; Dataset 4, Auto Theft Incidents Data; Dataset 5, Property Crime Incidents Data; Dataset 6, Robbery Incidents Data; Dataset 7, Theft From Auto Incidents Data; Dataset 8, Violent Crime Incidents Data; Dataset 9, Attributes of CCTV Catchment Zones Data; Dataset 10, Attributes of CCTV Camera Viewsheds Data; and Dataset 15, Impact of Micro-Level Features Spatial Data) analyzes the context under which CCTV cameras best deter crime. Micro-level factors were grouped into five categories: environmental features, line-of-sight, camera design and enforcement activity (including both crime and arrests); and
• Component 3 (Dataset 11, Calls-for-service Occurring Within CCTV Scheme Catchment Zones During the Experimental Period Data; Dataset 12, Calls-for-service Occurring Within CCTV Schemes During the Experimental Period Data; Dataset 13, Targeted Surveillances Conducted by the Experimental Operators Data; Dataset 14, Weekly Surveillance Activity Data; and Dataset 16, Randomized Controlled Trial Spatial Data) was a randomized, controlled trial measuring the effects of coupling proactive CCTV monitoring with directed patrol units.

Over 40 separate four-hour tours of duty, an additional camera operator was funded to monitor specific CCTV cameras in Newark. Two patrol units were dedicated solely to the operators and were tasked with exclusively responding to incidents of concern detected on the experimental cameras. Variables included throughout the datasets include police report and incident dates, crime type, disposition code, number of each type of incident that occurred in a viewshed precinct, number of CCTV detections that resulted in any police enforcement, and number of schools, retail stores, bars and public transit within the catchment zone.

This study was conducted to address elder abuse within emergency departments in the United States. The aim of this study was to develop a screening protocol or more specifically, an emergency department based tool to discover this specific abuse and try to eliminate it.

This emergency department senior aid tool was created in two phases: the development phase and the validation phase. The purpose of the development phase was to test the reliability of this tool in detecting elder abuse in ages 65 and older individuals. On the other hand, the validation phase was to test the tool at three different locations: UNC Medical Center in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, Cooper Hospital in Camden, New Jersey, and University of Florida Health in Jacksonville, Florida.

The Enhancing Procedural Justness of Encounters Through Substantiation (EPJETS) project was a collaborative initiative between researchers from Stockton, Rutgers, and Northwestern Universities and the police departments of Atlantic City and Pleasantville, New Jersey that aimed to test whether incorporating principles of procedural justice, sharing body-worn camera (BWC) footage with drivers following traffic stops, and strategically targeting identified high-traffic crash locations for enforcement could improve public trust and perceptions of police legitimacy. Between October 2022 and June 2024, the study evaluated 1,423 traffic stops conducted for speeding violations by comparing standard enforcement protocols to a novel procedural justice-based intervention. Drivers who were speeding were surveyed immediately after the stop by researchers to determine whether the EPJETS protocol positively affected their perceptions of officer treatment and the effectiveness of BWCs.

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 main aim of this research is to study the criminal mobility of ethnic-based organized crime groups. The project examines whether organized crime groups are able to move abroad easily and to reproduce their territorial control in a foreign country, or whether these groups, and/or individual members, start a life of crime only after their arrival in the new territories, potentially as a result of social exclusion, economic strain, culture conflict and labeling. More specifically, the aim is to examine the criminal mobility of ethnic Albanian organized crime groups involved in a range of criminal markets and operating in and around New York City, area and to study the relevance of the importation/alien conspiracy model versus the deprivation model of organized crime in relation to Albanian organized crime. There are several analytical dimensions in this study: (1) reasons for going abroad; (2) the nature of the presence abroad; (3) level of support from ethnic constituencies in the new territories; (4) importance of cultural codes; (5) organizational structure; (6) selection of criminal activities; (7) economic incentives and political infiltration. This study utilizes a mixed-methods approach with a sequential exploratory design, in which qualitative data and documents are collected and analyzed first, followed by quantitative data. Demographic variables in this collection include age, gender, birth place, immigration status, nationality, ethnicity, education, religion, and employment status.

Two main data sources were employed: (1) court documents, including indictments and court transcripts related to select organized crime cases (84 court documents on 29 groups, 254 offenders); (2) in-depth, face-to-face interviews with 9 ethnic Albanian offenders currently serving prison sentences in U.S. Federal Prisons for organized crime related activities, and with 79 adult ethnic Albanian immigrants in New York, including common people, undocumented migrants, offenders, and people with good knowledge of Albanian organized crime modus operandi. Sampling for these data were conducted in five phases, the first of which involved researchers examining court documents and identifying members of 29 major ethnic Albanian organized crime groups operating in the New York area between 1975 and 2013 who were or had served sentences in the U.S. Federal Prisons for organized crime related activities. In phase two researchers conducted eight in-depth interviews with law enforcement experts working in New York or New Jersey. Phase three involved interviews with members of the Albanian diaspora and filed observations from an ethnographic study. Researchers utilized snowball and respondent driven (RDS) recruitment methods to create the sample for the diaspora dataset. The self-reported criteria for recruitment to participate in the diaspora interviews were: (1) age 18 or over; (2) of ethnic Albanian origin (foreign-born or 1st/2nd generation); and (3) living in NYC area for at least 1 year. They also visited neighborhoods identified as high concentrations of ethnic Albanian individuals and conducted an ethnographic study to locate the target population. In phase four, data for the cultural advisors able to help with the project data was collected. In the fifth and final phase, researchers gathered data for the second wave of the diaspora data, and conducted interviews with offenders with ethnic Albanian immigrants with knowledge of the organized crime situation in New York City area. Researchers also approached about twenty organized crime figures currently serving a prison sentence, and were able to conduct 9 in-depth interviews.

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.

These data are part of NACJD's Fast Track Release and are distributed as they there received from the data depositor. The files have been zipped by NACJD for release, but not checked or processed except of the removal of direct identifiers. Users should refer to the accompany readme file for a brief description of the files available with this collections and consult the investigator(s) if further information is needed.

This study examines municipal crime levels and changes over a nine year time frame, from 2000-2008, in the fifth largest primary Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) in the United States, the Philadelphia metropolitan region. Crime levels and crime changes are linked to demographic features of jurisdictions, policing arrangements and coverage levels, and street and public transit network features.