Search results

In the aftermath of the attacks on September 11, 2001, and subsequent terrorist attacks elsewhere around the world, a key counterterrorism concern was the possible radicalization of Muslims living in the United States. The purpose of the study was to examine and identify characteristics and practices of four American Muslim communities that have experienced varying levels of radicalization. The communities were selected because they were home to Muslim-Americans that had experienced isolated instances of radicalization. They were located in four distinct regions of the United States, and they each had distinctive histories and patterns of ethnic diversity.

This objective was mainly pursued through interviews of over 120 Muslims located within four different Muslim-American communities across the country (Buffalo, New York; Houston, Texas; Seattle, Washington; and Raleigh-Durham, North Carolina), a comprehensive review of studies an literature on Muslim-American communities, a review of websites and publications of Muslim-American organizations and a compilation of data on prosecutions of Muslim-Americans on violent terrorism-related offenses.

Recognizing the potentially deleterious consequences of criminalizing school discipline, schools are increasingly turning to alternative methods for holding students accountable for misbehavior. Restorative justice (RJ) practices--which seek to hold students who cause harm accountable without removing them from their learning environment--ostensibly represent an antidote to traditional discipline. However, RJ practices have been the subject of limited high quality scientific inquiry. This study aims to fill this gap through the implementation and evaluation of a restorative program in a school district (District 18) that struggles with the highest suspension rates in New York City.

Related literature presents inconclusive results regarding the effectiveness of restorative justice (RJ) in schools (Anyon et al. 2016; Augustine et al. 2018; Gonz?lez 2015; Gonz?lez et al. 2019). There is little uniformity in restorative justice implementation, although some key components of successful implementation (e.g., staff buy-in, resources) have been identified. Because no two schools are likely to implement restorative practices identically, evaluating them with scientific rigor--typically requiring large samples--has been inherently challenging. As such, randomized controlled trials of restorative justice in schools were virtually non-existent in 2015 (at the time the current study was proposed), and most existing research relied on qualitative, quasi-experimental or pre-post designs. The push for quantitative rigor resulted in the present study, a mixed method randomized controlled trial, along with other recently published or ongoing rigorous evaluations.

The restorative justice program in question aimed to improve school climate, strengthen relationships schoolwide, prevent and intervene in conflict, reduce incidents and suspensions, and enhance any existing restorative practices already in place. Restorative justice has the potential to reduce dependency on punitive measures (e.g., suspension) when an incident occurs at school. Additionally, given the priority placed on building community and providing mental health support, restorative justice may also reduce such incidents altogether, while creating a positive school climate. As such, the primary quantitative outcomes in this study were incident rates, suspension rates, and school climate. This study was a randomized control trial that included a treatment group (enrolled in RJ program), comparison group (no RJ program enrollment), and control groups (general restorative justice practices). The research team hypothesized the following:

• • Hypothesis 1: Students in the treatment group would have fewer incidents and suspensions than the control group.
  • Hypothesis 2: Students in the treatment group would have fewer incidents and suspensions than the comparison group.
  • Hypothesis 3: Students in all of District 18 would have fewer incidents and suspensions than the comparison group.
  • Hypothesis 4: The treatment group would have a more positive school climate than the control group.

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 how police managers would use information about their officers' performance in procedural justice terms. The project provided for the injection of citizen assessment of service quality into systems of police performance measurement and accountability. Information on the quality of police-citizen encounters was drawn from surveys of citizens who had contact with the police in each of two cities, Schenectady and Syracuse, New York. Following the accumulation of survey data to form a baseline, survey results on citizens' satisfaction and judgments about procedural justice in their police contacts were summarized and reported to command staffs on a monthly basis through the departments' respective Compstat meetings. In this way the project provided for measures of police performance with respect to procedural justice with sufficient periodicity that the information was potentially useful in managing performance.

The study addressed four specific questions:

1. Does performance on these outcomes - procedural justice and citizen satisfaction - improve when information on these outcomes is incorporated into departments' systems of performance measurement and accountability?
2. What do police managers do with this information, and how (if at all) are field supervisors and patrol officers affected by it?
3. Are survey-based measures of citizens' subjective experiences valid measures of police performance, that is, do they reflect the procedural justice with which police act?
4. Can survey based measures be deployed economically (e.g., through targeted sampling), and can other, less expensive measures of the quality of police-citizen encounters be substituted for survey-based measures?

To answer these questions, researches used a mixed methods data collection plan. In both Schenectady and Syracuse, a survey was administered to people who had recent contact with the police. Semi-monthly samples were randomly drawn from police records of calls for service, stops, and arrests from mid-July, 2011, through mid-January, 2013. Across the 18 months of surveying, 3,603 interviews were completed. Also carried out, was a survey of key informants in each city - neighborhood association leaders - in order to extend the assessment of public perceptions of the local police beyond those who have direct contact with police to the larger community. Interviews with patrol officers and supervisors were also conducted in both sites, once at about the mid-point of the 18-month police services survey and again at the conclusion of the surveying. Interviews were conducted with the commanders shortly after the project was introduced to them in October of 2011. Finally, in Schenectady, "armchair" observation of a subset of the 1,800 encounters about which the citizen had already been interviewed was conducted.

The collection contains 7 SPSS data files and 6 Syntax files:

1. archive_Census_beat.sav (n=30; 28 variables)
2. archive_keyinformant_analysis.sps
3. archive_keyinformant_survey.sav (n=90; 28 variables)
4. archive_obs_byenc.sav (n=476; 79 variables)
5. archive_obs_byobserver.sav (n=1,078; 476 variables)
6. archive_obs_enc_analysis.sps
7. archive_obs_enc_var_construction.sps
8. archive_police_data.sav (n=3,603; 9 variables)
9. archive_policeservices_survey_analysis.sps
10. archive_policeservices_survey_closed.sav (n=3,603; 148 variables)
11. archive_policeservices_survey_open.sav (n=1,218; 23 variables)
12. archive_policeservices_survey_var_construction.sps
13. Syntax to replicate results - list by table.pdf

For confidentiality reasons, the qualitative interviews with citizens, police sergeants, patrol officers, and commanders regarding their experiences are not available as part of 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.

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 evaluated the impact of atypical work hours on physiological indicators of health and chronic disease among law enforcement officers enrolled in the Buffalo Cardio-Metabolic Occupational Police Stress (BCOPS) study. Atypical work hours were defined as: work outside of a standard daytime work shift, the number of shift changes that occur over an extended period, the effect of cumulative overtime hours, and/or secondary employment. The data in this release include measures of global DNA methylation, which is an indicator of genomic instability and risk factor for several types of cancer; food logs documenting wake, sleep, and meal times during workdays and off-duty days; and survey data about psychosocial adaptive and maladaptive behaviors associated with atypical work hours.

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 seeks to test the Fourth R curriculum, a curriculum that seeks to build relationship knowledge and skills, with a younger, urban population of middle school students in the Bronx, New York. Utilizing a randomized controlled trial design, this study tests the effectiveness of the Fourth R curriculum with seventh-grade students drawn from ten public middle schools in the Bronx, New York. A secondary quasi-experimental study seeks to examine diffusion of program impacts by comparing outcomes between students assigned to the experimental control sample and students in three comparison schools where no one received the Fourth R.

The study seeks to measure program impact on five primary and three secondary domains. Primary program impact domains include:

1. Dating violence (victimization and perpetration)
2. Sexual harassment/assault (victimization and perpetration)
3. Peer violence/bullying (victimization and perpetration)
4. Sexual activity
5. Drug and alcohol use

1. Perceived school safety
2. Positive beliefs (e.g., anti-fighting/violence, rejection of gender stereotypes)
3. Pro-social behaviors

This study achieved their goals through student surveys, administrator and teacher interviews, and student focus groups.

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 project sought to study the District Attorney of New York's (DANY) current practices by addressing the complex relationship between prosecutorial decision making and racial and ethnic justice in felony and misdemeanor cases closed in New York County in 2010-2011. Using a mixed-methods approach, administrative records from the DANY case-management systems and prosecutorial interviews were examined to study case acceptance for prosecution, pretrial detention and bail determination, case dismissal, plea offers, and sentencing. Researchers developed five hypotheses for the data collected:

1. Blacks and Latinos are more likely to have their cases accepted for prosecution than similarly situated white defendants.
2. Blacks and Latinos are more likely to be held in pretrial detention and less likely to be released on bail.
3. Blacks and Latinos are less likely to have cases dismissed.
4. Blacks and Latinos are less likely to receive a plea offer to a lesser charge and more likely to receive custodial sentence offers.
5. Blacks and Latinos are more likely to be sentenced to custodial punishments.

All criminal activity of the defendant was examined, as well as their demographics and prior history, the location of the crime. Information on the Assistant District Attorney (ADA) was examined as well, including their demographics and caseload in order to more thoroughly understand the catalysts and trends in decision making.

The Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement (CJRP), conducted every other year, asks juvenile residential custody facilities in the United States to describe all youth assigned a bed in the facility on a specified reference date. In 2011, the reference date was Wednesday, October 26 (the last Wednesday in October).

Each record in the data provides information on a juvenile in a residential facility on the reference date, including information on placement (e.g. placing agency), the judicial process (e.g. court adjudication status), and demographics (e.g. age). Each record that provides information about a juvenile also includes information about institutional characteristics (e.g. facility type, use of locked doors or gates), treatment services, and population of the facility in which the juvenile was held. Therefore, CJRP data can be analyzed at the individual or facility level.

Some state and regional agencies provide CJRP data for more than one facility under their jurisdiction. The census was not sent to adult facilities or to facilities exclusively for drug or mental health treatment or for abused or neglected children.

The Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement (CJRP), conducted every other year, asks juvenile residential custody facilities in the United States to describe all youth assigned a bed in the facility on a specified reference date. In 2013, the reference date was Wednesday, October 23 (the fourth Wednesday in October).

Each record in the data provides information on a juvenile in a residential facility on the reference date, including information on placement (e.g. placing agency), the judicial process (e.g. court adjudication status), and demographics (e.g. age). Each record that provides information about a juvenile also includes information about institutional characteristics (e.g. facility type, use of locked doors or gates), treatment services, and population of the facility in which the juvenile was held. Therefore, CJRP data can be analyzed at the individual or facility level.

The census was not sent to adult facilities or to facilities exclusively for drug or mental health treatment or for abused or neglected children. Some state and regional agencies provide CJRP data for more than one facility under their jurisdiction.

The Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement (CJRP), conducted every other year, asks juvenile residential custody facilities in the United States to describe all youth assigned a bed in the facility on a specified reference date. In 2015, the reference date was Wednesday, October 28 (the fourth Wednesday in October).

Each record in the data provides information on a juvenile in a residential facility on the reference date, including information on placement (e.g. placing agency), the judicial process (e.g. court adjudication status), and demographics (e.g. age). Each record that provides information about a juvenile also includes information about institutional characteristics (e.g. facility type, use of locked doors or gates), treatment services, and population of the facility in which the juvenile was held. Therefore, CJRP data can be analyzed at the individual or facility level.

The census was not sent to adult facilities or to facilities exclusively for drug or mental health treatment or for abused or neglected children. Some state and regional agencies provide CJRP data for more than one facility under their jurisdiction.

The Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement (CJRP), conducted every other year, asks juvenile residential custody facilities in the United States to describe all youth assigned a bed in the facility on a specified reference date. In 2017, the reference date was Wednesday, October 25 (the fourth Wednesday in October).

Each record in the data provides information on a juvenile in a residential facility on the reference date, including information on placement (e.g. placing agency), the judicial process (e.g. court adjudication status), and demographics (e.g. age). Each record that provides information about a juvenile also includes information about institutional characteristics (e.g. facility type, use of locked doors or gates), treatment services, and population of the facility in which the juvenile was held. Therefore, CJRP data can be analyzed at the individual or facility level.

The census was not sent to adult facilities or to facilities exclusively for drug or mental health treatment or for abused or neglected children. Some state and regional agencies provide CJRP data for more than one facility under their jurisdiction.

The Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement (CJRP), conducted every other year, asks juvenile residential custody facilities in the United States to describe all youth assigned to a bed in the facility on a specified reference date. In 2019, the reference date was Wednesday, October 23 (the fourth Wednesday in October).

Each record in the data provides information on a juvenile in a residential facility on the reference date, including information on placement (e.g., placing agency), the judicial process (e.g., court adjudication status), and demographics (e.g., age). Each record that provides information about a juvenile also includes information about institutional characteristics (e.g., facility type, use of locked doors or gates), treatment services, and population of the facility in which the juvenile was held. Therefore, CJRP data can be analyzed at the individual or facility level.

The census was not sent to adult facilities or to facilities exclusively for drug or mental health treatment or for abused or neglected children. Some state and regional agencies provide CJRP data for more than one facility under their jurisdiction.

The Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement (CJRP), conducted every other year, asks juvenile residential custody facilities in the United States to describe all youth assigned a bed in the facility on a specified reference date. In 2021, the reference date was Wednesday, October 27 (the fourth Wednesday in October).

Each record in the data provides information on a juvenile in a residential facility on the reference date, including information on placement (e.g. placing agency), the judicial process (e.g. court adjudication status), and demographics (e.g. age). Each record that provides information about a juvenile also includes information about institutional characteristics (e.g. facility type, use of locked doors or gates), treatment services, and population of the facility in which the juvenile was held. Therefore, CJRP data can be analyzed at the individual or facility level.

The census was not sent to adult facilities or to facilities exclusively for drug or mental health treatment or for abused or neglected children. Some state and regional agencies provide CJRP data for more than one facility under their jurisdiction.

The purpose of the Census of Juveniles on Probation (CJP) was to collect individual-level data about youth on probation, including their numbers and characteristics. The CJP survey asked respondents to report the total number of juveniles on formal probation within their reporting jurisdiction on the reference date of October 24, 2012.

For each youth on probation, responding agencies were asked to provide the following information: sex, date of birth, race, most serious offense, state and county where most serious offense was committed, and the state and county where the juvenile resided on the census reference date.

This data collection contains the national data.

This study tests the efficacy of an intervention--Safe Public Spaces (SPS) -- focused on improving the safety of public spaces in schools, such as hallways, cafeterias, and stairwells. Twenty-four schools with middle grades in a large urban area were recruited for participation and were pair-matched and then assigned to either treatment or control. The study comprises four components: an implementation evaluation, a cost study, an impact study, and a community crime study.

Community-crime-study: The community crime study used the arrest of juveniles from the NYPD (New York Police Department) data. The data can be found at (https://data.cityofnewyork.us/Public-Safety/NYPD-Arrests-Data-Historic-/8h9b-rp9u). Data include all arrest for the juvenile crime during the life of the intervention. The 12 matched schools were identified and geo-mapped using Quantum GIS (QGIS) 3.8 software. Block groups in the 2010 US Census in which the schools reside and neighboring block groups were mapped into micro-areas. This resulted in twelve experimental school blocks and 11 control blocks which the schools reside (two of the control schools existed in the same census block group). Additionally, neighboring blocks using were geo-mapped into 70 experimental and 77 control adjacent block groups (see map). Finally, juvenile arrests were mapped into experimental and control areas. Using the ARIMA time-series method in Stata 15 statistical software package, arrest data were analyzed to compare the change in juvenile arrests in the experimental and control sites.

Cost-study: For the cost study, information from the implementing organization (Engaging Schools) was combined with data from phone conversations and follow-up communications with staff in school sites to populate a Resource Cost Model. The Resource Cost Model Excel file will be provided for archiving. This file contains details on the staff time and materials allocated to the intervention, as well as the NYC prices in 2018 US dollars associated with each element. Prices were gathered from multiple sources, including actual NYC DOE data on salaries for position types for which these data were available and district salary schedules for the other staff types. Census data were used to calculate benefits.

Impact-evaluation: The impact evaluation was conducted using data from the Research Alliance for New York City Schools. Among the core functions of the Research Alliance is maintaining a unique archive of longitudinal data on NYC schools to support ongoing research. The Research Alliance builds and maintains an archive of longitudinal data about NYC schools. Their agreement with the New York City Department of Education (NYC DOE) outlines the data they receive, the process they use to obtain it, and the security measures to keep it safe.

Implementation-study: The implementation study comprises the baseline survey and observation data. Interview transcripts are not archived.

Research tools available to help advance knowledge of effective community-based elder mistreatment (EM) interventions are limited. The field lacks an understanding of what success means in EM response program (EMRP) interventions, which work directly with victims to reduce the risk of re-victimization. Without establishing indicators of EMRP success, it is not possible to develop valid intervention outcome measures to compare different EMRP models toward the development of evidence-based practice. Informed by the EMRP practice principle of older adult self-determination, this study developed a victim-centric taxonomy of case outcomes that indicate EMRP success.

This study drew on two sources of data, including interviews with EM victims and a scoping review to inform taxonomy development. Prioritizing the perspective of victims, this study conducted interviews with 27 victims involved in EMRP services who vary in EM subtype, gender, and race/ethnicity.

The taxonomy of successful EMRP outcomes will serve as important research infrastructure to support the development of EMRP intervention outcome measurement in future research.