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.

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.

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.

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.

Children exposed to domestic violence are at increased risk of experiencing and perpetrating violence against their partners when they become adolescents and adults. Despite this increased risk and the fact that approximately 15 million children are exposed to domestic violence yearly, there have been no evaluated dating abuse prevention programs conducted specifically with this population.

The collection contains 2 SAS data files: baseline_final.sas (n=51; 465 variables) and followup_final.sas (n=32; 463 variables).

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

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

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

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.

This initial Phase 1 formative evaluation included the development of a logic model to guide telehealth programming, an evaluability assessment of existing telehealth services, and a pilot test of initial implementation to capture the components needed for future fidelity assessment of these telehealth services as part of a multi-phase evaluation. The telemental health programming was focused on a hybrid approach of service delivery by El Futuro, a community-based organization in Durham, North Carolina. El Futuro's hybrid model of telemental health services combines methods of telehealth and in-person treatment with an array of service components including psychotherapy, psychiatric services, and case management for individuals who were victims of crime (VOCs) seeking mental health services.

Data associated with this project contain information about telehealth sites, client gender, psychiatric diagnoses, session types for the hybrid model, reported traumas for the overall sample used in the evaluability, and feasibility portion of the formative evaluation. The collection also includes outcome information for a subset of participants, such as client reported improvement and satisfaction.

The current study sought to examine the impact of select psychological, cognitive, professional experience and social network factors on police officers' decisions to use force. Additionally, the study examined the impact of a brief citizen education intervention (i.e. the completion of police officer training simulations) on citizens' attitudes toward police and use of force. All participants completed three training scenarios inside a firearms training simulator.

A sample of law enforcement officers and civilians took part in the study. Participants completed a series of questionnaires designed to measure, among other things:

• Positive and Negative Emotionality
• Need for Cognition
• Cognitive Reflection
• Professional experiences as a police officer (law enforcement participants only)
• Size of friendship networks within the workplace (law enforcement participants only)
• Perceptions of how their friendship networks would be impacted if the participant were to use excessive force (law enforcement participants only)
• Pre-post measures of attitudes toward police (civilian participants only)

In order to investigate whether reductions to sentence length reduce recidivism and its related costs, the research team conducted two studies under the same NIJ grant.

In Study 1, the research team used a quasi-experimental approach to examine how sentence length influenced time to rearrest. Specifically, the team estimated an instrumental variable hazard model using variation stemming from the implementation of South Dakota's Public Safety Improvement Act of 2013 (SB70). SB70 was a major sentencing reform that reduced the likelihood of incarceration and the length of sentence for certain non-violent offenses. The legislation was a response to high rates of incarceration and rising criminal justice costs with a particular focus on addressing individuals convicted of non-violent offenses. The goal was to improve public safety while reducing corrections spending. For grand theft below $5,000 and third-degree burglary, the reform reduced the severity of the felony class and the maximum allowed sentence length by 50% to 80%. Only certain offenses were subject to sentencing reductions such that unaffected offense types were included in the analysis as a comparison group.

In Study 2, the research team applied the logic of recurring event hazard models that predicted the probability of events over time with two distinct objectives: to identify desisters and to estimate the impact of life events on the longitudinal pattern of offending. Administrative data from the North Carolina Department of Public Safety (NCDPS) Division of Adult Correction were obtained to answer this research question. The team connected commonly used trajectory models to recurrent event survival models.

This collection contains only syntax files and documentation that were created for Study 1 (South Dakota). The P.I. codebook reflects the dataset that was created for analysis, though the data are not available. Please refer to the User Guide for more information. While Study 2's (North Carolina) methodology is described, please note that, excluding the NIJ Final Report, no Study 2 materials are available through ICPSR.

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 purpose of the study was to investigate potential correlates of labor trafficking in an effort to identify indicators of labor trafficking that could be used by state and local law enforcement as signals that labor trafficking may be taking place in their communities. Stakeholder interviews with individuals from organizations who serve migrant workers (n=24) were piloted in September 2010 with the larger data collection effort occurring between October 2011 and March 2012. In-person interviews were conducted with farmworkers (Farmworker Data, n=380) who may have been experiencing labor exploitation or trafficking. The field data collection activities began in September 2012. Interview data were collected at residential migrant labor camps, at community events, and in Western North Carolina, at integrated housing and locations frequented by farmworkers. Finally, researchers extracted secondary data from a number of sources to create profiles of each county (County Data, n=17) in which interviews were conducted.

This study addressed a critical gap regarding the use of mobile phone technologies to assist in the treatment process for explicitly justice-involved populations. To address this gap, the study research included designing, implementing, and assessing the use of an appointment notification system called the Interactive Computer-Assisted Recovery Enabler (ICARE) tool. ICARE was developed to improve and support behavioral health nonclinical care management and probation compliance among individuals under community supervision who are referred by their probation officer (PO).

The purpose of the ICARE was to automatically transmit appointment reminders to Treatment Accountability for Safe Communities (TASC) clients, starting from the point of probation referral to the program, with the goal of increasing their care management appointment attendance, increasing their care management completion, and improving their probation compliance.

This research included a two study approach, one formative and one focused on outcomes, where the goal was to enhance the ability to support clients by:

• increasing their engagement and retention in care management and treatment
• reducing the degree of their substance use and improving mental health
• complying with their terms of supervision
• and reducing their criminal behavior.