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 current study focused on 479 men and women from South Carolina who were enrolled as participants in the Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative (SVORI) multi-site program evaluation shortly before prison release in 2004 or 2005. The original SVORI data suggested that the South Carolina respondents were similar to the multi-site sample with "committed to not going back to prison" as the most common reason for desisting and using drugs or alcohol as the most common reason for persisting. The goals of the current study were to (1) update information on the current status of these individuals across multiple domains (e.g., housing, employment, substance use); (2) gather additional administrative recidivism data to examine long-term offending; and (3) acquire information about the factors individuals associated with their decisions to desist from criminal activity, as well as circumstances associated with renewed criminal activity or desistence. Interviews were conducted with those that the study team were able to locate and additional administrative arrest and incarceration data were acquired for the full sample, providing recidivism follow-up over at least a 10-year period.

Official administrative data were obtained from the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division (rearrests) and South Carolina Department of Corrections (reincarcerations). Arrest data span the entire arrest history (from first arrest through December 2015); reincarceration data span the period between the SVORI study prison release in 2005 and 2006 through June 2014. These data were obtained for the full sample of 479 South Carolina SVORI participants.

Three components of interview data were collected.

• Desistance study interview data: 1 wave of in-person interviews was conducted with 208 study subjects who consented to participate in an interview. The research team used computer-assisted personal interviewing (CAPI) to administer the survey, and interviews were conducted from September 2016 through March 2017.
• Life event data: The Life Events Calendar (LEC) is a tool used in qualitative and quantitative research to gather retrospective information about a person's life, experiences, and history. The approach is based on autobiographical memory and how entering events on a calendar or page help facilitate memory recall. LECs typically encompass periods of 5 years or less; this study's LEC covered a 10- to 12-year span to allow analysis since last contact with the study cohort. Data were collected from the 208 subjects who consented to be interviewed.
• SVORI interview data: This inventory includes files with select baseline and outcome data (e.g., self-reported employment, drug use, criminal behavior) for desistance study subjects who responded to follow-up interviews at Wave 2 (3-month), Wave 3 (9-month), and Wave 4 (15-month).

This collection of administrative and interview data is organized into 14 data parts. Demographic data includes information on age, gender, race, and education.

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

This study is a secondary analysis of data from ICPSR Study Number 27101, Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative (SVORI) Multi-site Impact Evaluation, 2004-2011 [United States]- specifically the adult male dataset -to examine the associations among child support obligations, employment and reentry outcomes. The study addressed the following research questions:

1. Are the demographic, criminal justice and employment-related characteristics of incarcerated men with child support orders significantly different in any important way from incarcerated males without child support orders?
2. Did SVORI clients receive more support and services related to child support orders and modification of debt after release from prison compared to non-SVORI participants?
3. Does having legal child support obligations decrease the likelihood of employment in later waves, net of key demographic and criminal justice history factors?
4. How does employment influence the relationship between child support debt and recidivism? and
5. Is family instrumental support a significant predictor of reduced recidivism or increased employment in models assessing the relationship between child support obligations, employment and recidivism?

The study includes one document (Syntax_ChildSupport_Reentry_forICPSR_2012-IJ-CX-0012.docx) which contains SPSS and Stata syntax used to create research variables.

This study examined the effects of comprehensive registration and community notification policies on rates of sexual violence in South Carolina. Specifically, it proposed to (1) evaluate whether broad sex offender registration and notification policies have reduced recidivism or deterred new sexual offenses, (2) examine whether unintended effects of broad registration and notification policies occurred, and (3) focus on the effects of registration and notification as it pertained to offenses committed by adults. The study examined whether the introduction of sex offender registration and notification laws in South Carolina were associated with reductions in sexual crimes and, if so, whether this reduction could be attributed to an actual reduction in sexual violence and/or recidivism (i.e., an intended effect) or to changes in criminal judicial processing of individuals for registry crimes (i.e., an unintended effect).

Specific study aims included examining whether: (1) South Carolina registration and notification policies had the intended effect of preventing first time sexual offending; (2) South Carolina registration and notification policies had the intended effect of reducing sexual recidivism for known sex offenders; and (3) South Carolina registration and notification policies had the unintended effect of reducing the probability that individuals who committed sexual crimes would be prosecuted or convicted for such crimes. In addition to these primary aims, the researchers also investigated (4) registration violations (e.g., failure to register) were associated with sexual or general recidivism.

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 impact evaluation was to gauge the success of the victim's rights clinics in attaining each of the following goals

• Aid in enforcing rights for individual victims and getting them help for crime-related needs, thereby increasing satisfaction of victims with the justice process;
• Change attitudes of criminal justice officials towards victims' rights and increase their knowledge about rights;
• Change the legal landscape: establish victim standing and develop positive case law;
• Increase compliance of criminal justice officials with victims' rights; and
• Sustain the clinic through developing alternative sources of funding

Researchers conducted surveys with prosecutors, judges, victim advocates, and defense attorneys to determine whether they had changed their attitudes toward victims' rights since the local clinic opened its doors. Surveys were fielded in South Carolina, Maryland, and Utah (Criminal Justice Official data, n=552) where clinic evaluations were conducted. An additional survey was fielded in Colorado (Colorado data, n=583) where the victim rights clinic had not yet started to accept cases. To determine the effect that clinics had on observance of victims' rights, researchers collected three samples of cases from prosecutors (NCVLI Case File Data, n=757) in the jurisdiction or jurisdictions in which each local clinic had done the most work: (a) all clinic cases closed since the start of each local clinic; (b) cases closed during the most recent 12-month period which did not involve representation by a clinic attorney; and (c) cases closed in the year prior to the start of each local clinic. Finally, to assess the impact of the clinics on victims' satisfaction with the criminal justice process and its compliance with their rights, researchers conducted telephone interviews (Victim Survey Data, n=125) with two samples of victims in each evaluation site, one drawn from the sample of cases at prosecutor offices and one drawn from the crime victim legal clinics.

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 utilized three strategies to investigate the impact of incarceration on families. First, a statewide integrated data system was used to examine impacts of incarceration in a novel way, using administrative data from corrections, juvenile justice, mental health, social services, substance use services, healthcare, and education. Second, researchers linked multi-agency data to address specific research questions regarding impact of incarceration on families, including impact of incarceration on family physical and mental health, children's involvement with the child welfare and juvenile justice systems, family economic status, and school performance. Third, researchers conducted focus groups and family interviews with 77 inmates and 21 inmate family members sampled from three correctional facilities. Researchers identified qualitative themes regarding impact of incarceration in the lives of inmates and their families.

Only data from the focus groups is included in this collection. The collection includes two SPSS data files: "Inmate_Demographic_Data.sav" with 15 variables and 77 cases and "Family_Demographic_Data.sav" with 19 variables and 21 cases. The actual focus group interviews with inmates and their family members are not available as part of this collection at this time. Administrative data from the South Carolina Revenue and Fiscal Affairs Office was not made available for archiving. Users interested in obtaining these data should consult the accompanying documentation.

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)

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

This study, with assistance from the National Institute of Justice's Data Resources Program (FY2012), is a reanalysis of data from the national evaluation of the federal Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative (SVORI). SVORI provided funding to 69 agencies across the United States to enhance reentry programs and coordination between corrections and community services. The national evaluation covered 16 of these sites, twelve of which provided services to the 2,054 adult ex-prisoners who are the focus of the present study.

The purpose of this study is to understand whether or not offenders receive the services they say they need, and whether the degree of 'fit' between this self-reported criminogenic need and services received is related to recidivism. This study analyzes data from the SVORI multisite evaluation to assess the potential explanations for the mixed effectiveness of reentry programs. The goal is to understand whether or not service-risk/need fit is related to successful reentry outcomes, or whether the needs of returning prisoners are unrelated to their risk of recidivism regardless of how well they are addressed. For the present study researchers obtained the SVORI (ICPSR 27101) outcome evaluation datasets from the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data (NACJD). The archive holds four separate datasets from the evaluation: Adult Males Data (Part 1, N=1,697), Adult Females Data (Part 2, N=357), Juvenile Males Data (Part 3, N=337) and official recidivism and reincarceration data (Part 4, N=35,469), which can be linked on a one-to-many basis with the individual-level data in the other three datasets. To prepare the SVORI data for analysis researchers merged Datasets 1 and 2 (Adult Males and Adult Females) and created seven separate datasets containing Waves 1 through 4 survey data, National Crime Information Center (NCIC) crime data, administrative data, and sampling weights.

This deposit to NACJD is intended to complement the existing SVORI dataset (ICPSR 27101). It contains an R syntax file to be used with the datasets contained in the ICPSR 27101 collection.

Bullying, fighting, and other forms of interpersonal violence occur frequently in elementary schools, and are associated with student distress, poor school functioning, and increases in aggression, delinquency, and other behavior problems. Positive Behavioral Intervention and Supports (PBIS) is a holistic, multi-tiered, evidence-based approach for preventing and reducing aggression and other problem behavior in school. However, the majority of PBIS schools struggle with more intensive interventions, which many students who present aggressive and disruptive behaviors need. School mental health (SMH) offers promise for addressing these limitations in PBIS. However, SMH lacks an implementation structure and as a result a student must effectively be at a crisis level to be referred for services. Because PBIS and SMH have operated separately, the impacts of both initiatives have been limited.

To address these limitations, the Interconnected Systems Framework (ISF) has been developed by leaders from national centers for both initiatives, providing specific guidance on PBIS-SMH interconnection through effective teams, data-based decision making, implementation support for evidence-based practices, and ongoing quality improvement to assure responsiveness to school and student needs. Involving partnerships with school districts and community mental health agencies in two school districts located in South Carolina and Florida, 24 schools implementing PBIS with fidelity were randomly assigned to the three conditions: the ISF, PBIS and SMH, or PBIS alone (8 schools per condition). Data were collected from school records, teacher and student reports, and school implementation teams. The impacts of ISF were compared to the other two conditions on school climate and safety, student exposure to violence, problem behavior and discipline problems, and access to and quality of services.

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.