Search results

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 NIJ-funded study used a data driven approach to understand rural police department responses to the opioid crisis. Researchers compiled County-Level Drug Data on overdose deaths to understand the spatio-temporal distribution of drug misuse and to identify counties with high levels of death that are doing better and worse than expected according to an inclusive statistical model. In combination with this data, researchers collected Police Agency Survey Data from police departments in four states to understand departments' access to intelligence resources. Based on this survey, six agencies with varying law enforcement structural relations with state-level agencies were selected to participate in the study intervention. Departments were partnered with mentors and encouraged to enhance their intelligence networks, design a simple initiative, equip themselves for it, and carry it out. Outcomes from the intervention were evaluated through survey data - available as Implementation Site Administrative and Survey Data - and through a series of qualitative interviews, which will be made available at a later date.

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.

These data were collected as part of a mixed-methods study to develop a comprehensive youth bias crime violence exposure instrument, the Youth Bias Victimization Questionnaire (YBVQ). With input from a panel of violence and delinquency experts, the research team produced initial drafts of the questionnaire, then conducted focus groups and cognitive interviews with youth and young adults to inform development and item comprehension. To pilot test the YBVQ, a sample of 854 youth aged 11-21 were surveyed across three research sites: 1) Boston (n=262); 2) Philadelphia (n=318); and 3) Appalachian areas of Tennessee (n=274). This convenience sample was recruited using an intercept strategy, with a combination of recruitment occurring at youth-serving organizations, community festivals or events, and schools. Participants completed the YBVQ through a computer-assisted self-interview (CASI) on a tablet or through an online link to a web-based survey.

Only the pilot survey data are available in this collection. Measures include demographic variables (gender, race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion, age, grade level), bias victimization based on six potential target characteristics, incident specifics, witnessing bias victimization, school and neighborhood climate, alcohol use, resiliency, emotional distress, and other experiences of bias, microaggressions, and victimization.

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 was designed to evaluate the Defending Childhood Demonstration Program, a nationwide initiative to address children's exposure to violence. The Defending Childhood Demonstration Program sought to prevent children's exposure to violence, mitigate the negative impact of such exposure when it occurred, and develop and share knowledge about children's exposure to violence. The six sites chosen for the program evaluation were located in Boston, MA; Chippewa Cree Tribe, Rocky Boy's Reservation, MT; Cuyahoga County, OH; Grand Forks, ND; Rosebud Sioux Tribe, SD; and Shelby County, TN.

The evaluation consisted of a process evaluation and an impact evaluation. The impact evaluation examined the influence of Defending Childhood through a professional survey, a community survey, and analysis of core community indicators. The process evaluation portion of this study, which consists of qualitative data, is not available at this time due to confidentiality concerns.

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.

Nearly half of the law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty in the United States were due to automobile crashes. Driver distraction has been identified as a common causal factor leading to the crash, with the primary source of distractions being the mobile computer. While there is plenty of literature on officer safety, what is lacking is an understanding of the needs of the officers to interact with the control or communication equipment while driving and how that interaction impacts distraction and, consequently, officer safety. To examine these issues, the research team conducted focus group discussions with law enforcement officers from local, county, and state agencies in four states. The two primary topics of discussion were:

1. Officer requirements to operate different pieces of equipment while driving, and
2. Different software and systems being used in patrol cars.

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.

The Law Enforcement and Family Support program consists of multi-dimensional stress management services for law enforcement personnel within the state of Tennessee. The Tennessee Sheriffs' Association was awarded a grant to develop, demonstrate, and test innovative stress-reduction and support programs for State or local law enforcement personnel and their families. Over an 18-month period, a framework of stress-related services on a statewide basis for law enforcement personnel and their families was developed. The services cover a range of activities from on-scene defusings to group therapy for families, children, and couples. Its focus is the early recognition and provision of services, which preserves confidentiality while utilizing extensive peer support. The program implemented a model for a stress reduction program at regional law enforcement training academies and produced a text/workbook for educating new recruits and their families on stress related topics. In addition, this program incorporated a monitoring and evaluation component, which consisted of three studies, a Baseline Study, a Critical Incident Stress Debriefing (C.I.S.D.) Study, and an Evaluation of C.I.S.D. Peer and Family Teams Study, all of which utilized a design that attempted to test the efficacy of services provided to law enforcement personnel and their families and are described in more detail below.

Baseline Study (Dataset 1) - A baseline survey, the Tennessee Law Enforcement Officer Questionnaire, was developed and distributed to officers in a randomly selected number of departments from each of three regions: West, Middle, and East. The agencies from each region were matched based on demographics such as number of sworn officers. In addition to demographic information, participants were asked to identify their awareness of 19 services that may be offered by their agency as well as the utilization and willingness to use these services. The final section of the questionnaire asked participants to identify post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms that they may have experienced after a critical incident on the job. All law enforcement agencies in Tennessee were organized into groups based on type of agency (City, County, State). Agencies from each group were randomly selected. A summary of the data from Time 1 provides Tennessee with a baseline of the current awareness, utilization, and willingness to use services. In addition, this data provides an understanding of the number of critical incidents that law enforcement officers in Tennessee have experienced as well as the potential to which these incidences have impacted officers' perception of their performance.

Critical Incident Stress Debriefing (C.I.S.D.) Study (Datasets 2 and 3) - The goal of this portion of the project was to determine the effectiveness of critical incidents stress debriefing (CISD) as a means to assist officers in dealing with the negative effects of exposure to a critical incident. To identify the effectiveness of the CISD intervention as well as the support programs in each region, information was collected from officers who participated in a debriefing at three time periods (i.e. prior to CISD, 2-weeks after CISD, 3-months after CISD). The Western region received only Critical Incident Stress Debriefing (CISD), the Eastern region received CISD, and Peer Support, and the Middle region received CISD, Peer Support, and Family Support. Participants were asked to identify what services they and their family may have used (e.g. EAP, Counseling, Family Support Team, Peer Support Team, Training Seminar). Additionally, participants were asked to identify any health problems they experienced since the incident, and lost work time as a result of the incident. A CISD Team member identified the type of critical incident that the officer experienced.

Evaluation of the C.I.S.D. Peer and Family Teams Study (Dataset 4) - The goal of this section of the evaluation process was to identify the impact that the three Teams had on participants. Specifically participants' perception of the usefulness of the Teams and what was gained from their interaction with the Teams was to be measured. Initially, the Team evaluation forms were to be filled out by every individual who participated in a debriefing at the 2-week and 3-month periods. Asking participants to complete Team evaluations at these time periods would allow participants in the Middle region to have exposure to the Family Support and Peer Support Teams, and participants in the Eastern region to have exposure to a Peer Support Team. The procedure was modified so that Team evaluations were conducted at the completion of the project. The evaluation first asked the participant to identify if they had been contacted by a member of a Team (CISD, Peer, Family).

The Part 1 (Baseline) data public and restricted files contain 5,425 cases and 157 variables. The Part 2 (Critical Incident Stress Debriefing) data public and restricted files contain 329 cases and 189 variables. The Part 3 (Critical Incident Stress Debriefing Matched Cases) data public and restricted files contain 236 cases and 354 variables. The Part 4 (Evaluation of CISD Peer and Family Teams) data public and restricted files contain 81 cases and 24 variables.

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.

These data were collected as part of an effort to gain a more in depth understanding of the processes surrounding disengagement from a youth gang, and come from structured interviews with their parent or guardian. The interview included such topics as parental monitoring practices, attitudes about the youth's peer group, and perceptions about the neighborhood. Study participants lived in seven geographically diverse cities in the United States, making it one of few multi-site studies of gangs or gang members.