Search results

Showing 1 – 18 of 18 results.
Curated
Restricted

Analysis of Current Cold-Case Investigation Practices and Factors Associated with Successful Outcomes, 2008-2009 (ICPSR 33761)

Released/updated on: 2016-12-19
Geographic coverage: District of Columbia, Baltimore, United States, Texas, Colorado, Denver, Dallas, Maryland
Time period: 2008-11-01--2009-02-01

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

To assess the current practices in cold-case investigations, this study utilized a national online survey of law enforcement agencies (Cold Case Survey Data, n = 1,051) to document the range of ways in which cold-case work is conducted and assess how this organization affects cold-case clearance rates. In November 2008, the chiefs of police in the sample were sent a letter explaining the purpose of the survey and inviting them to participate. Potential respondents were directed to the web-based survey instrument through a provided web address. The results from the national survey were used to select sites for an analysis of case files. Researchers chose three jurisdictions that conducted a large number of cold-case homicide investigations: the District of Columbia, Baltimore, Maryland, and Dallas, Texas (Cold Case Homicide Data, n = 429). To these three sites, researchers added Denver, Colorado (Cold Case Sexual Assault Data, n = 105) because it had received a Department of Justice grant to conduct testing of DNA material in sexual assault cold cases. At all four sites, cold cases were examined for seven categories of data including victim's characteristics, crime context, motivation, human capital, physical evidence, basis for cold-case investigations and cold-case actions.

Curated

Determinants of Case Growth in Federal District Courts in the United States, 1904-2002 (ICPSR 3987)

Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1904-01-01--2002-01-01
This study analyzed the determinants of the explosion in the caseload of the United States federal district courts that commenced in 1960. First, the study sought to provide forecasts of future demands on the federal courts while reducing forecasting errors by taking account of the time series properties of the case data. The researchers constructed a comprehensive dataset based on annual aggregated civil and criminal case volumes of individual federal district courts spanning the period 1904-1998, for a total of 95 yearly observations. Secondly, the study specified and estimated multivariate econometric models of the determinants of civil case filings over time and across geographic space using panel data techniques. These empirical models were run on three alternative datasets consisting of observations on statewide, districtwide, and circuitwide United States civil, private civil, and total civil cases per capita, over the period 1960 to 1998. The empirical models included standard socioeconomic variables, such as income, population density, and race, along with variables that controlled for fixed effects associated with the courts' geographic location. The study also addressed the pressing issue of allocating judgeships across circuits and districts. Variables include total civil and criminal cases, percentage of minority population, unemployment rate, percentage of drug and immigration cases, annual unweighted and weighted total case filings per judge, and annual civil and criminal case filings per judge.
Curated

Evaluation of the Implementation and Impact of the Massachusetts Intensive Probation Supervision Project, 1984-1985 (ICPSR 9970)

Released/updated on: 2006-01-18
Geographic coverage: United States, Massachusetts
Time period: 1984-01-01--1985-01-01
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of an Intensive Probation Supervision (IPS) program on high-risk offenders. The IPS program was characterized by four changes in usual procedures: (1) increased supervision, (2) risk/needs assessment for substance abuse, employment, and marital/family relationships, (3) stricter enforcement of probation, and (4) a four-stage revocation procedure for technical violations. The investigators also studied whether the additional caseload of the probation officers who implemented the IPS program reduced the number of supervision contacts with non-IPS probationers under normal minimum, moderate, and maximum supervision regimens. Offenders put on IPS probation in 1985 from 13 experimental courts were compared to high-risk offenders put on regular probation in the experimental courts in 1984, and to high-risk offenders on regular probation from 13 control courts for both 1984 and 1985. Data were derived from risk assessment forms, needs/strengths assessment forms, probation supervision records, and criminal history data obtained from the state's probation central field. For each offender, a full range of data were collected on (1) offender risk characteristics at initial, four-month, ten-month, and termination assessments, (2) offender needs characteristics at the same intervals, (3) probation officer/offender contact chronologies for the entire one-year follow-up period, and (4) offender prior criminal history and recidivism during a one-year follow-up period.
Curated

Fines as a Criminal Sanction: Practices and Attitudes of Trial Court Judges in the United States, 1985 (ICPSR 8945)

Released/updated on: 2002-06-27
These data were collected to examine the practices and views of state trial court judges with respect to their use of fines as a criminal sanction. Respondents were asked about the composition of their caseloads, sentencing practices (including fines imposed for various circumstances), available information about the offender at time of sentencing, enforcement and collection procedures in their courts, and their attitudes toward the use of fines. In addition to questions concerning the judges' use of fines and other sanctions, the questionnaire presented the judges with hypothetical cases.
Curated

Multi-Site Evaluation of Reduced Probation Caseload Size in an Evidence-Based Practice Setting in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, Polk County, Iowa, and Colorado, 1997-2010 (ICPSR 31961)

Released/updated on: 2014-02-14
Geographic coverage: Oklahoma City, Iowa, United States, Oklahoma, Colorado
Time period: 2001-01-01--2010-01-01, 2001-01-01--2007-01-01, 1997-01-01--2007-01-01, 2007-01-01--2010-01-01
Criminal justice researchers have studied caseload size to determine whether smaller caseloads improve probation outcomes. The purpose of this study was to investigate whether reduced caseloads improved supervision outcomes for medium to high risk offenders in a probation agency that trains its officers to apply a balance of controlling and correctional/rehabilitative measures. Three different probation agencies were selected to take part in this study. The first was Oklahoma City (Datasets 1 and 2), where a randomized controlled trial (RCT) experiment was implemented. The second site was Polk County, Iowa (Dataset 3), where a regression discontinuity design study (RDD) was implemented. Lastly, four judicial districts in Colorado (Dataset 4) were selected where a RDD study again was implemented. In Oklahoma City the RCT degenerated and the study team turned to a difference in differences (DD) estimator. The research team also collected Evidence-Based Practices Probation Officer Data (Dataset 5) from a set of survey questionnaires administered to the participating officers from the three research sites and the scoring of taped officers' supervision sessions with probationers on their caseloads by trained raters.
Curated

National Indigent Criminal Defense Survey, 1982 (ICPSR 8417)

Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: United States
This survey was conducted to provide national-level data on basic information such as system types, funding sources, costs, and caseloads of indigent defense programs for defense practitioners, policymakers, and planners in the criminal justice system. The goal of the survey was to provide data that could begin to answer questions regarding the nature and scope of indigent service delivery. Specifically, the three basic objectives were to provide descriptive data, to assess the level of response to defense service delivery requirements, and to facilitate further research.
Curated
Simple Crosstabs

State Court Organization, United States, 2011 (ICPSR 37195)

Released/updated on: 2019-04-22
Geographic coverage: United States

This data collection provides detailed comparative information about the structure, policies, and procedures of state-wide trial and appellate court systems for the 50 states and the District of Columbia in the United States for 2011. Information gathered includes: the number of courts and judges, judicial selection, governance of court systems (including judicial funding, administration, staffing, and procedures), jury qualifications and verdict rules, and processing and sentencing procedures of criminal cases. Data collection was carried out by the National Center for State Courts. These data are part of a related collection from the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, and U.S. Virgin Islands in the United States for the years 1980, 1987, 1993, 1998, and 2004.

In 2011, State Court Organization added new variables to the data collection process. The State Court Organization 2011 file contains the historical variables for 2011, as well as the new variables that were introduced in the 2004 collection. The new variables included data about the courts' information technology systems, including the functions of the court's IT staff, e-filing procedures, accessibility of court information through online systems, and the implementation of case management systems as a means of organizing and managing a court's caseload. The data are reported for trial and appellate courts.

The SCO Trial Court Level Data 2011 file includes a subset of the State Court Organization 2011 file, but only for trial level courts. Some variables in the State Court Organization 2011 file were recoded in the Trial Court Level Data 2011 file.

Curated

State Court Statistics, 1985-2001: [United States] (ICPSR 9266)

Released/updated on: 2005-11-04
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1985-01-01--2001-01-01
This data collection provides comparable measures of state appellate and trial court caseloads by type of case for the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. Court caseloads are tabulated according to generic reporting categories developed by the Court Statistics Project Committee of the Conference of State Court Administrators. These categories describe differences in the unit of count and the point of count when compiling each court's caseload. Major areas of investigation include (1) case filings in state appellate and trial courts, (2) case processing and dispositions in state appellate and trial courts, and (3) appellate opinions. Within each of these areas of state government investigation, cases are separated by main case type, including civil cases, capital punishment cases, other criminal cases, juvenile cases, and administrative agency appeals.
Curated

State Court Statistics, 2002: [United States] (ICPSR 3990)

Released/updated on: 2006-01-18
Geographic coverage: United States
This data collection provides comparable measures of state appellate and trial court caseloads by type of case for the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. Court caseloads are tabulated according to generic reporting categories developed by the Court Statistics Project Committee of the Conference of State Court Administrators. These categories describe differences in the unit of count and the point of count when compiling each court's caseload. Major areas of investigation include (1) case filings in state appellate and trial courts, (2) case processing and dispositions in state appellate and trial courts, and (3) appellate opinions. Within each of these areas of state government investigation, cases are separated by main case type, including civil cases, capital punishment cases, other criminal cases, juvenile cases, and administrative agency appeals.
Curated

State Court Statistics, 2003: [United States] (ICPSR 20280)

Released/updated on: 2007-11-14
Geographic coverage: United States
This data collection provides comparable measures of state appellate and trial court caseloads by type of case for the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. Court caseloads are tabulated according to generic reporting categories developed by the Court Statistics Project Committee of the Conference of State Court Administrators. These categories describe differences in the unit of count and the point of count when compiling each court's caseload. Major areas of investigation include (1) case filings in state appellate and trial courts, (2) case processing and dispositions in state appellate and trial courts, and (3) appellate opinions. Within each of these areas of state government investigation, cases are separated by main case type, including civil cases, capital punishment cases, other criminal cases, juvenile cases, and administrative agency appeals.
Curated

State Court Statistics, 2004: [United States] (ICPSR 20281)

Released/updated on: 2007-11-14
Geographic coverage: United States
This data collection provides comparable measures of state appellate and trial court caseloads by type of case for the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. Court caseloads are tabulated according to generic reporting categories developed by the Court Statistics Project Committee of the Conference of State Court Administrators. These categories describe differences in the unit of count and the point of count when compiling each court's caseload. Major areas of investigation include (1) case filings in state appellate and trial courts, (2) case processing and dispositions in state appellate and trial courts, and (3) appellate opinions. Within each of these areas of state government investigation, cases are separated by main case type, including civil cases, capital punishment cases, other criminal cases, juvenile cases, and administrative agency appeals.
Curated

State Court Statistics, 2005 (ICPSR 30522)

Released/updated on: 2012-05-22
Geographic coverage: United States
This data collection provides comparable measures of state appellate and trial court caseloads by type of case for the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. Court caseloads are tabulated according to generic reporting categories developed by the Court Statistics Project (CSP) Committee of the Conference of State Court Administrators. These categories describe differences in the unit of count and the point of count when compiling each court's caseload. Major areas of investigation include (1) case filings in state appellate and trial courts, (2) case processing and dispositions in state appellate and trial courts, and (3) appellate opinions. Within each of these areas of state government investigation, cases are separated by main case type, including civil cases, capital punishment cases, other criminal cases, domestic relations cases, juvenile cases, traffic violations cases, and administrative agency appeals.
Curated

State Court Statistics, 2006 (ICPSR 30523)

Released/updated on: 2012-05-22
Geographic coverage: United States
This data collection provides comparable measures of state appellate and trial court caseloads by type of case for the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. Court caseloads are tabulated according to generic reporting categories developed by the Court Statistics Project (CSP) Committee of the Conference of State Court Administrators. These categories describe differences in the unit of count and the point of count when compiling each court's caseload. Major areas of investigation include (1) case filings in state appellate and trial courts, (2) case processing and dispositions in state appellate and trial courts, and (3) appellate opinions. Within each of these areas of state government investigation, cases are separated by main case type, including civil cases, capital punishment cases, other criminal cases, domestic relations cases, juvenile cases, traffic violations cases, and administrative agency appeals.
Curated

State Court Statistics, 2007 (ICPSR 30524)

Released/updated on: 2012-05-22
Geographic coverage: United States
This data collection provides comparable measures of state appellate and trial court caseloads by type of case for the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. Court caseloads are tabulated according to generic reporting categories developed by the Court Statistics Project (CSP) Committee of the Conference of State Court Administrators. These categories describe differences in the unit of count and the point of count when compiling each court's caseload. Major areas of investigation include (1) case filings in state appellate and trial courts, (2) case processing and dispositions in state appellate and trial courts, and (3) appellate opinions. The trial caseload consists of civil, domestic relations, criminal, juvenile, and traffic violation cases. The appellate caseload consists of appeal by right, appeal by permission, death penalty, and original proceeding/other appellate matter cases.
Curated

State Court Statistics, 2008 (ICPSR 30481)

Released/updated on: 2012-05-22
Geographic coverage: United States
This data collection provides comparable measures of state appellate and trial court caseloads by type of case for the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. Court caseloads are tabulated according to generic reporting categories developed by the Court Statistics Project (CSP) Committee of the Conference of State Court Administrators. These categories describe differences in the unit of count and the point of count when compiling each court's caseload. Major areas of investigation include (1) case filings in state appellate and trial courts, (2) case processing and dispositions in state appellate and trial courts, and (3) appellate opinions. The trial caseload consists of civil, domestic relations, criminal, juvenile, and traffic violation cases. The appellate caseload consists of appeal by right, appeal by permission, death penalty, and original proceeding/other appellate matter cases.
Curated

State Court Statistics, 2009 (ICPSR 34081)

Released/updated on: 2012-11-29
Geographic coverage: United States
This data collection provides comparable measures of state appellate and trial court caseloads by type of case for the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. Court caseloads are tabulated according to generic reporting categories developed by the Court Statistics Project (CSP) Committee of the Conference of State Court Administrators. These categories describe differences in the unit of count and the point of count when compiling each court's caseload. Major areas of investigation include (1) case filings in state appellate and trial courts, (2) case processing and dispositions in state appellate and trial courts, and (3) appellate opinions. The trial caseload consists of civil, domestic relations, criminal, juvenile, and traffic violation cases. The appellate caseload consists of appeal by right, appeal by permission, death penalty, and original proceeding/other appellate matter cases.
Curated
Simple Crosstabs

State Court Statistics, 2010 (ICPSR 34943)

Released/updated on: 2014-10-21
Geographic coverage: United States
This data collection provides comparable measures of state appellate and trial court caseloads by type of case for the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. Court caseloads are tabulated according to generic reporting categories developed by the Court Statistics Project (CSP) Committee of the Conference of State Court Administrators. These categories describe differences in the unit of count and the point of count when compiling each court's caseload. Major areas of investigation include (1) case filings in state appellate and trial courts, (2) case processing and dispositions in state appellate and trial courts, and (3) appellate opinions. The trial caseload consists of civil, domestic relations, criminal, juvenile, and traffic violation cases. The appellate caseload consists of appeal by right, appeal by permission, death penalty, and original proceeding/other appellate matter cases.
Curated

Survey of Judges on the Role of Courts in American Society, 1979 (ICPSR 7824)

Released/updated on: 1992-02-16
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1978-01-01--1979-01-01
This survey was conducted in order to obtain from judges their views and experiences regarding the role of courts in American society, specifically on issues of caseload management. From a sample representing five regions of the country, 104 federal and state judges were interviewed about their general work practices and performance in court over the year previous to August 1979. Variables describe the amount of time judges spent on routine judicial activities, characteristics of cases requiring excessive time, the mechanisms employed in the resolution of civil disputes, techniques for reducing or more expeditiously handling heavy caseloads, and suggestions for extra-judicial dispute settlement processes that could serve as alternatives to courts. Data are also available on each judge's legal education, legal experience, and personal background.