Search results

With the creation of the first drug court in Miami-Dade County, Florida in 1989, problem-solving courts emerged as an innovative effort to close the revolving door of recidivism. Designed to target the social and psychological problems underlying certain types of criminal behavior, the problem-solving model boasts a community-based, therapeutic approach. As a result of the anecdotal successes of early drug courts, states expanded the problem-solving court model by developing specialized courts or court dockets to address a number of social problems. Although the number and types of problem-solving courts has been expanding, the formal research and statistical information regarding the operations and models of these programs has not grown at the same rate. Multiple organizations have started mapping the variety of problem-solving courts in the county; however, a national catalogue of problem-solving court infrastructure is lacking. As evidence of this, different counts of problem-solving courts have been offered by different groups, and a likely part of the discrepancy lies in disagreements about how to define and identify a problem-solving court. What is known about problem-solving courts is therefore limited to evaluation or outcome analyses of specific court programs.

In 2010, the Bureau of Justice Statistics awarded the National Center for State Courts a grant to develop accurate and reliable national statistics regarding problem-solving court operations, staffing, and participant characteristics. The NCSC, with assistance from the National Drug Court Institute (NDCI), produced the resulting Census of Problem-Solving Courts which captures information on over 3,000 problem-solving courts that were operational in 2012.

In February 2016, Under the Rainbow (UTR), a pediatric trauma-based therapy program within Sinai Chicago's Behavioral Health department, joined with the Legal Council for Health Justice (LC), the scope of which includes assistance in accessing public benefits and special education, to form a medical-legal partnership (MLP). Integrating legal services with health care, the partnership allows patients seeking services at UTR to receive referrals for legal services through LC. The partnership is built on access to judicial and legal services as a social determinant of health that can lead to improved health outcomes, and thus the goal is to provide training and support to providers on legal and social barriers to health and provide free legal assistance to patients.

In this study, the research team conducted a formative evaluation of the existing MLP between the two organizations (located in Chicago, Illinois, United States). The specific aims of this evaluation were to:

1. Determine how a medical-legal partnership (MLP) can improve knowledge and understanding of domestic and community violence
2. Understand how the MLP can serve different populations by looking at program process and implementation in-depth
3. Prepare the MLP for impact evaluation to determine how the MLP can fill gaps in victimization research and legal intervention programs

Existing data from patient health risk assessments collected by UTR and legal services data collected by LC were obtained and analyzed. Clients had been served by UTR and referred to LC between July 2016 and May 2021. Interviews with staff at both organizations were conducted in 2019 and 2020. The research team also completed documentation review and created other artifacts (e.g. protocols, implementation guides, process maps) as a result of the evaluation.

Do post-incarceration partner violence experiences in justice-involved couples conform to the most widely used evidence based typology of partner violence in the general population (Johnson, 2008)? What aspects of social context at the individual, couple/family, and community levels shape post-incarceration partner violence experiences? Do couple/family-level social context factors mediate the observed relationship between the identified community-level influences and experiences of partner violence? What social context factors at the individual, couple/family, and community levels do members of justice-involved couples see as shaping their experiences of partner violence?

Victim advocates and criminal justice system personnel have long recognized the importance of context in guiding victim services and criminal justice system responses to violence, yet little evidence exists to guide such approaches. Despite the very high prevalence of post-incarceration partner violence observed in the first study to rigorously measure it (the Multi-site Study on Incarceration, Parenting, and Partnering), little is known of the social contextual factors that shape violent victimization in justice-involved couples. The Post-Incarceration Partner Violence: Examining the Social Context of Victimization to Inform Victim Services and Prevention study addressed this gap by assessing the role of contextual factors that empirical and theoretical work suggests could affect partner violence in this vulnerable population. This secondary analysis study drew on longitudinal data from the MFS-IP dataset and other public sources to develop an actionable understanding of the social contexts that influence the observed high prevalence of violence in a sample of couples that have contact with the criminal justice system but are disconnected from formal service delivery systems or other sources of help. The researcher conducted a theory-driven typology analysis to describe the social context of post-incarceration partner violence at the couple level, and utilized quantitative modeling and in-depth qualitative analysis to assess the individual-, couple/family-, and community-level contexts that shape partner violence.

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.

Researchers compiled datasets on prison admissions and releases that would be comparable across places and geocoded and mapped those data onto crime rates across those same places. The data used were panel data. The data were quarterly or annual data, depending on the location, from a mix of urban (Boston, Newark and Trenton) and rural communities in New Jersey covering various years between 2000 and 2010.

The crime, release, and admission data were individual level data that were then aggregated from the individual incident level to the census tract level by quarter (in Boston and Newark) or year (in Trenton). The analyses centered on the effects of rates of prison removals and returns on rates of crime in communities (defined as census tracts) in the cities of Boston, Massachusetts, Newark, New Jersey, and Trenton, New Jersey, and across rural municipalities in New Jersey.

There are 4 Stata data files. The Boston data file has 6,862 cases, and 44 variables. The Newark data file has 1,440 cases, and 45 variables. The Trenton data file has 66 cases, and 32 variables. The New Jersey Rural data file has 1,170 cases, and 32 variables.

This study was designed as an exploratory study to understand fear of gang crime among residents living in an urban area plagued by gangs. During the Summer of 1997, six focus groups were conducted in Santa Ana, California -- two in lower income neighborhoods, two in middle income neighborhoods, and two in upper income neighborhoods. After the focus groups ended, participants were asked to take disposable cameras with them and take pictures of examples of neighborhood factors that prompted them to fear gangs and then mail them back to me in a postage-paid envelope.

The research questions guiding this study were: How do the fear-of-crime perspectives apply to fear of gang crime specifically? When worrying about gang crime, do different people focus primarily on different problems (e.g., some diversity or some disorder), or do the same people think about all of these factors? Findings first showed that all four theoretical perspectives on fear of crime applied to the same people at once, rather than to different people (e.g., some being worried about racial and ethnic differences but others about disorder). Second, findings illustrated specifically how these residents connected the factors into one thought process leading to fear of gangs. Residents in these groups clearly believed that ethnic and cultural diversity, or in this case, recent "illegal" Latino immigrants, brought disorder, which in turn caused community decline and brought gangs. This thought process led to personal fear of gang-related victimization. Their beliefs about these causal connections were primarily influenced by their knowledge and observations that gangs in the area were Latino; by direct observation of area diversity disorder, and decline; and by experience living in their changing neighborhoods over time. In addition, beliefs were fueled by indirect victimization, or knowledge gained primarily through acquaintances such as neighbors and community policing officers.