Search results

RAND and Safe Horizon worked together to conduct a clarificative evaluation to identify the core components and processes of the Family Courts Program, which include development of a program logic model and an evaluability assessment (EA) of the program. An implementation guide was also created that provides the necessary information to understand the program operations and provide program staff, the research field and other jurisdictions interested in replication the necessary tools to support program implementation as intended.

Specifically, the aims of the project are to:

• Identify the core components, understand and improve program processes, and overcome barriers to effective service delivery;
• Assess the readiness of the Family Courts program to participate in an evaluation of program impact.

To address the research aims listed above, the researchers conducted a comprehensive literature review to explore research and evaluations on family court services to survivors of domestic violence; developed a logic model; collected data from a variety of sources, including site visits, stakeholder interviews, document review, administrative data; analyzed current program data and qualitative data to understand how the program operates in the real-world setting.

This study only includes the quantitative program data that was collected for analysis during this evaluation.

The purpose of the Habeas Corpus Litigation in United States District Courts: An Empirical Study, 2007 is to provide empirical information about habeas corpus cases filed by state prisoners in United States District Courts under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA). The writ of habeas corpus is a remedy regulated by statute and available in federal court to persons "in custody in violation of the Constitution..." When a federal court grants a writ of habeas corpus, it orders the state court to release the prisoner, or to repeat the trial, sentencing, or other proceeding that led to the prisoner's custody. Each year, state prisoners file between 16,000 and 18,000 cases seeking habeas corpus relief. The study was the first to collect empirical information about this litigation, a decade after AEDPA was passed. It sought to shed light upon an otherwise unexplored area of habeas corpus law by looking at samples of capital and non-capital cases and describing the court processing and general demographic information of these cases in detail.

AEDPA changed habeas law by:

• Establishing a 1-year statute of limitation for filing a federal habeas petition, which begins when appeal of the state judgment is complete, and is tolled during "properly filed" state post-conviction proceedings;

• Authorizing federal judges to deny on the merits any claim that a petitioner failed to exhaust in state court;

• Prohibiting a federal court from holding an evidentiary hearing when the petitioner failed to develop the facts in state court, except in limited circumstances;

• Barring successive petitions, except in limited circumstances; and

• Mandating a new standard of review for evaluating state court determinations of fact and applications of constitutional law.

The information found within this study is for policymakers who design or assess changes in habeas law, for litigants and courts who address the scope and meaning of the habeas statutes, and for researchers who seek information concerning the processing of habeas petitions in federal courts. Descriptive findings are provided detailing petitioner demographics, state proceedings, representation of petitioner in federal court, petitions, type of proceeding challenged, claims raised, intermediate orders, litigation steps, processing time, non-merits dispositions and merits disposition for both capital and non-capital cases which lead into the comparative and explanatory findings that provide information on current and past habeas litigation and how it has been effected by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996.

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.

The California correctional system underwent a dramatic transformation under California's Public Safety Realignment Act (AB 109) in 2011, a law that shifted from the state to the counties the responsibility for monitoring, tracking, and incarcerating lower level offenders previously bound for state prison. Realignment, therefore, presents the opportunity to witness 58 natural experiments in the downsizing of prisons. Counties faced different types of offenders, implemented different programs in different community and jail environments, and adopted differing sanctioning policies. This study examines the California's Public Safety Realignment Act's effect on counties' criminal justice institutions, including the disparities that result in charging, sentencing, and resource decisions.

An increasing number of states, like New York, are expanding order of protection (OP) laws to allow juveniles and teens to secure orders for dating violence without parental involvement. New York amended its protective order law to cover victims of dating violence eighteen years and younger effective July 2008. While there has been extensive research in regard to civil OPs involving adults for intimate partner violence, this study of all OPs taken out by juvenile and teen victims of dating violence across New York State in 2009 and 2010 represents a first-of-its-kind examination of protective orders involving juveniles for dating violence. The goal of this research is to increase understanding of OPs taken out by juveniles and teens as a remedy for dating violence by developing a comprehensive portrait of their use in New York State, documenting the extent and patterns of re-abuse in cases when they are used, and exploring with the potential consumers, teens themselves, how they perceive these orders and the barriers they face in utilizing them. The specific aims of the study are:

1. To provide a detailed description of the use of protective orders by juveniles and teens for dating violence, including who is securing them, against whom and for what, and whether petitioners (victims) return to court for permanent orders after securing temporary orders.
2. To determine the courts' response to these orders, including the specific stipulations imposed.
3. To determine the rate of order violations and other re-abuse reported to police in cases where orders have been obtained, as well as the victim, offender, incident, and order characteristics that ae associated with re-abuse up to two years after the order was first obtained.
4. To explore in-depth with young people across the state their perspective about the use of civil protective orders among teens, including why these orders are underutilized and how to improve them to meet their unique needs.

The Multi-Site Adult Drug Court Evaluation (MADCE) study included 23 drug courts and 6 comparison sites selected from 8 states across the country. The purpose of the study was to: (1) Test whether drug courts reduce drug use, crime, and multiple other problems associated with drug abuse, in comparision with similar offenders not exposed to drug courts, (2) address how drug courts work and for whom by isolating key individual and program factors that make drug courts more or less effective in achieving their desired outcomes, (3) explain how offender attitudes and behaviors change when they are exposed to drug courts and how these changes help explain the effectiveness of drug court programs, and (4) examine whether drug courts generate cost savings.

Offenders in all 29 sites were surveyed in 3 waves, at baseline, 6 months later, and 18 months after enrollment. The research comprises three major components: process evaluation, impact evaluation, and a cost-benefit analysis. The process evaluation describes how the 23 drug court sites vary in program eligibility, supervision, treatment, team collaboration, and other key policies and practices. The impact evaluation examines whether drug courts produce better outcomes than comparison sites and tests which court policies and offender attitudes might explain those effects. The cost-benefit analysis evaluates drug court costs and benefits.

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.

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.

The purpose of this study was to answer the following research questions:

• Do domestic violence courts reduce recidivism?
• Do domestic violence courts hold defendants accountable through the use of more severe case outcomes and sentences?
• What, if any, court-level policies make these courts more or less effective (e.g., related to eligibility, program mandates, compliance monitoring, or victim service)?
• What, if any community characteristics make these courts more or less effective (e.g., related to population size, racial composition, or socioeconomic characteristics)?
• Based on individual characteristics (e.g., age, criminal history, or current charges), which categories of defendants are at a high risk of re-offending; and are certain categories particularly responsive to the domestic violence court intervention?

Outcome were compared between matched samples of defendants (Full File Data, n=17,718 and Convicted File Data, n=7,306) processed in the 24 domestic violence courts and in conventional courts operating in the same 24 jurisdictions in New York state prior to the opening of the specialized court. Cases processed in each domestic violence court during its first two full calendar years of operations comprised the domestic violence court sample. Cases processed in conventional courts during the two full calendar years preceding the opening of the specialized court comprised the comparison sample. Data on court policies and practices was drawn from two survey instruments administered to each of the 24 courts (Court and Community Characteristics Data, n=48). The first survey was administered statewide in 2008; the second was a supplemental survey administered in 2010.

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 goals of the study were to estimate the effect of juvenile versus criminal jurisdiction on recidivism and educational outcomes in Connecticut, and describe the relationships among education and juvenile justice outcomes from early to late adolescence. The study sample included all court-referred juveniles and adults in Connecticut between the years 2006 to 2012. The individual-level juvenile case records and educational variables for each year were acquired from the Connecticut Court Support Services Division (CSSD) and the Connecticut State Department of Education (CSDE). Data on court-involvement (CSSD) include juvenile referral history, detention data, service data, adult criminal history, and data on multiple risk assessments. Educational data (CSDE) include demographic information, student enrollment (i.e., number of days in attendance, graduation, dropout), statewide, standardized academic achievement test scores, disciplinary offense data, and special education data.

This population-based retrospective cohort study involved current or former heterosexual intimate partners with a misdemeanor or felony-level criminal incident of intimate partner violence (IPV). These cases were referred to and accepted by the King County Prosecuting Attorney's Office in Washington state for prosecution between the years of 2014 and 2016. The ultimate goal of this study was to better inform understanding of the factors that differentiate IPV cases involving victims who disengage from prosecution from cases involving victims who are more engaged (and likely more empowered), thereby better informing how to mitigate barriers and improve overall system response to victims who disengage. This study aimed to provide better understanding of a fuller spectrum regarding victims' needs and vulnerabilities, thereby facilitating provision of more responsive services. The comparison group consisted of otherwise comparable IPV cases that did not, at any point during the prosecution process, involve victim recantation of IPV allegations or disengagement from the prosecution of the criminal IPV case.

This study was designed to address the critical gap in IPV research by accomplishing the following specific aims:

• Determine the unique and independent factors predictive of victim disengagement with IPV prosecution.
• Examine prosecutorial outcomes among criminal IPV cases involving victims who disengage from prosecution relative to cases that do not involve victim disengagement.