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.

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 provide a mixed methods comparative evaluation of three established court-based programs that serve offenders with serious mental illness (SMI). These programs were selected in response to criticism of similar research for studying young programs that are still in development, employing short follow up periods that are unable to indicate sustained effectiveness, and utilizing less than ideal comparison conditions. The study was conducted in Cook County, Illinois, and data were collected from three distinct court-based programs: the Cook County Felony Mental Health Court (MHC) which serves individuals with SMI who have been arrested for nonviolent felonies, the Specialized Mental Health Probation Unit which involves specially trained probation officers who supervise a reduced caseload of probationers diagnosed with SMI, and the Cook County Adult Probation Department which has an active caseload of approximately 25,000 probationers, a portion of whom have SMI. Probation officer interviews were coded for themes regarding beliefs about the relationship between mental illness and crime, views on the purpose of their program, and approaches used with probationers with SMI. The coding of probationer interviews focused on experiences related to having SMI and being on probation, including: the extent to which probation was involved with mental health treatment; development of awareness of mental health issues; evaluations of the programs based on subjective experiences; and the relationship dynamics between probationers and staff.

The collection includes 3 Stata data files: DRI-R_data_for_NACJD_041315.dta with 98 cases and 61 variables, Epperson_NIJ_Quantitative_Data_for_NACJD_041315.dta with 25203 cases and 49 variables, and incarceration_data_061515.dta with 676 cases and 4 variables. The qualitative data are not available as part of this data collection at this time.

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 study examined four research questions: (1) Was the Red Hook Community Justice Center (RHCJC) implemented according to plan?; (2) Did RHCJC make a difference in sanctioning, recidivism, and arrests?; (3) How did RHCJC produce any observed reductions to recidivism and arrests?; and (4) Is RHCJC cost-efficient from the viewpoint of taxpayers?

The community survey (Red Hook Resident Data, n = 95) was administered by research teams in the spring and summer of 2010. Teams generally went house-to-house ringing apartment buzzers at varying times of day, usually on the weekend when working people are more likely to be home or approached people on the sitting on park benches to conduct interviews.

In autumn 2010, the research team administered a survey to 200 misdemeanor offenders (Red Hook Offender Data, n = 205) who were recruited from within the catchment area of the Red Hook Community Justice Center (RHCJC) using Respondent Driven Sampling (RDS).

To examine how the RHCJC was implemented (Red Hook Process Evaluation Data, n= 35,465 and Red Hook Work File Data, n= 3,127), the research team relied on a diverse range of data sources, including 52 structured group and individual interviews with court staff and stakeholders carried out over five site visits; observation of courtroom activities and staff meetings; extensive document review; and analysis of case-level data including all adult criminal cases and some juvenile delinquency cases processed at the Justice Center from 2000 through 2009.

To aid in understanding the RHCJC's impact on the overall level of crime in the catchment area, researchers obtained monthly counts (Arrest Data, n = 144) of felony and misdemeanor arrests in each of the three catchment area police precincts (the 72nd, 76th, and 78th precincts).

These data are part of NACJD's Fast Track Release and are distributed as they are 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 accompany readme file for a brief description of the files available with this collection and consult the investigator if further information is needed.

This mixed methods study examined the criminal justice outcomes and help-seeking experiences of sexual assault survivors with disabilities. The specific objectives of this study were to:

• Describe criminal justice reporting of sexual assault against persons with disabilities (e.g., number and source of reports, characteristics or survivors and perpetrators, case characteristics, and case outcomes)
• Assess how cases of sexual assault survivors with disabilities proceeded through the criminal court system.
• Describe help-seeking experiences of sexual assault survivors with disabilities from formal and informal sources, including influences on how and where they seek help, their experiences in reporting, barriers to reporting, and outcome of this reporting, drawn from interviews with community based survivors and service providers.

The study contains one data file called 'Data_Sexual Violence Survivors with Disabilities.sav'. This file has 26 variables and 417 cases.

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.

This data file describes three different experiments that were designed to examine how differences in the way forensic scientific evidence is communicated affects jurors.

In each experiment, participants consisted of jury-eligible community members in Maricopa County, Arizona. Groups of participants attended a research session in which they were shown a 35-40-minute videotapes of one of two mock criminal trials (one, a rape case, centers around bitemark evidence, and the other, an attempted murder, centers around fingerprint evidence). Within each trial the content of a forensic scientist's testimony was manipulated. These manipulations involved: 1) whether the technique used by the forensic scientist was "high tech" or "low tech," 2) the amount of experience possessed by the forensic scientist, 3) whether the technique used by the forensic scientist had been scientifically validated, 4) whether the forensic scientist conceded that an error was possible, and 5) whether any exculpatory evidence was present at the crime scene.

Immediately following the trial, each individual participants completed a questionnaire in which they gave their individual impressions of the strength of the case. Following that, the group of participant would deliberate and attempt to reach a unanimous verdict. Finally, each individual participant completed an additional questionnaire that again measured perceptions of the case along with individual difference measures and demographics.

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.

The purpose of this study was to conduct a comprehensive multi-site examination of veterans treatment court (VTC) operations through an implementation and intermediate outcome evaluation. The focus was primarily on VTC processes and participant populations, as well as basic participant outcomes. Both quantitative and qualitative data were collected from baseline and follow-up interviews, self-report survey data, semi-structured observations, and official records from eight VTC programs in three states.

Users should note that qualitative data are not available as part of this study at this time. It is not known when these data might be made available.

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 study used a multi-method approach including 1. a process evaluation in all eight sites involving yearly site visits from 2012 to 2014 with key stakeholder interviews, observations, and participant focus groups; 2. a prospective impact evaluation (in four sites) including interviews at release from jail or prison and at 12 months after release (as well as oral swab drug tests) with reentry court participants and a matched comparison group; 3. a recidivism impact evaluation (in seven sites) with a matched comparison group tracking recidivism for 2 years post reentry court entry and 4. a cost-benefit evaluation (in seven sites) involving a transactional and institutional cost analysis (TICA) approach. Final administrative data were collected through the end of 2016.

This collection includes four SPSS data files: "interview_archive2.sav" with 746 variables and 412 cases, "NESCCARC_Archive_File_3.sav" with 518 variables and 3,710 cases, "Interview Data1.sav" with 1,356 variables and 412 cases, "NESCCARC Admin Data File.sav" with 517 variables and 3,710 cases, and three SPSS syntax files: "Interview Syntax.sps", "archive_2-17.sps", and "NESCCARC Admin Data Syntax.sps".