Search results

The Center for Court Innovation, in partnership with independent consultants from the public defender's office of certain tribes, conducted a comprehensive survey of tribal justice system stakeholders, focused on the existing use of risk-needs assessments and similar tools, and existing data collection/technology used by tribal jurisdictions around the country. The survey results create a comprehensive portrait of tribal court system risk and need assessment, data collection, management, and challenges reported by those directly involved in managing and working with people in the system.

Despite the critical information security issues faced by academic institutions, little research has been conducted at the policy, practice, or theoretical levels to address these issues, and few policies or cost-effective controls have been developed. The purpose of this research study was three-fold: (1) to create an empirically-based profile of issues and approaches, (2) to develop a practical road map for policy and practice, and (3) to advance the knowledge, policy, and practice of academic institutions, law enforcement, government, and researchers. The study design incorporated three methods of data collection: a quantitative field survey, qualitative one-on-one interviews, and an empirical assessment of the institutions' network activity.

Survey data collection involved simple random sampling of 600 academic institutions from the Department of Education's National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) database, recruitment via postcard, telephone, and email, Web-based survey administration, and three follow-ups. Results are contained in Part 1, Quantitative Field Survey Data. Interview data collection involved selecting a sample size of 15 institutions through a combination of simple random and convenience sampling, recruitment via telephone and email, and face-to-face or telephone interviews. Results are contained in Part 2, Qualitative One-on-One Interview Data. Network analysis data collection involved convenience sampling of two academic institutions, recruitment via telephone and email, installing Higher Education Network Analysis (HENA) on participants' systems, and six months of data collection. Results are in Part 3, Subject 1 Network Analysis Data, and Part 4, Subject 2 Network Analysis Data.

The Quantitative Field Survey Data (Part 1) contains 19 variables on characteristics of institutions that participated in the survey component of this study, as well as 263 variables derived from responses to the Information Security in Academic Institutions Survey, which was organized into five sections: Environment, Policy, Information Security Controls, Information Security Challenges, and Resources. The Qualitative One-on-One Interview Data (Part 2) contains qualitative responses to a combination of closed-response and open-response formats. The data are divided into the following seven sections: Environment, Institution's Potential Vulnerability, Institution's Potential Threat, Information Value and Sharing, End Users, Countermeasures, and Insights. Data collected through the empirical analysis of network activity (Part 3 and Part 4) include type and protocol of attack, source and destination information, and geographic location.

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 project, The Santa Cruz Research Partnership, was developed to document how one central coast California county probation department adopted evidence based practices (EBP) and whether the adoption of these practices reduced gender and racial/ethnic disparities. To examine how these EBP related changes have affected their department, the National Council on Crime and Delinquency (NCCD) completed three studies for this National Institute of Justice (NIJ) grant. Specifically, NCCD: 1) completed interviews with the entire probation department staff to examine how the adoption of EBP affects the daily practices of the probation department, 2) analyzed case management system data to understand how the adoption of a probation violation graduated response grid affected outcomes for probationers, and 3) analyzed case management system data to examine why Latino probationers are more likely to have bench warrants issued against them even though they have statistically significantly lower risk levels.

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.