Search results

Showing 1 – 42 of 42 results.
Curated

Arkansas Juvenile Court Records, 1991-1993 (ICPSR 6808)

Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: United States, Arkansas
Time period: 1991-01-01--1993-01-01
This data collection describes in quantitative terms the volume of juvenile cases disposed by courts having jurisdiction over juvenile matters (delinquency, status offense, and dependency cases). Inaugurated in 1983, the Arkansas Administrative Office of the Courts began to collect data from intake and probation departments on each case disposed during the previous calendar year. The data include a record of each case processed formally with petition for each delinquency, dependent/neglect, or family in need of services case disposed. Information is provided on county, case type, date of filing, reason for referral to the courts, and the court action.
Curated

Arkansas Juvenile Court Records, 1994 (ICPSR 6883)

Released/updated on: 2005-11-04
Geographic coverage: United States, Arkansas
This data collection describes in quantitative terms the volume of juvenile cases disposed in 1994 by courts having jurisdiction over juvenile matters (delinquency, status offense, and dependency cases) in Arkansas. Inaugurated in 1983, the Arkansas Administrative Office of the Courts began to collect data from intake and probation departments on each case disposed during the previous calendar year. The data include a record of each case processed formally with petition and contain an individual record on each family in need of services, delinquency, or dependency/neglect case disposed.
Curated
Restricted

Assessing the Effectiveness of Four Juvenile Justice Interventions on Adult Criminal Justice and Child Welfare Outcomes, Ohio, 2004-2008 (ICPSR 36130)

Released/updated on: 2018-03-21
Geographic coverage: Ohio
Time period: 2004-01-01--2008-12-01

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 compared the adult criminal justice and child welfare system outcomes of four pathways through the juvenile justice system - Traditional Probation, Intensive Probation, Specialty Court Docket (Crossroads Program), and commitment to state youth correction services (Department of Youth Services). The study compared the effectiveness of a continuum of services and supervision in improving public safety, including re-arrest and re-incarceration, and in improving outcomes in engagement with child welfare as parents, including child welfare complaints and dispositions.

The core research question is: "what is the relative effectiveness of four different juvenile justice interventions on improving public safety and child welfare outcomes?" The study population is all youths (n=2581) who entered the juvenile court from 2004-2008. It then included 7-10 years of follow-up in the adult justice and child welfare systems for all youths. The four interventions are on a continuum of intensity of services and supervision with Traditional Probation having the fewest services followed by Intensive Probation, Crossroads, and Division of Youth Services commitment.

The study's deposits include 14 SPSS data files:

  • arrest_final.sav
  • CW_Custody_Adult_final.sav
  • CW_Custody_child_final.sav
  • CW_Intakes_Adult_final.sav
  • CW_Intakes_child_final.sav
  • CW_Placements_adult_final.sav
  • CW_Placements_child_final.sav
  • General_final.sav
  • Jail_final.sav
  • JC_charges_final.sav
  • JC_detention_final.sav
  • JC_disposition_final.sav
  • JC_Gal_final.sav
  • prison_final.sav
Curated

Assessing the Role of School Discipline In Disproportionate Minority Contact With the Juvenile Justice System, Texas, 1999-2008 (ICPSR 37186)

Released/updated on: 2018-12-19
Geographic coverage: United States, Texas
Time period: 1999-09-01--2008-08-31

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 utilized data originally collected for the project Breaking Schools' Rules (Fabelo et al., 2011), a joint project of the Public Policy Research Institute at Texas A and M University and the Council of State Governments Justice Center on which the Principal Investigator, Miner Marchbanks was a lead data analyst and co-author. Research was conducted at the Education Research Centers of the University of Texas, Austin, and Texas A and M University utilizing individual-level data from the Public Education Information Management System (PEIMS), a data system of the Texas Education Agency (TEA), and CASEWORKER, a data management system of the Texas Probation Commission (now the Texas Juvenile Justice Department). The link between these records was conducted by TEA and is described in greater detail in Fabelo et al.

Through secondary analyses of these data, researchers attempted to measure the institutional and individual mechanisms that disproportionately pull and push students of color into the "school-to-prison pipeline." The project explores the predictors of school discipline contact and the resulting consequences of encountering this discipline. The project then moves to an examination of the determinants of progressing through the various decision points in a juvenile justice case. Additionally, the project explores the relationship between school strictness and various educational and juvenile justice outcomes. The "school-to-prison pipeline" (Wald and Losen, 2003) describes an "increasingly punitive and isolating" path through the education system for African American and other at-risk students.

The study collection includes 1 Stata (.do) syntax file (master_final.do) that was used by the researcher(s) in secondary analyses.

Curated
Restricted

Criminal Justice Researcher-Practitioner Placement Program: Reading Intervention, Academic and Behavioral Outcomes for Adolescents: A Community Agency and University Partnership Project, Indiana, 2016-2018 (ICPSR 37407)

Released/updated on: 2021-03-25
Geographic coverage: Indiana, United States
Time period: 2016-01-01--2018-01-01
This randomized control trial study aimed to examine whether a targeted reading intervention improved outcomes for juvenile justice involved youth in court-affiliated treatment settings. The data includes reading level assessments at four month intervals and educational, behavioral, and cognitive assessments.
Curated
Restricted

Decision-Making in the Juvenile Justice System in Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, and Ohio, 1999-2000 (ICPSR 3581)

Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: Indiana, Illinois, Ohio, Michigan
Time period: 1999-01-01--2000-01-01
The goals of the juvenile justice system in the United States have always been multiple, beginning with rehabilitation, the primary goal when the juvenile court was established. More recently, policies advocating accountability seem to have predominated over other goals of the court, and concern exists that structured decision-making (SDM) in support of individual accountability has begun to fundamentally change the juvenile justice system. This study examined the use of SDM in state correctional agencies in Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, and Ohio and in juvenile courts in three counties in each of those states. Data were collected in phases from March 1999 to August 2000 during periodic site visits. Probation officers, judges and referees, prosecutors, and defense attorneys were interviewed in each of the 12 courts. Each survey contained a core set of questions eliciting respondents' views of juvenile justice, disposition objectives, and the use and value of SDM. Questions relevant to particular decision-makers were also included. All respondents provided demographic information and information about their job experience in criminal justice and professional training.
Curated
Restricted

Deterrent Effect of Curfew Enforcement: Operation Nightwatch in St. Louis, 2003-2005 (ICPSR 4302)

Released/updated on: 2005-11-14
Geographic coverage: United States, Missouri, St. Louis
Time period: 2003-12-01--2005-01-01
This study was conducted between December 2003 and January 2005, to determine if the curfew check program in St. Louis, Missouri, known as Nightwatch, was meeting its stated goals of reducing recidivism and victimization among juvenile offenders. The study was conducted using a pretest and two post-tests on an experimental group and a comparison group. The pretest (Time 1) was given to 118 juveniles. The first post-test (Time 2) was completed by 78 juveniles and the second post-test (Time 3) was completed by 37 juveniles. The tests were designed to measure the respondents' perceptions of certainty of punishment, as well as to measure their out of home activities. Important variables included in the study are levels of parental supervision, self-reported behaviors of the juvenile respondent, perceived severity of punishments, measures of impulsiveness, and self-reported victimization of the respondent, as well as variables related to the Nightwatch program, including the number of visits, sanctions or rewards received by the respondent.
Curated

Evaluating the Virginia Court-Appointed Special Advocate (CASA) Program, 1991-1995 (ICPSR 2812)

Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: United States, Virginia
Time period: 1991-01-01--1995-01-01
In 1990, the Virginia General Assembly enacted legislation that established the Court-Appointed Special Advocate (CASA) Program, a program providing child advocates in juvenile court proceedings, especially those involving abuse and neglect. The Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS) administered this program. In this capacity, the DCJS coordinated services, provided funds, and participated in the development and dissemination of program information and regulations. Given these responsibilities, DCJS' Juvenile Services Section and the Criminal Justice Research Center Evaluation Section agreed that an assessment of the CASA program was needed. This study sought to evaluate the Virginia CASA program in order to provide a better understanding of CASA activities and program characteristics, and determine the impact of CASA intervention on its client population. Qualitative and quantitative data were collected from three sources: (1) administrative records gathered for a sample of 78 cases (Part 1) involving 164 children (Part 2) taken from the files of local juvenile courts, social service agencies, and CASA programs, (2) telephone interviews administered to judges (Part 3) presiding in all operational CASA jurisdictions across Virginia, and (3) surveys distributed to CASA social workers (Part 4) and volunteers (Part 5). Variables common to both Part 1 and Part 2 include the total number of abuse/neglect, custody, and Children in Need of Supervision/Services (CHINS) petitions, date of first petition, petition type, type of child abuse/neglect case, number and date of prior removals from home, number of out-of-home, group home, psychiatric, detention, and family/friend placements since the case opened, whether there was any alcohol or drug abuse involved, and the onset of these behaviors, whether there were any mental, intellectual, academic, or behavioral limitations or problems, dates of first and last court proceeding, date of finding (a social service agency determination of whether abuse/neglect occurred), permanency date, date of final placement, and the number of weeks a Court-Appointed Special Advocate (CASA) was on the case. Variables unique to Part 1 include the age, sex, and date of birth for up to six victims and up to three abusers, as well as whether any adult or child sibling of the victim had been legally removed from the household, the relationship of each abuser to each victim, and whether any of the victim's siblings, mother, biological father, or caretaker had a criminal history, mental illness, disabilities, or abused drugs or alcohol. Other variables include the number of orders partially or fully complied with or not complied with, the number of services ordered for each victim and abuser, and whether there were any changes in the family structure. For Part 3, judges were surveyed to determine their perceptions regarding the role of CASAs, social workers, and Guardians ad Litem (GALs) in abuse/neglect cases, the benefits of the CASA program, how successful CASA case monitoring was, how useful CASA information was, and the impact CASA programs had on the court process. Judges also recommended changes or improvements they felt were needed by the CASA program that served their court. The percent of abuse/neglect, custody, and CHINS cases that each judge presided over is also included. Demographic variables for Part 4 include the age, sex, and race of each social worker. Other variables cover the length of time worked with CASAs, the number of sexual abuse, neglect, custody, and CHINS cases worked on, and the percent of time used to appear in court, write reports, review records, interview the family and child, and speak with CASAs and GALs. The respondents' perceptions of the role of CASA, social workers, and GALs, how the CASA program was beneficial or detrimental to a child, and suggestions for changes or improvements to the CASA program complete the file. Variables for Part 5 include the number of physical abuse, neglect, custody, and CHINS cases worked on by a CASA volunteer. Additional variables include the percent of time used to investigate and monitor the child, family, foster family, the GALs, the social worker, and other CASA staff, as well as the volunteer's relationship with social workers, GALs, and judges. The age, sex, race, and educational background of each volunteer are also included.
Curated
Restricted

Evaluation of Utah's Early Intervention Mandate: Juvenile Sentencing Guidelines and Intermediate Sanctions, 1996-2000 (ICPSR 3502)

Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: United States, Utah
Time period: 1996-01-01--2000-01-01
This study was an evaluation of changes initiated by the State of Utah to reduce youth crime: a program of early intervention comprised of Juvenile Sentencing Guidelines and a new intermediate sanction called State Supervision. Together, the Sentencing Guidelines and State Supervision sanction were designed to bring about a reduction in juvenile recidivism rates and subsequently reduce the number of offenders placed out of the home in the custody of the Division of Youth Corrections by 5 percent. Researchers combined quantitative measures of sentencing guidelines compliance and recidivism rates with qualitative interviews of juvenile justice system personnel and youth offenders. Data were gathered on all offenders receiving a sentence to probation for the first time from January to June during 1996 and 1999, enabling a comparison of offenders before and after program implementation (Part 1, Juvenile Information System Data). Part 1 data include demographic data, prior charges, age at start of probation, detention use, reoffense, and commitment to Youth Corrections. Interviews with 168 court and corrections personnel were conducted in two interview rounds, from June to December 1999, and again from July to September 2000, soliciting their views of the sentencing guidelines, state supervision, and probation (Parts 2-3, Juvenile Justice System Personnel Interviews, Rounds 1 and 2). Interviews with 229 youth offenders obtained information on their involvement with and views of the sentencing guidelines, state supervision, and probation during a single interview in either the first or second round (Parts 4-5, Youth Offender Interviews, Rounds 1 and 2). A random sample of paper case files for pre- and post-guideline offenders was selected to analyze changes in contact and interventions provided (Part 6, Youth Offender Case File Analysis). These files were examined for documentation of contact frequency and type with offenders and their families and the number and types of programs used.
Curated

Exposure to Violence, Trauma, and Juvenile Court Involvement: A Longitudinal Analysis of Mobile Youth and Poverty Study Data, Mobile, Alabama, 1998-2011 (ICPSR 37495)

Released/updated on: 2020-11-24
Geographic coverage: United States, Alabama, Mobile
Time period: 1998-01-01--2011-01-01
This project consists of secondary analysis material (syntax only, no data). The original study that the material pertains to is an examination of predominantly African American adolescents who live in extreme poverty. The study suggested that exposure to violence is positively related to involvement in the juvenile court system, and partially mediated by psychological factors, particularly hopelessness; thus, practitioners should take care to target more than just traumatic stress as a result of exposure to violence in African American impoverished youth.
Curated
Restricted

Impact of Institutional Placement on the Recidivism of Delinquent Youth in New York City, 2000-2003 (ICPSR 20347)

Released/updated on: 2009-08-10
Geographic coverage: New York City, United States, New York (state)
Time period: 2000-04-01--2003-06-30
The primary research goal of this study was to explore the effects of juvenile incarceration on future recidivism using social and legal history data about adjudicated juvenile delinquents in New York City. The secondary research goal of this study was to explore family court decision-making and the nature of family court processing. Study subjects were chosen by examining Family Court calendars in all five New York City boroughs for each day in April, May, and June of 2000, which identified every youth who received a disposition during this period. Research staff located case files for each subject in probation department file rooms in the five family courts, using personal and numeric identifiers taken from court calendars. Using a standardized data collection instrument that was developed by the research team, coded information was derived for 698 total cases by examining documents in each subject's probation case file. Coded data from probation case files offered a baseline portrait of this sample of delinquent youth. In order to measure recidivism, the principal investigator linked baseline records, using personal and numeric identifiers, to arrest and incarceration information provided by other city and state agencies. In this dataset, each record is essentially a snapshot of a particular youth at the time of his or her disposition. Variables about the sampled youth include: demographic profile, case processing, legal history, characteristics of present and past family environments, school performance indicators, community and peer relationships, history of alcohol and drug use, mental health history, and history of victimization.
Curated

Juvenile Court Statistics, 1982: [United States] (ICPSR 8440)

Released/updated on: 1992-02-16
Geographic coverage: Puerto Rico, United States, Virgin Islands of the United States
These data describe the volume of juvenile cases disposed of by courts in the fifty states, the District of Columbia and the territories of the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico during calendar year 1982. The data contain all available summary information on children's cases disposed of in courts having jurisdiction over juvenile matters, delinquency status, and dependency or neglect.
Curated

Juvenile Court Statistics, 1983 [United States] (ICPSR 8656)

Released/updated on: 1992-02-16
Geographic coverage: United States
This data collection describes the volume of juvenile cases disposed of during calendar year 1983 in courts having jurisdiction over juvenile matters (delinquency and dependency/neglect cases) in the fifty states, the District of Columbia, and the territories of the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico. This collection is part of the oldest continuous source of information on the processing of delinquent and dependent youth done by juvenile courts, a record inaugurated in 1926. It furnishes an index of the general nature and extent of the problems brought before the juvenile courts.
Curated

Juvenile Court Statistics, 1984: [United States] (ICPSR 8940)

Released/updated on: 1992-02-16
Geographic coverage: United States
This data collection describes in quantitative terms the volume of juvenile cases disposed by courts having jurisdiction over juvenile matters (delinquency, status and dependency cases). This collection is the oldest continuous source of information on the processing of delinquent and dependent youth done by juvenile courts, a record inaugurated in 1926 to furnish an index of the problems brought before the juvenile courts. Information is provided on state, county, number of delinquency cases by sex, number of dependency cases by sex, and total number of cases.
Curated

Juvenile Court Statistics, 1985: [United States] (ICPSR 9297)

Released/updated on: 1992-02-17
Geographic coverage: United States
This data collection describes in quantitative terms the volume of juvenile cases disposed by courts having jurisdiction over juvenile matters (delinquency, status, and dependency cases). Inaugurated in 1926 to furnish an index of the problems brought before the juvenile courts, this collection is the oldest continuous source of information on the processing of delinquent and dependent youth done by juvenile courts. Information is provided on state, county, number of delinquency cases by sex, number of dependency cases by sex, and total number of cases.
Curated

Juvenile Court Statistics, 1986: Reported Cases in Calendar Year Data Base (ICPSR 9691)

Released/updated on: 1992-03-04
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1985-01-01--1986-01-01
This data collection describes in quantitative terms the volume of juvenile cases disposed by courts having jurisdiction over juvenile matters (delinquency, status, and dependency cases). Inaugurated in 1926 to furnish an index of the problems brought before the juvenile courts, this series is the oldest continuous source of information on the processing of delinquent and dependent youth done by juvenile courts. Information is provided on state, county, number of delinquency cases by sex, number of status cases by sex, number of dependency cases by sex, and total number of cases by sex.
Curated

Juvenile Court Statistics, 1987: [United States] (ICPSR 6119)

Released/updated on: 2005-11-04
Geographic coverage: United States
This data collection describes in quantitative terms the volume of juvenile cases disposed in 1987 by courts having jurisdiction over juvenile matters (delinquency, status offense, and dependency cases). Inaugurated in 1926 to furnish an index of the problems brought before the juvenile courts, this series is the oldest continuous source of information on the processing of delinquent and dependent youth by juvenile courts. Information is provided on state, county, number of delinquency cases by sex, number of status offense cases by sex, number of dependency cases by sex, and total number of cases by sex.
Curated

Juvenile Court Statistics, 1988: [United States] (ICPSR 6120)

Released/updated on: 2005-11-04
Geographic coverage: United States
This data collection describes in quantitative terms the volume of juvenile cases disposed in 1988 by courts having jurisdiction over juvenile matters (delinquency, status offense, and dependency cases). Inaugurated in 1926 to furnish an index of the problems brought before the juvenile courts, this series is the oldest continuous source of information on the processing of delinquent and dependent youth by juvenile courts. Information is provided on state, county, number of delinquency cases by sex, number of status offense cases by sex, number of dependency cases by sex, and total number of cases by sex.
Curated

Juvenile Court Statistics, 1989: [United States] (ICPSR 6121)

Released/updated on: 2005-11-04
Geographic coverage: United States
This data collection describes in quantitative terms the volume of juvenile cases disposed in 1989 by courts having jurisdiction over juvenile matters (delinquency, status offense, and dependency cases). Inaugurated in 1926 to furnish an index of the problems brought before the juvenile courts, this series is the oldest continuous source of information on the processing of delinquent and dependent youth by juvenile courts. Information is provided on state, county, number of delinquency cases by sex, number of status offense cases by sex, number of dependency cases by sex, and total number of cases by sex.
Curated

Juvenile Court Statistics, 1990: [United States] (ICPSR 6508)

Released/updated on: 2005-11-04
Geographic coverage: United States
This data collection describes in quantitative terms the volume of juvenile cases disposed in 1990 by courts having jurisdiction over juvenile matters (delinquency, status offense, and dependency cases). Inaugurated in 1926 to furnish an index of the problems brought before the juvenile courts, this series is the oldest continuous source of information on the processing of delinquent and dependent youth by juvenile courts. It is the most detailed information available on youth who come in contact with the juvenile justice system and on the activities of the nation's juvenile courts. Information is provided on state, county, number of delinquency cases, number of status offense cases, number of dependency cases, and total number of cases. The data distinguish cases with and without the filing of a petition.
Curated

Juvenile Court Statistics, 1991: [United States] (ICPSR 6582)

Released/updated on: 2005-11-04
Geographic coverage: United States
This data collection describes in quantitative terms the volume of juvenile cases disposed in 1991 by courts having jurisdiction over juvenile matters (delinquency, status offense, and dependency cases). Inaugurated in 1926 to furnish an index of the problems brought before the juvenile courts, this series is the oldest continuous source of information on the processing of delinquent and dependent youth by juvenile courts. It is the most detailed information available on youth who come in contact with the juvenile justice system and on the activities of the nation's juvenile courts. Information is provided on state, county, number of delinquency cases, number of status offense cases, number of dependency cases, and total number of cases. The data distinguish cases with and without the filing of a petition.
Curated

Juvenile Court Statistics, 1992: [United States] (ICPSR 6634)

Released/updated on: 2005-11-04
Geographic coverage: United States
This data collection describes in quantitative terms the volume of juvenile cases disposed in 1992 by courts having jurisdiction over juvenile matters (delinquency, status offense, and dependency cases). Inaugurated in 1926 to furnish an index of the problems brought before the juvenile courts, this series is the oldest continuous source of information on the processing of delinquent and dependent youth by juvenile courts. It is the most detailed information available on youth who come in contact with the juvenile justice system and on the activities of the nation's juvenile courts. Information is provided on state, county, number of delinquency cases, number of status offense cases, number of dependency cases, and total number of cases. The data distinguish cases with and without the filing of a petition.
Curated

Juvenile Court Statistics, 1993: [United States] (ICPSR 6715)

Released/updated on: 2005-11-04
Geographic coverage: United States
This data collection describes in quantitative terms the volume of juvenile cases disposed in 1993 by courts having jurisdiction over juvenile matters (delinquency, status offense, and dependency cases). Inaugurated in 1926 to furnish an index of the problems brought before the juvenile courts, this series is the oldest continuous source of information on the processing of delinquent and dependent youth by juvenile courts. It is the most detailed information available on youth who come in contact with the juvenile justice system and on the activities of the nation's juvenile courts. Information is provided on state, county, number of delinquency cases, number of status offense cases, number of dependency cases, and total number of cases. The data distinguish cases with and without the filing of a petition.
Curated

Juvenile Court Statistics, 1994: [United States] (ICPSR 6882)

Released/updated on: 2005-11-04
Geographic coverage: United States
This data collection describes in quantitative terms the volume of juvenile cases disposed in 1994 by courts having jurisdiction over juvenile matters (delinquency, status offense, and dependency cases). Inaugurated in 1926 to furnish an index of the problems brought before the juvenile courts, this series is the oldest continuous source of information on the processing of delinquent and dependent youth by juvenile courts. It is the most detailed information available on youth who come in contact with the juvenile justice system and on the activities of the nation's juvenile courts. Information is provided on state, county, number of delinquency cases, number of status offense cases, number of dependency cases, and total number of cases. The data distinguish cases with and without the filing of a petition.
Curated

Juvenile Court Statistics, 1995: [United States] (ICPSR 2805)

Released/updated on: 2005-11-04
Geographic coverage: United States
This data collection describes in quantitative terms the volume of juvenile cases disposed in 1995 by courts having jurisdiction over juvenile matters (delinquency, status offense, and dependency cases). Inaugurated in 1926 to furnish an index of the problems brought before the juvenile courts, this series is the oldest continuous source of information on the processing of delinquent and dependent youth by juvenile courts. It is the most detailed information available on youth who come in contact with the juvenile justice system and on the activities of the nation's juvenile courts. Information is provided on state, county, number of delinquency cases, number of status offense cases, number of dependency cases, and total number of cases. The data distinguish cases with and without the filing of a petition.
Curated

Juvenile Court Statistics, 1996: [United States] (ICPSR 2841)

Released/updated on: 2005-11-04
Geographic coverage: United States
This data collection describes in quantitative terms the volume of juvenile cases disposed in 1996 by courts having jurisdiction over juvenile matters (delinquency, status offense, and dependency cases). Inaugurated in 1926 to furnish an index of the problems brought before the juvenile courts, this series is the oldest continuous source of information on the processing of delinquent and dependent youth by juvenile courts. It is the most detailed information available on youth who come in contact with the juvenile justice system and on the activities of the nation's juvenile courts. Information is provided on state, county, number of delinquency cases, number of status offense cases, number of dependency cases, and total number of cases. The data distinguish cases with and without the filing of a petition.
Curated

Juvenile Court Statistics, 1997: [United States] (ICPSR 2894)

Released/updated on: 2005-11-04
Geographic coverage: United States
This data collection describes in quantitative terms the volume of juvenile cases disposed in 1997 by courts having jurisdiction over juvenile matters (delinquency, status offense, and dependency cases). Inaugurated in 1926 to furnish an index of the problems brought before the juvenile courts, this series is the oldest continuous source of information on the processing of delinquent and dependent youth by juvenile courts. It is the most detailed information available on youth who come in contact with the juvenile justice system and on the activities of the nation's juvenile courts. Information is provided on state, county, number of delinquency cases, number of status offense cases, number of dependency cases, and total number of cases. The data distinguish cases with and without the filing of a petition.
Curated
Restricted

Juvenile Domestic and Family Violence Court Evaluation in Contra Costa, Santa Clara, and San Francisco Counties, California, 1999-2005 (ICPSR 34564)

Released/updated on: 2013-05-17
Geographic coverage: United States, California
Time period: 1999-01-01--2005-01-01
This study tested the effectiveness of two court-based intervention programs in California (Santa Clara County, San Francisco County) that addressed juvenile domestic and family violence. The court-based intervention programs included an intake assessment process for domestic and family violence, specialized prosecution and defense, a dedicated docket, intensive supervision, offender programs, and victim services. Probation and court records of juvenile domestic/family violence offenders provided the source of data to compare the intervention programs with a third county that did not have a specialized response (Contra Costa County). The final study group included 303 closed cases (201 cases from Santa Clara County, 40 cases from San Francisco County, and 62 cases from Contra Costa County).
Curated

Missouri Juvenile Court Records, 1984-1987 (ICPSR 9448)

Released/updated on: 2006-01-12
Geographic coverage: United States, Missouri
Time period: 1984-01-01--1987-01-01
This data collections provides information on each juvenile case disposed in the state of Missouri during calendar years 1984-1987. The state of Missouri began collecting and disseminating juvenile court data in 1975 as the result of legislation by the Division of Youth Services within the Department of Social Services. Despite this legislation no binding laws required the courts to submit data to the Division of Youth Services. In 1980, such a law was passed, and data were first collected in 1982 and 1983. The system was automated in 1984, and these data are now available for public use. The data files provide information on juveniles' progress through the juvenile justice system from the time of referral to juvenile court to final disposition. Variables include sex, race, and birth date of the juveniles, court referral date, major allegation, number of law violations, number of prior referrals, detention status, jail status, court orders, placement status, and final court action.
Curated

Missouri Juvenile Court Records, 1994 (ICPSR 6884)

Released/updated on: 2005-11-04
Geographic coverage: United States, Missouri
This data collection describes in quantitative terms the volume of juvenile cases disposed in 1994 by courts having jurisdiction over juvenile matters (delinquency, status offense, and dependency cases) in Missouri. Inaugurated in 1975 and mandated in 1980, the Missouri Division of Youth Services collects and disseminates delinquency statistics about each case disposed during the previous calendar year. The data include a record of each case processed formally with petition and informally without petition, and contain an individual record on each delinquency, status offense, dependency, and special proceeding case disposed.
Curated

National Juvenile Court Data Archive, United States, 1985-2019 (ICPSR 38418)

Released/updated on: 2022-07-28
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1985-01-01--2019-01-01

The National Juvenile Court Data Archive houses over 15 million automated records of cases handled by courts with juvenile jurisdiction. Although some states' data contain traffic and dependency cases, the majority are delinquency and status offense records. The collection itself dates back to the 1920s when it was under the Children's Bureau, however in 1974 the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), within the U.S. Department of Justice assumed responsibility for the work of promoting access to automated juvenile court data sets for juvenile justice research and policymaking efforts.

The Archive contains the most detailed information available on juveniles involved in the juvenile justice system and on the activities of U.S. juvenile courts. The Archive houses a sizable collection of automated juvenile court data files that not only support the national estimates but also support the study of a wide range of national and subnational juvenile justice issues. Designed to facilitate research on the juvenile justice system, the Archive's data files are available to policy-makers, researchers, students, and the public. The data have been used to explore a broad range of topics, from investigating the effectiveness of juvenile court programs and examining policy developments in individual jurisdictions, to monitoring the impact of legislative changes, and guiding juvenile justice system reform.

Curated
Restricted

National Prosecutors Survey, 1994 (ICPSR 6785)

Released/updated on: 2005-11-04
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1994-01-01--1994-12-31
The National Survey of Prosecutors is a biennial survey of chief prosecutors in state court systems. A chief prosecutor is an official, usually locally elected and typically with the title of district attorney or county attorney, who is in charge of a prosecutorial district made up of one or more counties, and who conducts or supervises the prosecution of felony cases in a state court system. Prosecutors in courts of limited jurisdiction, such as municipal prosecutors, were not included in the survey. The survey's purpose was to obtain detailed descriptive information on prosecutors' offices, as well as information on their policies and practices. The data collection instrument was based on questions that were included in the NATIONAL PROSECUTORS SURVEY, 1992 (ICPSR 6273), and also added queries on topics of current concern, including: cross-designation of state prosecutors to try cases in federal court, juvenile transfers to criminal court, personal liability insurance for prosecutors, and involvement with community-based drug abuse programs. Variables include whether certain categories of felony prosecution, such as gangs, hate crimes, domestic violence, stalking, fraud, or child abuse or abduction were handled, whether DNA evidence, videotape, expert or child witnesses, polygraph tests, or wiretap evidence were used in trials, types of intermediate sanctions used, including house arrest, electronic monitoring, work release, substance abuse rehabilitation or therapy, community service, and fines or restitution, information on problem cases, personal risks associated with the role of the prosecutor, civil actions against prosecutors, criminal defense of indigent offenders, staffing, workload, funding, whether the defendant's criminal history was used in trials, juvenile matters, relationships with victims and other persons aiding prosecution, computerization, and community leadership. The unit of analysis is the district office.
Curated
Restricted

National Prosecutors Survey, 1996 (ICPSR 2433)

Released/updated on: 2005-11-04
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1996-01-01--1996-12-31
The National Survey of Prosecutors is a biennial survey of chief prosecutors in state court systems. A chief prosecutor is an official, usually locally elected and typically with the title of district attorney or county attorney, who is in charge of a prosecutorial district made up of one or more counties, and who conducts or supervises the prosecution of felony cases in a state court system. Prosecutors in courts of limited jurisdiction, such as municipal prosecutors, were not included in the survey. The survey's purpose was to obtain detailed descriptive information on prosecutors' offices, as well as information on their policies and practices. The data collection instrument was based on questions that were included in the NATIONAL PROSECUTORS SURVEY, 1994 (ICPSR 6785), and also added queries on topics of current concern. Variables cover staffing, workload, funding, what type of computer access the office had, whether the office was part of an integrated computerized system with other specific criminal agencies, the use of DNA evidence in plea negotiations of felony trials, which laboratories performed these DNA analyses, juvenile matters, and risks associated with the role of the prosecutor, such as threatening letters or calls, face-to-face assaults, or batter/assaults. The unit of analysis is the district office.
Curated

National Prosecutors Survey, 2005 (ICPSR 4600)

Released/updated on: 2007-02-23
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 2005-01-01--2005-12-31
The National Survey of Prosecutors is a biennial survey of chief prosecutors in state court systems. A chief prosecutor is an official, usually locally elected and typically with the title of district attorney or county attorney, who is in charge of a prosecutorial district made up of one or more counties, and who conducts or supervises the prosecution of felony cases in a state court system. Prosecutors in courts of limited jurisdiction, such as municipal prosecutors, were not included in the survey. The survey's purpose was to obtain detailed descriptive information on prosecutors' offices, as well as information on their policies and practices. The data collection instrument was based on questions that were included in the NATIONAL PROSECUTORS SURVEY, 1994 (ICPSR 6785), and added queries on topics of current concern. Variables cover staffing, workload, funding, what type of computer access the office had, whether the office was part of an integrated computerized system with other specific criminal agencies, the use of DNA evidence in plea negotiations of felony trials, which laboratories performed these DNA analyses, juvenile matters, and risks associated with the role of the prosecutor, such as threatening letters or calls, face-to-face assaults, or batter/assaults. The unit of analysis is the district office.
Curated

National Prosecutors Survey [Census], 2007 (ICPSR 33202)

Released/updated on: 2012-05-14
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 2007-01-01--2007-12-31
The 2007 Census of State Court Prosecutors marked the second BJS survey of all prosecutors' offices in the United States. The first census, conducted in 2001, included the 2,341 offices in operation at that time. The second census included the 2,330 state court prosecutors' offices operating in 2007. Neither census included offices of municipal attorneys or county attorneys, who primarily operate in courts of limited jurisdiction. State court prosecutors serve in the executive branch of state governments and handle felony cases in state courts of general jurisdiction. By law, these prosecutors are afforded broad discretion in determining who is charged with an offense and whether a case goes to trial. The chief prosecutor, also referred to as the district attorney, county attorney, commonwealth attorney, or state's attorney, represents the state in criminal cases and is answerable to the public as an elected or appointed public official. The Office of the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia is the only federal prosecutor included in the census. This unique office is responsible for prosecution of serious local crimes committed in the District and also for prosecution of federal cases, whether criminal or civil.
Curated
Restricted
Simple Crosstabs

National Survey of Juvenile Justice Professionals, 2005-2007 [United States] (ICPSR 26381)

Released/updated on: 2013-03-21
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 2005-10-01--2007-12-01
This study involved a survey of juvenile court judges, chief probation officers, prosecutors, and public defenders to measure their impressions of recent policy changes and the critical needs facing today's juvenile justice system. In addition the study garnered recommendations for improving the administration and effectiveness of this system. The study's primary objective was to provide policymakers, administrators, and practitioners with actionable information about how to improve the operations and effectiveness of the juvenile justice system, and to examine the role practitioners could play in constructing sound juvenile justice policy. A total of 534 juvenile court judges, chief probation officers, court administrators, prosecutors, and defense attorneys in 44 states and the District of Columbia participated in the Assessing the Policy Options (APO) national practitioner survey. The survey consisted of four major sections: demographics, critical needs, policies and practices, and practitioner recommendations. Critical needs facing the juvenile justice system were measured by asking respondents about the policy priority of 13 issues in their respective jurisdictions; topics ranged from staff training and development to effective juvenile defense counsel to information technology. Respondents were also asked to assess the effectiveness of 17 different policies and practices -- ranging from parental accountability laws to transfer and treatment -- in achieving 6 vital juvenile justice outcomes.
Curated
Restricted

Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods (PHDCN): Self Report of Offending, Wave 1, 1994-1997 (ICPSR 13601)

Released/updated on: 2006-02-07
Geographic coverage: United States, Chicago, Illinois
Time period: 1994-01-01--1997-01-01
The Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods (PHDCN) was a large-scale, interdisciplinary study of how families, schools, and neighborhoods affect child and adolescent development. One component of the PHDCN was the Longitudinal Cohort Study, which was a series of coordinated longitudinal studies that followed over 6,000 randomly selected children, adolescents, and young adults, and their primary caregivers over time to examine the changing circumstances of their lives, as well as the personal characteristics, that might lead them toward or away from a variety of antisocial behaviors. Numerous measures were administered to respondents to gauge various aspects of human development, including individual differences, as well as family, peer, and school influences. The Self Report of Offending was a self-report questionnaire focused on a participant's involvement in antisocial behavior and the legal consequences of that behavior.
Curated
Restricted

Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods (PHDCN): Self Report of Offending, Wave 2, 1997-2000 (ICPSR 13658)

Released/updated on: 2005-12-06
Geographic coverage: United States, Chicago, Illinois
Time period: 1997-01-01--2000-01-01
The Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods (PHDCN) was a large-scale, interdisciplinary study of how families, schools, and neighborhoods affect child and adolescent development. One component of the PHDCN was the Longitudinal Cohort Study, which was a series of coordinated longitudinal studies that followed over 6,000 randomly selected children, adolescents, and young adults, and their primary caregivers over time to examine the changing circumstances of their lives, as well as the personal characteristics, that might lead them toward or away from a variety of antisocial behaviors. Numerous measures were administered to respondents to gauge various aspects of human development, including individual differences, as well as family, peer, and school influences. The Self Report of Offending was a self-report questionnaire focused on a participant's involvement in antisocial behavior and the legal consequences of that behavior.
Curated
Restricted

Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods (PHDCN): Self Report of Offending, Wave 3, 2000-2002 (ICPSR 13742)

Released/updated on: 2006-10-11
Geographic coverage: United States, Chicago, Illinois
Time period: 2000-01-01--2002-01-01
The Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods (PHDCN) was a large-scale, interdisciplinary study of how families, schools, and neighborhoods affect child and adolescent development. One component of the PHDCN was the Longitudinal Cohort Study, which was a series of coordinated longitudinal studies that followed over 6,000 randomly selected children, adolescents, and young adults, and their primary caregivers over time to examine the changing circumstances of their lives, as well as the personal characteristics, that might lead them toward or away from a variety of antisocial behaviors. Numerous measures were administered to respondents to gauge various aspects of human development, including individual differences, as well as family, peer, and school influences. The Self Report of Offending was a self-report questionnaire focused on a participant's involvement in antisocial behavior and the legal consequences of that behavior. It was administered to Cohorts 6, 9, 12, 15, and 18. The Wave 1 (PROJECT ON HUMAN DEVELOPMENT IN CHICAGO NEIGHBORHOODS (PHDCN): SELF REPORT OF OFFENDING, WAVE 1, 1994-1997 [ICPSR 13601]) and Wave 2 (PROJECT ON HUMAN DEVELOPMENT IN CHICAGO NEIGHBORHOODS (PHDCN): SELF REPORT OF OFFENDING, WAVE 2, 1997-2000 [ICPSR 13658]) were administered to Cohorts 9, 12, 15, and 18.
Curated

Prosecuting Adolescents in Juvenile and Criminal Jurisdictions in Selected Counties in New Jersey and New York, 1992-1993 (ICPSR 3976)

Released/updated on: 2005-11-04
Geographic coverage: New York, United States, New Jersey
Time period: 1992-01-01--1993-01-01
A different model of justice is assumed to be reflected in the prosecution of adolescents in juvenile jurisdictions compared to criminal jurisdictions, with a juvenile justice model in the juvenile jurisdiction and a criminal justice model in the criminal jurisdiction. These two models of justice are believed to be very different from one another across three dimensions: formality of case processing, evaluation of defendants, and punishment. This research project compared the prosecution and punishment of adolescent felony offenders in the New Jersey juvenile jurisdiction and the New York criminal jurisdiction to determine whether these two models of justice varied across the two jurisdiction types. Data from this collection were used by the researcher only to examine the dimension of punishment severity across jurisdiction types and across courts within each jurisdiction type. Data were collected on comparable cases of adolescent felony offenders from counties in New Jersey and New York. Due to the very different boundaries between juvenile and criminal jurisdictions in these adjacent states, the data include cases (matched by offense and offender age) in New Jersey's juvenile jurisdiction and New York's criminal jurisdiction. Cases of 15- and 16-year-old defendants who had been charged with aggravated assault, robbery, or burglary in three counties of New Jersey and three counties of New York City in 1992 and 1993 were sampled. Variables include offender characteristics, such as age at offense, sex, race, and ethnicity, offense characteristics, court action and sentencing information, state, and county.
Curated

Pursuing a National Estimate of Dual System Youth, Illinois, New York, Ohio, 1992-2014 (ICPSR 39105)

Released/updated on: 2024-06-26
Geographic coverage: New York City, Illinois, Ohio
Time period: 1992-01-01--2014-12-31

Across the country, child welfare and juvenile justice systems now recognize that youth involved in both systems (i.e., dual system youth) are a vulnerable population who go unrecognized because of challenges in information-sharing and cross-system collaboration. These challenges currently prevent the development of accurate estimations of the number of dual system youth nationally and limit understanding of best practices used by jurisdictions implementing integrated systems models. OJJDP funded this secondary analysis study to address this gap in knowledge.

All data used in the Dual System Youth Design Study were owned or accessed by various partners. No primary data collection occurred in the study. In addition, most of the data accessed by the study partners was confidential, de-identified data that required memorandums of agreement and/or court orders to access and use. Some sites have ongoing or standing agreements with the public agencies who own the data which allow access and use for specific projects. Because, most frequently, the data are owned by the public service agencies and include sensitive information the data are not available to be publicly archived. Instead, here a descriptive overview is provided of the data used and accessed by each study partner as well as contact information of a person at each site that will be able to share syntax and/or coding parameters for those who are considering to replicate the findings or methods.

Researchers interested in inquiring the data and syntax used in this project should refer to the study partners section of the downloadable study documentation. Data provider agency names along with the specific study data that were requested are listed in the documentation.

Curated
Restricted

Youth Protective Factors Study: A Strategy for Promoting Success Based on Risks, Strengths, and Development, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin, 2014-2024 (ICPSR 39391)

Released/updated on: 2026-02-03
Geographic coverage: United States, Virginia, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania
Time period: 2014-01-01--2024-01-01
The Youth Protective Factors Study was a multistate examination of risk-need-responsivity and positive youth justice approaches and whether or not the effectiveness of these strategies varied by youths aged ten to 23 years old. In collaboration with the research labs at UMass Chan Medical and UC-Berkeley, the Council of State Governments Justice Center, and juvenile justice agencies in the three project states, the project examined violent recidivism after youths' juvenile justice involvement via two studies. One, a retrospective study involving over 30,000 juveniles to lengthen follow-up periods. Two, a prospective study of 3,380 youths referred to juvenile justice systems to obtain measures of protective factors and service participation. Variables included educational history, criminal background, behavioral measures, recidivism, family, and substance use. Additionally, age, gender, race, and ethnicity demographics were collected.