Search results

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

The Accountability and Incentives Management (AIM) system is a graduated response system that was implemented by the Maryland Department of Juvenile Services (DJS) to promote supervision compliance and reduce rates of supervision violations and recidivism, among other juvenile justice-related outcomes. The purpose of this study was to assess AIM's implementation and outcomes. The treatment group (or AIM group) included adjudicated youths who started/completed probation or aftercare supervision with DJS between November 1, 2015 and October 30, 2017. A comparison group was comprised of youth who were supervised prior to AIM implementation (July 1, 2013 to June 30, 2015).

Data were gathered from de-identified administrative records provided by DJS. The unit of analysis is the individual. Variables include: youth delinquency history before supervision; risk/needs assessment; detentions, complaints, and arrests during supervision; AIM sanctions and incentives; youth responses in the AIM program; and demographic characteristics such as age, gender, and race/ethnicity.

This project utilizes secondary data analysis of existing data. Recognizing that the school discipline and juvenile justice experience of immigrants may differ from non-immigrant children, the project explores the role immigration status and border location has on these outcomes.

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.

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 study was designed to begin to build a knowledge base to address the challenges of crossover youth in Maryland - those involved at some point in their lives in the dependency and delinquency systems. Employing a mix of qualitative and quantitative methods, the research focused on the five most populous jurisdictions in the state, Baltimore City, and Anne Arundel, Montgomery, Prince George's, and Baltimore Counties.

This collection includes 4 SPSS data files:

1. CINA BCity_Archive_final_Corrected-ICPSR.sav (n=400; 64 variables)
2. CY Stakeholder Survey_Archive_final_Corrected_Update2016-ICPSR.sav (n=164; 302 variables)
3. Delinquency_Risk_Archive_final_Corrected_Update2016-ICPSR.sav (n=1,127; 62 variables)
4. Needs_Archive_final-ICPSR.sav (n=700; 67 variables)

Data from interviews with 26 officials in state and local agencies to collect information on policies and practices affecting crossover youth in Maryland are not available as part of this collection.

The purpose of the Census of Juveniles on Probation (CJP) was to collect individual-level data about youth on probation, including their numbers and characteristics. The CJP survey asked respondents to report the total number of juveniles on formal probation within their reporting jurisdiction on the reference date of October 24, 2012.

For each youth on probation, responding agencies were asked to provide the following information: sex, date of birth, race, most serious offense, state and county where most serious offense was committed, and the state and county where the juvenile resided on the census reference date.

This data collection contains the national data.

This study examined the laws, policies, and practices related to juvenile DNA collection, as well as their implications for the juvenile and criminal justice systems. DNA evidence proved valuable in solving crimes, which motivated a concerted effort to expand the categories of offenders who provided DNA samples for analysis and inclusion in the Combined DNA Index System (CODIS), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)-operated national database.

State requirements for DNA collection, which initially focused on adult offenders convicted of sexual or violent offenses, expanded to include other categories of convicted felons, convicted misdemeanants, arrestees, and juveniles. In 30 states, certain categories of juveniles handled in the juvenile justice system must now provide DNA samples. The study was designed to explore the practice and implications of collecting DNA from juveniles and addressed the following questions:

1. How have state agencies, juvenile justice agencies and state laboratories implemented juvenile DNA collection laws?
2. What were the number and characteristics of juveniles with profiles included in CODIS?
3. How have juvenile profiles in CODIS contributed to public safety or other justice outcomes?
4. What improvements to policies and practices needed to be made?

To examine these questions, researchers at the Urban Institute: (1) systematically reviewed all state DNA statutes; (2) conducted semi-structured interviews with CODIS lab representatives in states that collect DNA from juveniles to understand how the laws were implemented; (3) collected and analyzed descriptive data provided by these labs on the volume and characteristics of juvenile profiles in CODIS; (4) conducted semi-structured interviews with juvenile and criminal justice stakeholders in five case study states; and (5) convened a meeting of federal officials and experts from the forensic and juvenile justice committees to explore the broader impacts of juvenile DNA collection.

The Denver Youth Survey (DYS) is part of the larger "Program of Research on the Causes and Correlates of Delinquency" initiated by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention in 1986. The DYS is a longitudinal study of problem and successful behavior over the life course that focuses on delinquency, drug use, victimization, and mental health. The DYS is based on a probability sample of households in "high-risk" neighborhoods of Denver, Colorado. These neighborhoods were selected on the basis of their social ecology in terms of population and housing characteristics. Only socially disorganized neighborhoods with high official crime rates (top one-third) were included. The survey respondents include 1,528 children and youth who were 7, 9, 11, 13, or 15 years old in 1987, and one of their parents, who lived in one of the more than 20,000 randomly selected households.

The survey respondents include 807 boys and 721 girls and include White (10 percent), Latino (45 percent), and African American (33 percent) youth, as well as 12 percent from other racial/ethnic backgrounds. The child and youth respondents, along with one caretaker, were interviewed annually from 1988 until 1992, and annually from 1995 until 1999. The age range covered by the study is from age 7 through age 26.

The dataset contains 1,528 cases and 22,081 variables.

The Denver Youth Survey (DYS) is part of the larger "Program of Research on the Causes and Correlates of Delinquency" initiated by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention in 1986. It is a longitudinal study of problem and successful behavior over the life course that focuses on delinquency, drug use, victimization, and mental health. DYS variables also address family demographics, neighborhood characteristics, parenting, and involvement in social roles.

The DYS is based on a probability sample of households in "high-risk" neighborhoods of Denver, Colorado. These neighborhoods were selected on the basis of their social ecology in terms of population and housing characteristics. Only socially disorganized neighborhoods with high (top one-third) official crime rates were included. The survey respondents include 1,528 children and youth who were 7, 9, 11, 13, or 15 years old in 1987, and one of their parents, who lived in one of the more than 20,000 randomly selected households.

The survey respondents include 807 boys and 721 girls and include White (10%), Latino (45%), and African American (33%) youth, as well as 12% from other racial/ethnic backgrounds. The child and youth respondents, along with one caretaker, were interviewed annually from 1988 until 1992 (waves 1-5), annually from 1995 until 1999 (waves 6-10), and in 2003 (wave 11). The study covers an age range of 7 through 26.

Because there are few existing tools for assessing the risk of recidivism for youth with a history of sexual offending that are empirically valid and reliable, knowledge and practice in this area has historically been limited. This project examined current practice and policy in the assessment, treatment, and management of juvenile sex offenders across multiple jurisdictions (Florida, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Virginia). The researchers developed a prototype assessment tool, state-specific risk assessment models, and practical guidance for building a risk assessment for sexual recidivism in juvenile justice settings.

The data file contains individual records for the full sample (n=8,035), including their risk predictors, recidivism measures, and resulting outputs (i.e., predicted probabilities of sexual recidivism) from the risk models.

The objective of this study was to systematically review and statistically synthesize all available research that, at a minimum, compared participants in a restorative justice program to participants processed in a more traditional way using meta-analytic methods. Ideally, these studies would include research designs with random assignment to condition groups, as this provides the most credible evidence of program effectiveness.

The systematic search identified 99 publications, both published and unpublished, reporting on the results of 84 evaluations nested within 60 unique research projects or studies. Results were extracted from these studies, related to delinquency, non-delinquency, and victim outcomes for the youth and victims participating in these programs.

The Evaluation of Florida's Avon Park Youth Academy and STREET Smart Program, 2002-2008 contains data gathered on youth involved in programs which aim to increase educational outcomes, increase labor force participation, and reduce recidivism.

Avon Park Youth Academy (APYA) is a secure custody residential facility that provides specialized, remedial education and intensive vocational training to moderate risk youth committed to the Florida Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ). The STREET Smart program (SS) was the reentry component of the program, which provided community support and educational and vocational services to APYA participants on a voluntary basis after their release to the community. In the last several years, APYA/SS has received national and international recognition as a "Promising Program" for juvenile offenders. Both the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) and the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) determined that a rigorous evaluation was required to assess whether APYA/SS could progress from a "Promising Program" to an "Evidence-based Practice."

To conduct this evaluation, the National Council on Crime and Delinquency (NCCD) designed and conducted a field trial that randomly assigned youth committed to DJJ to the APYA/SS program or a control group. This experimental design permitted a rigorous test of the hypothesis that compared to the control group, APYA/SS participants would demonstrate more positive educational achievement, increased labor force participation, and reduced recidivism outcomes after community release.

The 360 youth assigned to the experimental control group stayed at APYA for an average of 9.7 months from 2002-2005. Of these, 301 youth completed participation in the SS program by March 2006. The youth were observed for a three-year period after their community release dates. This included an interview following release from incarceration to collect data on educational achievements, employment, and justice system program experiences. All subjects had reached the 36-month follow-up threshold as of May 2008.

In response to growing concerns about recidivism and the welfare of youth who return to communities from incarceration, the federal government passed the Second Chance Act (SCA) in 2008 to authorize funding to support the development, implementation, and evaluation of juvenile reentry programs (H.R. 1593, 110th Cong. 2007). Since then, more than 100 juvenile SCA awards have been made to grantees across the U.S. to improve reentry programming and outcomes for youth returning home after placement in juvenile correctional institutions (State Government Justice Center, 2017).

The purpose of this evaluation was to evaluate five FY2010 juvenile SCA grantees who were funded to implement comprehensive reentry programs for high-risk youth, and to provide policymakers, practitioners, and funders with empirical evidence about the degree to which the SCA program effectively reduced recidivism and improved reintegration outcomes for youth offenders, and to inform future comprehensive juvenile reentry efforts.

Specific goals of this study included:

1. identifying strong sites for an impact evaluation;
2. assessing the extent to which the sites successfully implemented a comprehensive and integrated model of juvenile reentry for a high-risk, high-needs population;
3. assessing program operations and adherence to reentry principles;
4. evaluating the impact of the SCA programs;
5. determining the cost effectiveness of the SCA programs, and their cost-benefit in terms of crime prevented; and
6. disseminating evaluation findings to practitioner and researcher audiences.

A critical gap in knowledge about service provision for domestic minor sex trafficking (DMST) victims is why youth resist help from providers. This project asked DMST survivors about the barriers they experienced and their readiness to leave their commercial sexual exploitation. The study included an in-depth qualitative phase of formerly sex trafficked women (n=41), followed by a cross-sectional, self-report survey administered to recently trafficked young adults (n=94).

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 three strategies to investigate the impact of incarceration on families. First, a statewide integrated data system was used to examine impacts of incarceration in a novel way, using administrative data from corrections, juvenile justice, mental health, social services, substance use services, healthcare, and education. Second, researchers linked multi-agency data to address specific research questions regarding impact of incarceration on families, including impact of incarceration on family physical and mental health, children's involvement with the child welfare and juvenile justice systems, family economic status, and school performance. Third, researchers conducted focus groups and family interviews with 77 inmates and 21 inmate family members sampled from three correctional facilities. Researchers identified qualitative themes regarding impact of incarceration in the lives of inmates and their families.

Only data from the focus groups is included in this collection. The collection includes two SPSS data files: "Inmate_Demographic_Data.sav" with 15 variables and 77 cases and "Family_Demographic_Data.sav" with 19 variables and 21 cases. The actual focus group interviews with inmates and their family members are not available as part of this collection at this time. Administrative data from the South Carolina Revenue and Fiscal Affairs Office was not made available for archiving. Users interested in obtaining these data should consult the accompanying documentation.

The Juvenile Residential Facility Census (JRFC), which is conducted biennially, collects basic information on juvenile residential facility characteristics, including security, capacity and crowding, injuries and deaths in custody, and facility ownership and operation. The JRFC also includes questions about facility type (such as detention center, training school, ranch, or group home) and residential services provided by the facility (such as independent living, foster care, or other arrangements), and detailed questions about mental health, substance abuse, and educational services provided to young persons.

In 2016, the JRFC was divided into seven sections:

1. General facility information
2. Mental health services
3. Educational services
4. Substance abuse services
5. Events in the 30 days prior to the census reference date
6. Deaths in the year prior to the census reference date
7. Space shared with other facilities

Congress requires the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) to report annually on the number of deaths of juveniles in custody; the JRFC gathers this information and offers a portrait of the nation's juvenile facilities. The census reference date was the fourth Wednesday in October.

The Juvenile Residential Facility Census (JRFC), which is conducted biennially, collects basic information on juvenile residential facility characteristics, including security, capacity and crowding, injuries and deaths in custody, and facility ownership and operation. The JRFC also includes questions about facility type (such as detention center, training school, ranch, or group home) and residential services provided by the facility (such as independent living, foster care, or other arrangements), and detailed questions about mental health, substance abuse, and educational services provided to young persons.

In 2018, the JRFC was divided into seven sections:

1. General facility information
2. Mental health services
3. Educational services
4. Substance abuse services
5. Events in the 30 days prior to the census reference date
6. Deaths in the year prior to the census reference date
7. Space shared with other facilities

Congress requires the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) to report annually on the number of deaths of juveniles in custody; the JRFC gathers this information and offers a portrait of the nation's juvenile facilities. The census reference date was the fourth Wednesday in October.

The Juvenile Residential Facility Census (JRFC), which is conducted biennially, collects basic information on juvenile residential facility characteristics, including security, capacity and crowding, injuries and deaths in custody, and facility ownership and operation. The JRFC also includes questions about facility type (such as detention center, training school, ranch, or group home) and residential services provided by the facility (such as independent living, foster care, or other arrangements), and detailed questions about mental health, substance abuse, and educational services provided to young persons.

In 2020, the JRFC was divided into eight sections:

1. General facility information
2. Mental health services
3. Educational services
4. Substance abuse services
5. Events in the 30 days prior to the census reference date
6. Deaths in the year prior to the census reference date
7. Space shared with other facilities
8. Coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19)

Congress requires the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) to report annually on the number of deaths of juveniles in custody; the JRFC gathers this information and offers a portrait of the nation's juvenile facilities. The census reference date was the fourth Wednesday in October (October 28, 2020).

The Juvenile Residential Facility Census (JRFC), which is conducted biennially, collects basic information on juvenile residential facility characteristics, including security, capacity and crowding, injuries and deaths in custody, and facility ownership and operation. The JRFC also includes questions about facility type (such as detention center, training school, ranch, or group home) and residential services provided by the facility (such as independent living, foster care, or other arrangements), and detailed questions about mental health, substance abuse, and educational services provided to young persons.

In 2022, the JRFC was divided into seven sections:

1. General facility information
2. Mental health services
3. Educational services
4. Substance abuse services
5. Events in the 30 days prior to the census reference date
6. Deaths in the year prior to the census reference date
7. Space shared with other facilities

Congress requires the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) to report annually on the number of deaths of juveniles in custody; the JRFC gathers this information and offers a portrait of the nation's juvenile facilities. The census reference date was the fourth Wednesday in October (October 26, 2022).

The Long-Term Risk-Need-Responsivity (RNR) Impact Study was a pre-post, quasi-experimental study of the impact of the implementation of risk-needs assessment (RNA) and risk-need-responsivity-related (RNR) case management in 5 juvenile probation offices in 2 states. This study used 3 time points (pre-implementation, 1st year post-implementation, and 7th-year post-implementation) to examine the 7-year sustainability of impacts on system-responses (rates of informal processing, different dispositions, and out-of-home placements), youth outcomes (school and employment), and recidivism; as well as cost-effectiveness.

This study also examined whether there was a significant difference in the impacts of implementation after 7 years between probation offices that were effective versus ineffective in their first year of implementation.

This two-phase study examined factors influencing decisions that lead from a school-based incident to exclusionary discipline, an arrest, and a referral to the juvenile court. The research team hypothesized that multiple external factors such as race identity, socioeconomic status, and others would negatively impact the decision-maker, and generate harsher punishments for those who are in these vulnerable groups. Phase 1 involved interviewing groups of key stakeholders including school administrators, district administrators, discipline coordinators, juvenile court judges and other staff, law enforcement officers, Positive Behavior Intervention Support (PBIS) coordinators, and child welfare agencies to understand their approaches to behavior management. Phase 2 involved secondary analysis of data from local school districts and the juvenile court with jurisdiction in two counties.