Showing 1 – 24 of 24 results.
Curated
Restricted
Applying Data Science to Justice Systems: The North Carolina Statewide Warrant Repository (NCAWARE), 2014-2019 (ICPSR 37462)
Released/updated on: 2022-12-13
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Greensboro, United States
Time period: 2014-01-01--2019-01-01
This study uses the data from the unified, statewide warrant repository NCAWARE (NC Arrest Warrant Repository) to evaluate a proposed system for processing and serving arrest warrants. The NCAWARE system is maintained by the North Carolina Administrative Office of the Courts (NCAOC). The study takes place within the Greensboro, NC police department where two of the four police districts utilized the system. This study is the result of the unorganized system for processing and serving warrants and the significant backlog of cases with outstanding warrants that exists across the country. One of the purposes of this study was to create a systematic approach for law enforcement agencies to prioritize the execution of warrants.
Curated
Augmented Federal Probation, Sentencing, and Supervision Information System, 1985 (ICPSR 9664)
Released/updated on: 2006-01-12
Geographic coverage: United States
The United States Sentencing Commission, established by the 98th Congress, is an independent agency in the judicial branch of government. The Commission recommends guidelines prescribing the appropriate form and severity of punishment for offenders convicted of federal crimes. These data were collected to determine whether sentencing disparities existed and whether the guidelines were adequate. Basic information in the collection includes a description of the offense, characterization of the defendant's background and criminal record, method of disposition of the case, and sentence imposed. Felony and misdemeanor cases are included while petty offense cases are excluded. Three types of additional information were used to augment the existing data: (1) more detailed offense and offender characteristics identified by the United States Sentencing Commission but coded by federal probation officers, (2) actual time served in prison from the SENTRY data file of the United States Bureau of Prisons, and (3) information necessary to estimate prospective release dates from the hearing files of the United States Parole Commission. The unit of analysis is the defendant.
Curated
Restricted
Charlotte [North Carolina] Spouse Assault Replication Project, 1987-1989 (ICPSR 6114)
Released/updated on: 2006-07-13
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Charlotte, United States
Time period: 1987-08-01--1989-06-01
This study is a replication and extension of an experiment conducted in Minneapolis (MINNEAPOLIS INTERVENTION PROJECT, 1986-1987 [ICPSR 9808]) to test the efficacy of three types of police response to spouse abuse. Three experimental treatments were employed: (1) advising and possibly separating the couple, (2) issuing a citation (an order to appear in court to answer specific charges) to the offender, and (3) arresting the offender. The main focus of the project concerned whether arrest is the most effective law enforcement response for deterring recidivism of spouse abusers. Cases were randomly assigned to one of the three treatments and were followed for at least six months to determine whether recidivism occurred. Measures of recidivism were obtained through official police records and victim interviews. Cases that met the following eligibility guidelines were included in the project: (1) a call involving a misdemeanor offense committed by a male offender aged 18 or over against a female victim aged 18 or over who were spouses, (2) ex-spouses, (3) cohabitants, or (4) ex-cohabitants. Also, both suspect and victim had to be present when officers arrived at the scene. Victims were interviewed twice. The first interview occurred shortly after the "presenting incident," the incident that initiated a call for police assistance. This initial interview focused on episodes of abuse that occurred between the time of the presenting incident and the day of the initial interview. In particular, detailed data were gathered on the nature of physical violence directed against the victim, the history of the victim's marital and cohabitating relationships, the nature of the presenting incident prior to the arrival of the police, the actual actions taken by the police at the scene, post-incident separations and reunions of the victim and the offender, recidivism since the presenting incident, the victim's previous abuse history, alcohol and drug use of both the victim and the offender, and the victim's help-seeking actions. Questions were asked regarding whether the offender had threatened to hurt the victim, actually hurt or tried to hurt the victim, threatened to hurt any member of the family, actually hurt or tried to hurt any member of the family, threatened to damage property, or actually damaged any property. In addition, criminal histories and arrest data for the six-month period subsequent to the presenting incident were collected for offenders. A follow-up interview was conducted approximately six months after the presenting incident and focused primarily on recidivism since the initial interview. Arrest recidivism was defined as any arrest for any subsequent offense by the same offender against the same victim committed within six months of the presenting incident. Victims were asked to estimate how often each type of victimization had occurred and to answer more detailed questions on the first and most recent incidents of victimization.
Curated
Electronic Monitoring of Nonviolent Convicted Felons: An Experiment in Home Detention in Marion County, Indiana, 1986-1988 (ICPSR 9587)
Released/updated on: 2006-01-12
Geographic coverage: Indiana, United States
Time period: 1986-11-01--1988-12-01
The purpose of the study was to provide information about home detention monitoring systems and to evaluate their effectiveness. The principal investigators sought to determine (1) whether electronic monitoring systems relieved some of the burdens associated with manual monitoring of home detention, such as making telephone calls and field visits, (2) how home detention affected the lifestyles of offenders, (3) whether the methods of monitoring influenced offender behavior during the program, (4) how electronic monitoring differed from manual monitoring in terms of supervision of the offenders, (5) how offenders reacted to electronic monitoring, (6) how offenders' families reacted to electronic monitoring, and (7) whether the method of monitoring influenced the probability of an arrest or subsequent contact with the criminal justice system after release from the program. Part 1 contains demographic information, such as age, race, marital status, number of children, living arrangements, employment, and education for each offender. Also included is information on the offense leading to the current case, including numbers and types of charges and convictions for both felonies and misdemeanors, recommendations and judicial disposition for the current case, and information on the criminal history of the offender. Part 2 contains data from the intake interview with the offender, such as information on the offender's family, living arrangements, education, employment, past alcohol and drug use, and expectations for the home detention program and monitoring procedures. Part 3 contains information collected in the exit interview and is similar in content to Part 2. Part 4 contains information on the program delivery (type of release from the program, violations of the program, results of tests for alcohol and drug use, errand time, payment, contacts with offenders, and the characteristics and results of the contacts with electronically monitored offenders). Part 5 is a check of criminal histories of offenders for at least one year after their release from the program.
Curated
Restricted
Evaluating a Lethality Scale for the Seattle Police Department Domestic Violence Unit, 1995-1997 (ICPSR 3026)
Released/updated on: 2012-08-22
Geographic coverage: Seattle, United States, Washington
Time period: 1995-01-01--1997-12-31
The specific aim of this project was to evaluate the usefulness of the Seattle Police Department's (SPD) Lethality Scale in identifying misdemeanor cases that might be high risk for escalating violence and subsequent felony incidents. Data provide information on 11,972 unique couples with incidents occurring between January 1, 1995, and December 31, 1997, involving intimate couples in which the suspect was at least 18 years old and the victim was at least 16, with no age restriction for cases referred to the juvenile division. The researchers reformatted the Domestic Violence Unit's (DVU) database to reflect a three-year history of violence between unique couple members. Only intimate couples were considered, meaning suspects and victims who were married, divorced, had a child in common, or were dating. The Lethality Scale was derived from the data in the DVU database. It was composed of six incident characteristic components (offense score, weapon score, location score, injury score, personal score, and incident/other score) with varying values that contributed to an overall score. The Total Lethality Score was the sum of the values from these six components. The lethality score referred to an individual only and did not reflect information about other people involved in the incident. To interpret the score, the DVU specified a period of time--for example, six months--and computed lethality score values for every person involved in an incident during this period. Information on individuals with a Total Lethality Score over a certain cut-off was printed and reviewed by a detective. Data are provided for up to 25 incidents per unique couple. Incident variables in the dataset provide information on number of persons involved in the incident, time and weekday of the incident, beat, precinct, census tract, and place where the incident occurred, type of primary and secondary offenses, if a warrant was served, charges brought, final disposition, weapon type used, arrests made, court order information, if evidence was collected, if statements or photos were taken by the DVU, and sergeant action. Dates were converted to time intervals and provide the number of days between the incident date and the date the file was sent to the prosecutor, the date charges were brought, and the date the case was officially closed. Time intervals were also calculated for days between each incident for that couple. Personal information on the two persons in a couple includes age, gender, injuries and treatment, relationship and cohabitation status of the individuals, pregnancy status of each individual, alcohol and drug use at the time of the incident, and role of the individual in the incident (victim, suspect, victim/suspect). Lethality scale scores are included as well as the number of incidents in which the unique couple was involved in 1995 and 1996, and 1989 median household income for the census tract.
Curated
Restricted
Evaluating the Impact of Probation and Parole Home Visits, United States, 2016 and 2018 (ICPSR 37172)
Released/updated on: 2020-09-29
Geographic coverage: United States, Ohio, Minnesota
In 2014, the researchers began work on a grant from the National Institute of Justice to evaluate the effectiveness of home and field contacts in community supervision. The study was designed to describe the varying practices of home and other field contacts in community supervision, to document their use nationwide, and to evaluate their effectiveness in maintaining public safety and promoting compliance with supervision requirements. The research is designed to address the gap in the understanding of home and field contacts as part of community supervision.
While home and field contacts with clients are common practice within many probation and parole agencies, little is known about how they are conducted, the goals of their use, and whether they impact client outcomes. Researchers conducted a mixed methods study of home and field contact practices within multiple agencies. A nationwide survey of community supervision agencies at the federal, state, and local levels was conducted to understand common policies and practices for home and field contacts. To analyze the effectiveness of home and field contacts, quasi-experimental designs were employed using administrative data. To understand the activities that make up home and field contacts and the goals behind them within each agency, officers were asked to complete a qualitative home and field contact checklist and participate in focus groups.
Curated
Evaluation of North Carolina's 1994 Structured Sentencing Law, 1992-1998 (ICPSR 2891)
Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, United States
Time period: 1992-01-01--1998-01-01
Effective October 1, 1994, the state of North Carolina implemented a new structured sentencing law that applied to all felony and misdemeanor crimes (except for driving while impaired) committed on or after October 1, 1994. Under the new structured sentencing law parole was eliminated, and a sentencing commission developed recommended ranges of punishment for offense and offender categories, set priorities for the use of correctional resources, and developed a model to estimate correctional populations. This study sought to investigate sentencing reforms by looking at the effects of structured sentencing on multiple aspects of the adjudication process in North Carolina. A further objective was to determine whether there were differences in the commission of institutional infractions between inmates sentenced to North Carolina prisons under the pre-structured versus structured sentencing laws. Researchers hoped that the results of this study may help North Carolina and jurisdictions around the country (1) anticipate the likely effects of structured sentencing laws, (2) design new laws that might better achieve the jurisdictions' goals, and (3) improve the potential of sentencing legislation in order to enhance public safety in an effective and equitable way. Administrative records data were collected from two sources. First, in order to examine the effects of structured sentencing on the adjudication process in North Carolina, criminal case data were obtained from the North Carolina Administrative Office of the Courts (Parts 1 and 2). The pre-structured sentencing and structured sentencing samples were selected at the case level, and each record in Parts 1 and 2 represents a charged offense processed in either the North Carolina Superior or District Court. Second, inmate records data were collected from administrative records provided by the North Carolina Department of Correction (Part 3). These data were used to compare the involvement in infractions of inmates sentenced under both pre-structured and structured sentencing. The data for Part 3 focused on inmates entering the prison system between June 1, 1995, and January 31, 1998. Variables for Parts 1 and 2 include type of charge, charged offense date, method of disposition (e.g., dismissal, withdrawal, jury trial), defendant's plea, verdict for the offense, and whether the offense was processed through the North Carolina Superior or District Court. Structured sentencing offense class and modified Uniform Crime Reporting code for both charged and convicted offenses are presented for Parts 1 and 2. There are also county, prosecutorial district, and defendant episode identifiers in both parts. Variables related to defendant episodes include types of offenses within episode, total number of charges and convictions, whether all charges were dismissed, whether any felony charge resulted in a jury trial, and the adjudication time for all charges. Demographic variables for Parts 1 and 2 include the defendant's age, race, and gender. Part 3 variables include the date of prison admission, sentence type, number of prior incarcerations, number of years served during prior incarcerations, maximum sentence length for current incarceration, jail credit in years, count of all infractions during current and prior incarcerations, reason for incarceration, infraction rate, the risk for alcohol and drug dependency based on alcohol and chemical dependency screening scores, and the number of assault, drug/alcohol, profanity/disobedience, work absence, and money/property infractions during an inmate's current incarceration. Demographic variables for Part 3 include race, gender, and age at the time of each inmate's prison admission.
Curated
Evaluation of the Midtown Community Court in New York City, 1992-1994 (ICPSR 2311)
Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: New York City, United States, New York (state)
Time period: 1992-01-01--1994-01-01
In October 1993, the Midtown Community Court opened as a three-year demonstration project designed to forge links with the community in developing a problem-solving approach to quality-of-life offenses. The problems that this community-based courthouse sought to address were specific to the court's midtown New York City location: high concentration of quality-of-life crimes, broad community dissatisfaction with court outcomes, visible signs of disorder, and clusters of persistent high-rate offenders with serious problems, including addiction and homelessness. This study was conducted to evaluate how well the new court was able to dispense justice locally and whether the establishment of the Midtown Community Court made a difference in misdemeanor case processing. Data were collected at two time periods for a comparative analysis. First, a baseline dataset (Part 1, Baseline Data) was constructed from administrative records, consisting of a ten-percent random sample of all nonfelony arraignments in Manhattan during the 12 months prior to the opening of the Midtown Community Court. Second, comparable administrative data (Part 2, Comparison Data) were collected from all cases arraigned at the Midtown Court during its first 12 months of operation, as well as from a random sample of all downtown nonfelony arraignments held during this same time period. Both files contain variables on precinct of arrest, arraignment type, charges, bonds, dispositions, sentences, total number of court appearances, and total number of warrants issued, as well as prior felony and misdemeanor convictions. Demographic variables include age, sex, and race of offender.
Curated
Restricted
Evaluation of the Red Hook Community Justice Center in Brooklyn, [New York City, New York], 1998-2010 (ICPSR 34742)
Released/updated on: 2016-09-29
Geographic coverage: New York City, United States, Brooklyn, New York (state)
Time period: 2008-01-01--2010-01-01, 1998-01-01--2009-12-01, 2000-01-01--2009-01-01
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).
Curated
Restricted
Factors Related to Domestic Violence Court Dispositions in a Large Midwestern Urban Area, 1997-1998: [United States] (ICPSR 3010)
Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1997-01-01--1998-01-01
The goal of this study was to identify factors that influence whether city misdemeanor domestic violence cases in which batterers are arrested by police result in dismissals, acquittals, or convictions in the courts, and how these cases are processed. The researchers sought to examine factors that influence court officials' decision-making in domestic violence cases, as well as factors that influence victim and witness reluctance in bringing batterers to successful adjudication. In Part 1 researchers merged pretrial services data with information from police and prosecutors' reports in the urban area under study to answer the following questions: (1) What is the rate of dismissals, acquittals, and convictions for misdemeanor court cases and what are the conditions of these sentences? (2) What factors in court cases are significantly related to whether the disposition is a dismissal, acquittal, or conviction, and how are these cases processed? In Part 2, judges, prosecutors, and public defenders were asked detailed questions about their level of knowledge about, attitudes toward, and self-reported behaviors regarding the processing of domestic violence cases to find out: (1) What roles do legal and extra-legal factors play in decision-makers' self-reported behaviors and attitudes? (2) How do decision-makers rate victim advocate and batterer treatment programs? (3) How do court professionals view the victim's role in the court process? and (4) To what degree do court professionals report victim-blaming attitudes and experiences? For Part 3 researchers used a stratified random sample to select court cases of misdemeanor domestic violence that would be transcribed and used for a content analysis to examine: (1) Who speaks in court and how? and (2) What is considered relevant by different court players? In Parts 4-103 victim surveys and interviews were administered to learn about battered women's experiences in both their personal lives and the criminal processing system. Researchers sought to answer the following questions: (1) How do victim/witnesses perceive their role in the prosecution of their abusers? (2) What factors inhibit them from pursuing prosecution? (3) What factors might help them pursue prosecution? and (4) How consistent are the victims'/witnesses' demographic and psychological profiles with existing research in this area? Domestic violence victims attending arraignment between January 1 and December 31 of 1997 were asked to complete surveys to identify their concerns about testifying against their partners and to evaluate the effectiveness of the court system in dealing with domestic violence cases (Part 4). The disposition of each case was subsequently determined by a research team member's examination of defendants' case files and/or court computer files. Upon case closure victims who had both completed a survey and indicated a willingness to be interviewed were contacted to participate in an interview (Parts 5-103). Variables in Part 1, Pretrial Services Data, include prior criminal history, current charges, case disposition, sentence, victim testimony, police testimony, victim's demeanor at trial, judge's conduct, type of abuse involved, weapons used, injuries sustained, and type of evidence available for trial. Demographic variables include age, sex, and race of defendants, victims, prosecutors, and judges. In Part 2, Professional Survey Data, respondents were asked about their tolerance for victims and offenders who appeared in court more than once, actions taken when substance abuse was involved, the importance of injuries in making a decision, attitudes toward battered women, the role of victim advocates and the police, views on restraining orders, and opinion on whether arrest is a deterrent. Demographic variables include age, sex, race, marital status, and years of professional experience. Variables in Part 3, Court Transcript Data, include number and type of charges, pleas, reasons for dismissals, types of evidence submitted by prosecutors and defense, substance abuse by victim and defendant, living arrangements and number of children of victim and defendant, specific type of abuse, injuries sustained, witnesses to injuries, police testimony, verdict, and sentence. Demographic variables include age and sex of defendant and victim and relationship of victim and defendant. In Part 4, Victim Survey Data, victims were asked about their relationship and living arrangements with the defendant, concerns about testifying in court, desired outcomes of case and punishment for defendant, emotional issues related to abuse, health problems, substance abuse, support networks, other violent domestic incidents and injuries, and safety concerns. Part 5 variables measured victims' safety at different stages of the criminal justice process and danger experienced due to further violent incidents, presence of weapons, and threats of homicide or suicide. Parts 6-103 contain the qualitative interview data.
Curated
Restricted
Florida State University and Florida Department of Juvenile Justice Research Partnership Project, 2002-2017 (ICPSR 36972)
Released/updated on: 2018-10-29
Geographic coverage: Florida
Time period: 2002-01-01--2016-07-01, 2015-08-01--2017-03-01, 2004-03-01--2012-12-01
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.
A researcher-practitioner partnership was established between the College of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Florida State University and the Florida Department of Juvenile Justice (FDJJ). The purpose of this partnership was to collaborate on three timely and policy relevant research projects--(1) juvenile civil citation (JCC), (2) juvenile visitation (JV), and (3) juvenile school-based arrests (JSBA).
This collection includes 9 Stata data files: "JV-Full-Data-Set" with 78 vars, 1,202 cases, "JCC-County-Data" with 18 vars, 938 cases, "JCC-Individual-Data" with 22 vars, 110,088 cases, "JCC-Individual-Data-with-Risk-Factors" with 35 vars, 51,263 cases, "JCC-Trend-Data" with 6 vars, 11,725 cases, "JSBA-Descriptives-Data" with 14 vars, 94,708 cases, "JSBA-Dropout-Data" with 4 vars, 94,708 cases, "JSBA-Recidivism-Data" with 51 vars, 30,723 cases, "JSBA-School-level-Data" with 45 vars, 893 cases, and 9 Stata syntax files "JV-Full-Data-Set-Syntax.do", "JCC-County-Data.do", "JCC-Individual-Data.do", "JCC-Individual-Data-with-Risk-Factors.do", "JCC-Trend-Data.do", "JSBA-Descriptives-Code.do", "JSBA-Dropout-Code.do", "JSBA-Recidivism-Code.do", and "JSBA-School-level-Code".
Curated
Restricted
Hate Crime Investigations and Offender Profiles: A National Survey of U.S. Law Enforcement Agencies, United States, 2018 (ICPSR 38262)
Released/updated on: 2024-12-10
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 2018-01-01--2018-12-31
The National Hate Crime Investigation Study (NHCIS) collected detailed data on hate crime investigations from law enforcement agencies (LEAs) across the United States. A nationally representative sample of 2,488 local, county, and state LEAs, stratified by agency type and size, were surveyed about agency-level characteristics and hate crime incidents investigated by their agency between January 1, 2018 and December 31, 2018.
Agency-level surveys collected information about the size of the population the agency serves, the number of full-time sworn officers, total number of hate crime cases reported, National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) participation, hate crime investigation policies and procedures, and whether the agency has conducted outreach to community or local advocacy groups on hate crimes. Case-level surveys and case report data abstraction then captured extensive data about 1,230 hate crime incidents, including crime scene details, investigative strategies, arrests, charges, and court outcomes.
Suspect and victim demographic information in the Case Data file includes sex, gender identity, age, race/ethnicity, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, disability status, and immigration status.
Curated
Restricted
Impact of Proactive Enforcement of No-Contact Orders on Victim Safety and Repeat Victimization in Lexington County, South Carolina, 2005-2008 (ICPSR 25261)
Released/updated on: 2013-07-31
Geographic coverage: United States, South Carolina
Time period: 2005-11-01--2008-06-01
The study focused on domestic violence victims whose alleged batterers were free on bond with a no-contact order (NCO) as a condition of their release in Lexington County, South Carolina between 2005 and 2008. The project involved a prospective, randomized experimental study in which 466 NCO cases were randomly assigned to either the current level of NCO enforcement (the control condition, N=229) or to proactive enforcement (the treatment condition, N=237). An additional 51 interim control cases were enrolled in the study during a coverage gap between the two officers that implemented the treatment condition over the course of the study. The treatment condition involved the following intervention: (1) a special domestic violence investigator assigned by the jurisdiction's sheriff proactively "checked in" with the "treatment" group of victims to verify that they understood the NCO and to monitor compliance; (2) the investigator provided advice on mobilizing law enforcement and collecting evidence to help sanction the offender if the order was violated. Data were collected from official Lexington County Sheriff's Department (LCSD), Criminal Domestic Violence Court (CDVC), and Office of Diversion Programs (ODP) records (Dataset 1, Offender Data). Efforts were made to interview victims at six weeks (Dataset 2, Time 1 Victim Interview Data, N=141) and six months (Dataset 3, Time 2 Victim Interview Data, N=100) after the gateway arrest. Dataset 4 (Combined Time 1/Time 2 Victim Interview Data, N=97) include overall measures for respondents who completed both the Time 1 and Time 2 interviews. The victim interviews include measures on background characteristics, life experiences, circumstances surrounding the "gateway incident" which resulted in the case being enrolled in the study, and subsequent victimization experiences and no-contact order compliance levels.
Curated
Integrating the Ion Mobility Spectrometer Into Drug Monitoring at the New Orleans Pretrial Diversion Program, 1996 (ICPSR 3213)
Released/updated on: 2005-11-04
Geographic coverage: United States, Louisiana, New Orleans
This project was designed to evaluate the use of a drug detection instrument, the ion mobility spectrometer (IMS), and to integrate its use into an ongoing pretrial diversion program for nonviolent, first-time, drug-abusing offenders. The Pretrial Diversion Program in Orleans Parish, Louisiana, targeted offenders with limited arrest histories of nonviolent felony or misdemeanor violations. The majority of eligible participants were violators of simple drug possession statutes, primarily crack/cocaine or marijuana. Persons charged with drug distribution offenses were not eligible. In order to qualify for diversion, persons had to admit guilt regarding the acts for which they were arrested. The program was entirely voluntary. One of the unique aspects of this program was its aggressive use of drug testing, including urinalysis and hair analysis. This project evaluated the ability of the IMS to provide complete drug profile information to supervising agencies and assessed its usefulness to field staff engaged in drug monitoring duties. The project was based on the premise that enhanced information on offenders diverted into this program could create or improve several key aspects of program operation, such as client assessment, monitoring of compliance and progress, dispositional decision-making, client motivation, and staff morale. The study was designed to integrate the IMS into the normal operation of the New Orleans Pretrial Diversion Program with as little modification of existing treatment and supervision protocols as possible. Each client in the diversion program underwent an intensive intake assessment including an intake radioimmunoassay (RIA) hair assay and an additional RIA hair assay every 60 days. Each client was urine-tested at intake and assigned to a random test pool. The modified protocol for the project added an IMS-based scan or a hair specimen, skin wipe, and ten-second vacuum scan of clothing, hands, and axillae at intake. At each subsequent visit each client had a repeat IMS scan utilizing a skin swab and a scan of clothing or body area. Variables include self-reported cocaine use, self-reported marijuana use, IMS date, urinalysis date, hair assay results, urinalysis results, IMS detection, nicotine use, maximum amplitude, delta, cumulative amplitude, number of detections, whether the IMS showed a positive result, and the age, sex, and race of the client.
Curated
Pennsylvania Sentencing Data, 1977, 1980, 1983 (ICPSR 8327)
Released/updated on: 2006-01-18
Geographic coverage: United States, Pennsylvania
This data collection contains information on sentencing decisions in Pennsylvania for three years: 1977, 1980, and 1983. The 1977 data are based on separate 12-percent random samples of sentences selected from each of Pennsylvania's 67 counties. The 1980 data were collected in 23 of Pennsylvania's 67 counties. The sampling strategy varied by county, and a description is included in the codebook. The 1983 data are based on sentencing guideline forms submitted to the Commission by sentencing judges. The data include sentences imposed for felony and misdemeanor offenses, excluding driving under the influence. All three files contain demographic information, including defendant's sex, race, age, prior record, offense charge, sentences imposed, weapon usage, victim information, and socioeconomic status.
Curated
Restricted
Pennsylvania Sentencing Data, 1996 (ICPSR 3062)
Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: United States, Pennsylvania
The Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing is a legislative agency of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The Commission develops sentencing guidelines for judges to use when sentencing felony and misdemeanor offenses. The judges report sentences to the Commission on a Guideline Sentence Form. This data collection reflects all felonies and misdemeanors reported to the Commission that were sentenced during calendar year 1996. The data are contained in two files. Part 1, Records Data, provides information on each offender, including rudimentary demographic characteristics and prior offense history. Part 2, Offense Data, contains information on each offense, including the statutory citation for the offense, the Offense Gravity Score assigned by the Commission, the offender's Prior Record Score, and the sentence given the offender.
Curated
Restricted
Pennsylvania Sentencing Data, 1998 (ICPSR 3450)
Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: United States, Pennsylvania
The Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing is a legislative agency of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania that develops sentencing guidelines for judges to use when sentencing felony and misdemeanor offenses. The judges then report sentences to the Commission on a Guideline Sentence Form. This data collection reflects all felonies and misdemeanors reported to the Commission that were sentenced during calendar year 1998. The data are contained in four files reflecting three sets of sentencing guidelines. The 1991 sentencing guidelines pertain to all offenses committed on or after August 9, 1991, up until the time that the 1994 guidelines became effective. The 1994 sentencing guidelines became effective for all offenses committed on or after August 12, 1994. The 1997 sentencing guidelines became effective for all offenses committed on or after June 13, 1997. In this data collection, the variable "GLEPOCH" denotes which set of guidelines pertained to the offense. Because the 1997 guidelines differ significantly from the 1991 and 1994 guidelines, sentences under the 1997 guidelines are reported in separate datasets. Parts 1 and 2, Records Data, provide information on each offender, including rudimentary demographic characteristics and prior offense history. Parts 3 and 4, Offense Data, contain information on each offense, including the statutory citation for the offense, the Offense Gravity Score assigned by the Commission, the offender's Prior Record Score, and the sentence given the offender. Parts 1 and 3 contain data from cases sentenced under the 1991 and 1994 guidelines, while Parts 2 and 4 contain data from cases sentenced under the 1997 guidelines.
Curated
Restricted
Portland [Oregon] Domestic Violence Experiment, 1996-1997 (ICPSR 3353)
Released/updated on: 2006-07-24
Geographic coverage: Oregon, United States, Portland (Oregon)
As part of its organization-wide transition to community policing in 1989, the Portland Police Bureau, in collaboration with the Family Violence Intervention Steering Committee of Multnomah County, developed a plan to reduce domestic violence in Portland. The creation of a special police unit to focus exclusively on misdemeanor domestic crimes was the centerpiece of the plan. This police unit, the Domestic Violence Reduction Unit (DVRU), had two goals: to increase the sanctions for batterers and to empower victims. This study was designed to determine whether DVRU strategies led to reductions in domestic violence. Data were collected from official records on batterers (Parts 1-10), and from surveys on victims (Parts 11-12). Part 1 (Police Recorded Study Case Data) provides information on police custody reports. Part 2 (Batterer Arrest History Data) describes the arrest history during a five-year period prior to each batterer's study case arrest date. Part 3 (Charges Data for Study Case Arrests) contains charges filed by the prosecutor's office in conjunction with study case arrests. Part 4 (Jail Data) reports booking charges and jail information. Part 5 (Court Data) contains sentencing information for those offenders who had either entered a guilty plea or had been found guilty of the charges stemming from the study case arrest. Data in Part 6 (Restraining Order Data) document the existence of restraining orders, before and/or after the study case arrest date. Part 7 (Diversion Program Data) includes deferred sentencing program information for study cases. Variables in Parts 1-7 provide information on number of batterer's arrests for domestic violence and non-domestic violence crimes in the past five years, charge and disposition of the study case, booking charges, number of hours offender spent in jail, type of release, type of sentence, if restraining order was filed after case arrest, if restraining order was served or vacated, number of days offender stayed in diversion program, and type of diversion violation incurred. Part 8 (Domestic Violence Reduction Unit Treatment Data) contains 395 of the 404 study cases that were randomly assigned to the treatment condition. Variables describe the types of services DVRU provided, such as taking photographs along with victim statements, providing the victim with information on case prosecution, restraining orders, shelters, counseling, and an appointment with district attorney, helping the victim get a restraining order, serving a restraining order on the batterer, transporting the victim to a shelter, and providing the victim with a motel voucher and emergency food supply. Part 9 (Police Record Recidivism Data) includes police entries (incident or arrest) six months before and six months after the study case arrest date. Part 10 (Police Recorded Revictimization and Reoffending Data) consists of revictimization and reoffending summary counts as well as time-to-failure data. Most of the variables in Part 10 were derived from information reported in Part 9. Part 9 and Part 10 variables include whether the offense in each incident was related to domestic violence, whether victimization was done by the same batterer as in the study case arrest, type of police action against the victimization, charges of the victimization, type of premises where the crime was committed, whether the police report indicated that witnesses or children were present, whether the police report mentioned victim injury, weapon used, involvement of drugs or alcohol, whether the batterer denied abuse victim, number of days from study cases to police-recorded revictimization, and whether the recorded victimization led to the batterer's arrest. Part 11 (Wave 1 Victim Interview Data) contains data obtained through in-person interviews with victims shortly (1-2 weeks) after the case entered the study. Data in Part 12 (Wave 2 Victim Interview Data) represent victims' responses to the second wave of interviews, conducted approximately six months after the study case victimization occurred. Variables in Part 11 and Part 12 cover the victim's experience six months before the study case arrest and six months after the study case arrest. Demographic variables in both files include victim's and batterer's race and ethnicity, employment, and income, and relationship status between victim and batterer. Information on childhood experiences includes whether the victim and batterer felt emotionally cared for by parents, whether the victim and batterer witnessed violence between parents while growing up, and whether the victim and batterer were abused as children by a family member. Variables on the batterer's abusive behaviors include whether the batterer threatened to kill, swore at, pushed or grabbed, slapped, beat, or forced the victim to have sex. Information on the results of the abuse includes whether the abuse led to cuts or bruises, broken bones, burns, internal injury, or damage to eyes or ears. Information was also collected on whether alcohol or drugs were involved in the abuse events. Variables on victims' actions after the event include whether the victim saw a doctor, whether the victim talked to a minister, a family member, a friend, a mental health professional, or a district attorney, whether the victim tried to get an arrest warrant, went to a shelter to talk, and/or stayed at a shelter, whether the victim asked police to intervene, tried to get a restraining order, talked to an attorney, or undertook other actions, and whether the event led to the batterer's arrest. Variables on victim satisfaction with the police and the DVRU include whether police or the DVRU were able to calm things down, recommended going to the district attorney, informed the victim of her legal rights, recommended that the victim contact shelter or support groups, transported the victim to a hospital, and listened to the victim, whether police treated the victim with respect, and whether the victim would want police or the DVRU involved in the future if needed. Variables on the victim's emotional state include whether the victim was confident that she could keep herself safe, felt her family life was under control, and felt she was doing all she could to get help. Other variables include number of children the victim had and their ages, and whether the children had seen violence between the victim and batterer.
Curated
Restricted
Probationer Compliance With Conditions of Supervision, Virginia, 1994-1997 (ICPSR 34705)
Released/updated on: 2023-06-29
Geographic coverage: United States, Virginia
Time period: 1994-01-01--1997-01-01
The impact of probation on the criminal activities of offenders and the relationship between these activities and technical violations were studied using both self-report and official data regarding 126 offenders on probation in Northern Virginia. Results revealed that probation reduced the self-reported criminal activities of the offenders. Younger males self-reported more criminal activities than did other groups. Offenders were more likely to be involved in criminal activity during the months when they were in school, using illegal drugs, or drinking alcohol heavily. Probation was more effective in reducing the criminal activities of older offenders than of younger offenders. Individuals with mental health counseling as a condition of probation self-reported fewer criminal activities than others. Self-reported criminal activities were also less likely to occur in months when probationers had personal contact with their probation officer or were assigned to the day reporting center.
Curated
Restricted
Problem Solving Approaches to Issues of Inmate Reentry in Indianapolis, Indiana, 2000-2003 (ICPSR 30281)
Released/updated on: 2012-10-08
Geographic coverage: Indiana, United States, Indianapolis
Time period: 2000-01-01--2003-01-01
This study involved an evaluation of the reentry component of the Indianapolis Violence Reduction Partnership (IVRP). The IVRP included a problem solving approach to the issue of inmate reentry. On the basis of a problem analysis, the IVRP officials decided to implement a pilot project that involved having recently released inmates attend a neighborhood-based group meeting convened by criminal justice officials and including community representatives and service providers. The meetings were based on the notion of combining deterrence and social support (linkage to services). The pilot project was evaluated using a quasi-experimental design. The treatment group consisted of 82 former inmates who attended one of five meetings. The comparison group consisted of 103 former inmates released at the same time period as the treatment group but in a different neighborhood. Reentry lever-pulling meeting participants and comparison group members were tracked for a period of up to 24 months to determine whether they had been re-arrested during the study period.
Curated
Restricted
Reducing Courts' Failure to Appear Rate: A Procedural Justice Approach [Nebraska Statewide, Select Counties, 2009-2010] (ICPSR 28861)
Released/updated on: 2011-06-22
Geographic coverage: United States, Nebraska
Time period: 2009-03-01--2010-05-01
The purpose of the study was to examine the effectiveness of using different kinds of written reminders to reduce misdemeanants' failure to appear (FTA) rates. The study examined the problem of FTA via a two-stage experiment. In Phase 1, 7,865 misdemeanor defendants from 14 Nebraska counties were randomly assigned to one of four reminder conditions: (1) a no-reminder (control) condition; (2) a reminder-only condition; (3) a condition in which the reminder also made them aware of possible sanctions should they fail to appear (reminder-sanctions); or (4) a condition in which the reminder mentioned sanctions but also highlighted aspects of procedural justice (PJ), such as voice, neutrality, respect, and public interest (reminder-combined). Data collection began in March 2009 and continued through May 2010. Files were received daily from the Nebraska Administrative Office of the Courts containing information about cases filed in each of the 14 counties included in the study. Upon receipt of this file, researchers screened participants using certain eligibility criteria. Researchers mailed postcard reminders two to five business days prior to the scheduled court appearance. Approximately one week after each scheduled court appearance researchers accessed the courts' administrative database (JUSTICE) to determine whether the defendant actually appeared for the scheduled hearing. Upon accessing this information, researchers recorded this variable, which is the primary dependent variable in the study. At the same time researchers recorded the appearance variable, they selected participants for Phase 2 of the study -- a mail survey administered after their scheduled appearance (or non-appearance) to assess their perceptions of procedural fairness and their level of trust/confidence in the courts. To do so, researchers selected all participants who failed to appear for their court date to receive a survey. Twenty percent of defendants who did appear were also randomly selected to receive a survey. Surveys were sent to a total of 2,360 individuals and were received from a total of 452 defendants. The study contains a total of 197 variables including demographics, court appearance characteristics, experiment characteristics, charge/offense variables, and variables from surveys about experiences with the court system.
Curated
Restricted
Research on District Attorneys' Pretrial Diversion Programs: A Proposal for a Comprehensive Multi-Method Study, Vermont, Illinois, and Wisconsin, 2012-2016 (ICPSR 37084)
Released/updated on: 2023-01-30
Geographic coverage: Vermont, Milwaukee, United States, Chittenden County, Illinois, Cook County, Wisconsin
Time period: 2012-01-01--2016-01-01
With state courts facing record-breaking caseloads and tightening budgets, jurisdictions around the country have begun to seek alternatives to traditional case processing as early as possible in the criminal justice process. One existing alternative is prosecutor-led diversion, a model which allows jurisdictions to reroute low-level offenders from traditional case-processing at the front-end of the justice process, in many cases prior to formal charge or arraignment. Although prosecutor-led diversion programs (PDPs) have been a part of the American legal landscape for several decades, there is little to no descriptive literature of the model and only sporadic impact evaluations of specific programs. In response, the Center for Court Innovation, the RAND Corporation, and the Association of Prosecuting Attorneys conducted a national, multi-method study with the following goals: (1) to synthesize existing knowledge of PDPs, (2) to produce a rich understanding of existing programs through in-depth case studies of programs in 11 sites nationwide, including program goals, target populations, and policies, and (3) to test PDP effectiveness in reducing recidivism, incarceration, psychosocial problems, and costs to the society and the economy through a prospective impact evaluation of 5 programs at 3 sites. Phase 1 consisted of in-depth interviews with key stakeholders at the 11 sites. Phase 2 consisted of focus groups with program participants, and an impact study of the effects of PDPs on case disposition, use of jail, re-arrest, and cost effectiveness.
This collection includes data from the Phase 2 impact study. Five programs from 3 of the 11 sites (Cook County, Illinois, Chittenden County, Vermont, and Milwaukee County, Wisconsin) were selected for quasi-experimental impact evaluations. For each program, the research team obtained a de-identified dataset containing demographics, criminal histories, and instant case outcomes.
Curated
Restricted
Research on Pathways to Desistance [Maricopa County, AZ and Philadelphia County, PA]: Official Arrest Records, 2000-2010 [Restricted] (ICPSR 34605)
Released/updated on: 2014-07-24
Geographic coverage: United States, Phoenix, Arizona, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Time period: 2000-01-01--2010-01-01
The Pathways to Desistance study was a multi-site study that followed 1,354 serious juvenile offenders from adolescence to young adulthood in two locales between the years 2000 and 2010. Enrolled into the study were adjudicated youths from the juvenile and adult court systems in Maricopa County (Phoenix), Arizona (N=654), and Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania (N=700).
The official arrests records of all 1,354 youth were obtained from multiple sources. For arrest/petitions under the age of 18, this information is based on petitions appearing in the juvenile and adult court records in each site. In Philadelphia, this information was gathered based on a hand review of juvenile and adult court documents; in Phoenix, the information is based on reports from two computerized court tracking systems (JOLTS--Juvenile On-Line Tracking System for juvenile court information, ICIS--Maricopa County Superior Court database for adult court information). For arrests/petitions over 18, FBI arrest records are the source of information. There is no self-reported information contained in this set of data.
Information from these different data sources is consolidated into the following categories:
- Information regarding petitions with a date that falls prior to the baseline interview date ("prior petitions").
- Information regarding the study index petition (also called the "initial referring petition"; this is the adjudication that prompted study enrollment). Information regarding the study index petition can be found by accessing the "type" variable associated with the prior petitions (specific variable name: Official Record Prior PetitionXX: Petition type). Depending on the investigator's needs, this petition can remain combined with the "priors" or be used as a stand-alone petition.
- Information regarding arrests and court petitions with a date which falls after the baseline interview date in the Pathways study ("rearrests").
Curated
Restricted
Statewide Impact Evaluation of Domestic Violence Courts and Recidivism in New York, 1993-2010 (ICPSR 34484)
Released/updated on: 2016-04-29
Geographic coverage: New York City, United States, New York (state)
Time period: 1993-01-01--2010-01-01
These data are part of NACJD's Fast Track Release and are distributed as they there received from the data depositor. The files have been zipped by NACJD for release, but not checked or processed except of the removal of direct identifiers. Users should refer to the accompany readme file for a brief description of the files available with this collections and consult the investigator(s) if further information is needed.
The purpose of this study was to answer the following research questions:
- Do domestic violence courts reduce recidivism?
- Do domestic violence courts hold defendants accountable through the use of more severe case outcomes and sentences?
- What, if any, court-level policies make these courts more or less effective (e.g., related to eligibility, program mandates, compliance monitoring, or victim service)?
- What, if any community characteristics make these courts more or less effective (e.g., related to population size, racial composition, or socioeconomic characteristics)?
- Based on individual characteristics (e.g., age, criminal history, or current charges), which categories of defendants are at a high risk of re-offending; and are certain categories particularly responsive to the domestic violence court intervention?
Outcome were compared between matched samples of defendants (Full File Data, n=17,718 and Convicted File Data, n=7,306) processed in the 24 domestic violence courts and in conventional courts operating in the same 24 jurisdictions in New York state prior to the opening of the specialized court. Cases processed in each domestic violence court during its first two full calendar years of operations comprised the domestic violence court sample. Cases processed in conventional courts during the two full calendar years preceding the opening of the specialized court comprised the comparison sample. Data on court policies and practices was drawn from two survey instruments administered to each of the 24 courts (Court and Community Characteristics Data, n=48). The first survey was administered statewide in 2008; the second was a supplemental survey administered in 2010.