Search results

Showing 1 – 3 of 3 results.

Curated

Partially restricted

Assessing Consistency and Fairness in Sentencing in Michigan, Minnesota, and Virginia, 2001-2002, 2004 (ICPSR 22642)

Released/updated on: 2009-11-30

Geographic coverage: United States, Minnesota, Virginia, Michigan

Time period: 2001-07-01--2002-06-30, 2001-07-01--2002-06-30

The purpose of the study was to evaluate the integrity of sentencing outcomes under alternative state guideline systems and to investigate how this variation in structure impacted actual sentencing practice. The research team sought to address the question, to what extent do sentencing guidelines contribute to the goals of consistency, proportionality, and a lack of discrimination. The National Center for State Courts conducted an examination of sentencing patterns in three states with substantially different guidelines systems: Minnesota, Michigan, and Virginia. The three states vary along critical dimensions of the presumptive versus voluntary nature of guidelines as well as basic mechanics. There are differences in the formal design, administration, and statutory framework of the Michigan, Minnesota, and Virginia sentencing systems. For the 2004 Michigan Sentencing Outcomes Data (Part 1), the Michigan Department of Corrections Offender Management Network Information System (OMNI) provided sentencing guideline data for 32,754 individual offenders sentenced during calendar year 2004. For the 2002 Minnesota Sentencing Outcomes Data (Part 2), the Minnesota Sentencing Commission provided data for 12,978 individual offenders sentenced in calendar year 2002. The Virginia Sentencing Commission provided the Fiscal Year 2002 Virginia Assault Sentencing Outcomes Data (Part 3) and the Fiscal Year 2002 Virginia Burglary Sentencing Outcomes Data (Part 4). The Assault and Burglary/Dwelling crime groups have 1,614 and 1,743 observations, respectively. Variables in the four datasets are classified into the broad categories of conviction offense severity, prior record, offense seriousness, grid cell type, habitual/modifiers, departure, and extra guideline variables.

Curated

Partially 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

Partially 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.