Search results

Showing 1 – 9 of 9 results.

Curated

Collecting DNA at Arrest: Policies, Practices, and Implications, in 28 States, 2005-2012 (ICPSR 34682)

Released/updated on: 2016-09-28

Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Vermont, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Alabama, Arkansas, Utah, South Carolina, Colorado, Missouri, Alaska, North Dakota, Arizona, South Dakota, Minnesota, California, Kansas, Florida, New Jersey, Michigan, New Mexico, Illinois, Texas, Connecticut, Louisiana, Ohio, Virginia, Maryland

Time period: 1997-01-01--2011-01-01

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 examined arrestee DNA laws (laws that allowed testing of arrestees DNA pre-adjudication), their implementation in the field and their subsequent effects on agency operations as well as their success in aiding investigations in the 28 states that have these laws. The study investigated five specific questions:

What states have passed legislation authorizing the collection of DNA from arrestees?
How do the laws and policies regarding collecting DNA from arrestees differ by state?
How have the courts ruled on these new laws?
How have arrestee DNA laws been implemented in each state?
What has been the impact of requiring DNA collection from arrestees on state crime laboratories and other involved agencies?
What evidence is available to determine the effects of collecting DNA from arrestees on public safety or other criminal justice outcomes?

To answer these questions, researchers used a mixed methods data collection plan, including reviewing relevant statutes and case law, interviewing state and federal Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) laboratory staff and other forensic experts, and collecting descriptive data from state laboratories.

Curated

Impact of Legal Advocacy on Intimate Partner Homicide in the United States, 1976-1997 (ICPSR 25621)

Released/updated on: 2009-07-10

Geographic coverage: Milwaukee, Oklahoma City, Detroit, Indiana, Tucson, Albuquerque, Fort Worth, Cincinnati, Austin, Oakland, San Jose, San Diego, Columbus (Ohio), Memphis, Jacksonville, Arizona, Buffalo, Boston, Pittsburgh, Sacramento, Seattle, El Paso, Nashville, California, Florida, Pennsylvania, Tulsa, Fresno, Illinois, Texas, Portland (Oregon), Georgia, Virginia, Maryland, Indianapolis, Oregon, Virginia Beach, United States, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Cleveland, Washington, Nebraska, Omaha, Minneapolis, Atlanta, Massachusetts, Colorado, Honolulu, Missouri, New Orleans, Phoenix, Denver, Dallas, St. Louis, Wisconsin, District of Columbia, San Antonio, Chicago, Hawaii, Minnesota, Kansas City (Missouri), New York (state), Michigan, Miami, San Francisco, Baltimore, New Mexico, Long Beach, Louisiana, Ohio, Los Angeles, Toledo, Philadelphia, Houston

Time period: 1976-01-01--1996-01-01, 1976-01-01--1997-01-01

This study examined the impacts of jurisdictions' domestic violence policies on violent behavior of family members and intimate partners, on the likelihood that the police discovered an incident, and on the likelihood that the police made an arrest. The research combined two datasets. Part 1 contains information on police, prosecution policies, and local victim services. Informants within the local agencies of the 50 largest cities in the United States were contacted and asked to complete a survey inventorying policies and activities by type and year of implementation. Data from completed surveys covered 48 cities from 1976 to 1996. Part 2 contains data on domestic violence laws. Data on state statutes from 1976 to 1997 that related to protection orders were collected by a legal expert for all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

Curated

Partially restricted

Simple Crosstabs

National Survey of Eyewitness Identification Procedure in Law Enforcement Agencies, 1994-2012 (ICPSR 34274)

Released/updated on: 2014-03-07

Geographic coverage: United States

Time period: 1994-01-01--2012-01-01

The data results from a study conducted by the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) designed to obtain the first nationwide assessment of the state of the criminal justice field regarding eyewitness identification procedures used by law enforcement agencies. PERF designed and conducted a survey of 619 police departments across the United States. The study focused on the departments training and policy when conducting eyewitness identification; particularly the study examined the use of "blind" administrators and the use of simultaneous or sequential presentation to the witness. The number of lineup members, witness instructions, police training, number of witness viewings and recording of the witness statements were also examined. A pilot test of the survey was conducted prior to the study.

Curated

Pennsylvania Task Force on Prison Overcrowding, 2004-2005 (ICPSR 25301)

Released/updated on: 2010-06-30

Geographic coverage: United States, Pennsylvania

Time period: 2004-09-01--2005-05-01

The current jail population control study is the second phase of a two-part inquiry by the County Commissioners Association of Pennsylvania that began in 2003. Phase II builds upon the findings of the initial survey by using a number of information sources to obtain data with which to examine in greater detail the reasons and remedies for jail overcrowding. The Phase II study was implemented in September 2004 and was designed to examine jail population control data from four sources: Pennsylvania Statewide Jail Survey (Part 1), Intensive Site Visits to selected Pennsylvania Counties (Part 2), National Association of Counties (NACo) Best Practices Survey, and National Institute of Corrections (NIC) Technical Assistance reports. The Pennsylvania Statewide Survey (Part 1, Pennsylvania Statewide Survey Quantitative Data) was sent to all counties operating their own jails in September 2004. Surveys were mailed to 63 of the state's 67 counties. Counties were selected for intensive site visits (Part 2, Intensive Site Visit Qualitative Data) based largely on the results of the Phase I survey and focused on counties with the most extreme crowding problems and/or expressing interest in tackling population control issues. Visits were made to 14 of the state's 67 counties between September 2004 and May 2005. Part 1 includes variables on jail capacity and population, construction, population control measures, potential change targets, and transportation issues. Part 2 includes background to the site visit, site visit agenda and aims, and an exploration of population control options.

Curated

Pretrial Release Data, 1969 (ICPSR 7538)

Released/updated on: 1992-02-16

This data collection contains information gathered about pretrial release policies, procedures, and outcomes in a 1969 survey of police chiefs, judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, and bail project directors in 72 cities across the United States (with a higher proportion in Illinois). The research objectives included: (1) developing a model designed to determine the optimum percentage of defendants to hold prior to trial, (2) developing a model designed to make decisions on whether a defendant should be released or held in jail prior to trial, (3) comparing cities having bail reform projects with cities not having them, (4) comparing cities that required arrested persons to provide 10 percent of the bond with cities requiring 100 percent of the bond, and (5) determining the causes and effects of variations across cities in the percentage of defendants held in jail prior to trial. The survey focused on the processing of arrested persons prior to trial. Respondents answered questions about the organization and procedures in pretrial release, supplied approximate statistical data (e.g., percent of arraigned individuals who were released prior to their trial and failed to appear in court for their trial), estimated statistical trends in pretrial release during the previous five years, reported on attitudes in their communities toward administration of bail, rated the importance of several criteria when determining if a defendant was to be allowed pretrial release, and indicated whether their city had a bail reform program, and if so, its characteristics. Demographic data (ranging from population to income to crime rates) about the 72 cities represented in the survey are also included in the file.

Curated

Race and Drug Arrests: Specific Deterrence and Collateral Consequences, 1997-2009 (ICPSR 34313)

Released/updated on: 2016-02-29

Geographic coverage: United States

Time period: 1997-01-01--2009-01-01

This study examines several explanations for the observed racial/ethnic disparities in drug arrests, the consequences of drug arrest on subsequent drug offending and social bonding, and whether these consequences vary by race/ethnicity. The study is a secondary analysis of the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1997 (NLSY97).

Distributed here are the codes used for the secondary analysis and the code to compile the datasets. Please refer to the codebook appendix for instructions on how to obtain all the data used in this study.

Curated

Re-examination of the Criminal Deterrent Effects of Capital Punishment in the United States, 1978-1998 (ICPSR 20040)

Released/updated on: 2008-01-31

Geographic coverage: United States

Time period: 1978-01-01--1998-01-01

The purpose of this study was to estimate the deterrent effect of capital punishment by employing a methodology that accounted for model uncertainty by integrating various studies into a single coherent analysis. First, this study replicated the results from two previous studies, Dezhbakhsh, Rubin and Shepherd (2003) and Donohue and Wolfers (2005), that draw on the same data. Second, the researchers implemented model averaging methods using standard frequentist estimators to take a weighted average of the findings across all possible models that could explain the effect of the difference in crime rates under alternate laws. Each model's effect was weighted based on its ability to explain the data. Variables used in this study included deterrence variables as well as various demographic and economic control variables.

Curated

Partially restricted

Simple Crosstabs

Survey of Police Chiefs' and Data Analysts' Use of Data in Police Departments in the United States, 2004 (ICPSR 32103)

Released/updated on: 2013-02-21

Geographic coverage: United States

Time period: 2004-01-01--2004-03-01

This study surveyed police chiefs and data analysts in order to determine the use of data in police departments. The surveys were sent to 1,379 police agencies serving populations of at least 25,000. The survey sample for this study was selected from the 2000 Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics (LEMAS) survey. All police agencies serving populations of at least 25,000 were selected from the LEMAS database for inclusion. Separate surveys were sent for completion by police chiefs and data analysts. Surveys were used to gather information on data sharing and integration efforts to identify the needs and capacities for data usage in local law enforcement agencies. The police chief surveys focused on five main areas of interest: use of data, personnel response to data collection, the collection and reporting of incident-based data, sharing data, and the providing of statistics to the community and media. Like the police chief surveys, the data analyst surveys focused on five main areas of interest: use of data, agency structures and resources, data for strategies, data sharing and outside assistance, and incident-based data. The final total of police chief surveys included in the study is 790, while 752 data analyst responses are included.

Curated

Simple Crosstabs

Youth Justice Policy Environments and Their Effects on Youth Confinement Rates, United States, 1996-2016 (ICPSR 37618)

Released/updated on: 2020-12-17

Geographic coverage: United States

Time period: 1996-01-01--2016-01-01

This study was conducted to address the dropping rates in residential placements of adjudicated youth after the 1990s. Policymakers, advocates, and reseraches began to attirbute the decline to reform measures and proposed that this was the cause of the drop seen in historic national crime. In response, researchers set out to use state-level data on economic factors, crime rates, political ideology scores, and youth justice policies and practices to test the association between the youth justice policy environment and recent reductions in out-of-home placements for adjudicated youth.

This data collection contains two files, a multivariate and bivariate analyses. In the multivariate file the aim was to assess the impact of the progressive policy characteristics on the dependent variable which is known as youth confinement. In the bivariate analyses file Wave 1-Wave 10 the aim was to assess the states as they are divided into 2 groups across all 16 dichotomized variables that comprised the progressive policy scale: those with more progressive youth justice environments and those with less progressive or punitive environments. Some examples of these dichotomized variables include purpose clause, courtroom shackling, and competency standard.