Showing 1 – 50 of 63 results.
Curated
Restricted
The Anatomy of Discretion: An Analysis of Prosecutorial Decision-making for Cases Processed by Offices in One Northern County and One Southern County, 2007-2010 (ICPSR 32542)
Released/updated on: 2016-04-21
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 2009-01-01--2011-06-01, 2007-01-01--2009-07-01, 2010-10-01--2011-03-01
Prosecuting attorneys enjoy broad discretion in making decisions that influence criminal case outcomes. This study examines the impact of legal, quasi-legal, and extra-legal factors on case outcomes throughout the prosecutorial process. It then examines how prosecutors weigh these factors in their decision making and explores the formal and informal mechanisms that constrain or regulate prosecutors' decision-making.
The study examines case screening decisions, charging decisions, plea offers, sentence recommendations, and dismissals in two moderately large county prosecutors' offices. It includes statistical analyses of actual case outcomes, responses to a standardized set of hypothetical cases, and responses to a survey of prosecutors' opinions and priorities, as well as qualitative analyses of two waves of individual interviews and focus groups. It addresses the following questions:
- How did prosecutors define and apply the concepts of justice and fairness?
- What factors were associated with prosecutorial outcomes at each stage?
- How did prosecutors interpret and weigh different case-specific factors in making decisions at each stage?
- How did contextual factors constrain or regulate prosecutorial decision making?
- How consistent were prosecutors' decisions across similar cases? What case-level and contextual factors influenced the degree of consistency?
Curated
Restricted
Assessing the Impact of Pre-Adjudication Assessment Approaches on Racial/Ethnic Disparities in Oregon, 2014-2018 (ICPSR 37595)
Released/updated on: 2022-11-10
Time period: 2005-01-01--2018-01-01
This study examines two counties in Oregon (Multnomah and Yamhill) that have utilized a pre-adjudication risk assessment (PAA) to inform criminal case negotiation since 2014. This study seeks to answer these core questions:
- has the introduction of a PAA into the court decision-making process impacted racial and ethnic disparities in sentencing outcomes over time in each county;
- does one PAA process appear to produce more promising results in impacting racial/ethnic disparities;
- using interviews and visual observations, how does the PAA influence case discussion and negotiation, decision-making, and workgroup norms and culture;
- does validation of the PAA tool yield significant mean score differences across racial groups and/or predictive biases?
A number of jurisdictions have turned to pre-adjudication risk assessments (PAA) as a tool to potentially lower or stabilize incarceration rates by identifying the best suitable cases for community-based supervision. Questions have been raised about using risk assessment tools to help with the negotiation of sentencing outcomes in the pre-adjudication stages of criminal cases, particularly the potential for exacerbating disparate racial/ethnic sentencing outcomes.
Curated
Bethlehem [Pennsylvania] Police Family Group Conferencing Project, 1993-1997 (ICPSR 2679)
Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: United States, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania
Time period: 1993-01-01--1997-01-01
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the implementation of conferencing as a restorative policing practice. Family group conferencing is considered an important new development in restorative justice practice as a means of dealing more effectively with young first-time offenders by diverting them from court and involving their extended families and victims in conferences to address their wrongdoing. Cases deemed eligible for the study were property crimes including retail and other thefts, criminal mischief and trespass, and violent crimes including threats, harassment, disorderly conduct, and simple assaults. A total of 140 property crime cases and 75 violent crime cases were selected for the experiment, with two-thirds of each type randomly assigned to a diversionary conference (treatment group) and one-third of each type assigned to formal adjudication (control group). Participation in the conference was voluntary. If either party declined or if the offender did not admit responsibility for the offense, the case was processed through normal criminal justice channels. Those cases constituted a second treatment group (decline group). The Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, Police Department and the Community Service Foundation conducted a two-year study on the effectiveness of police-based family group conferencing. Beginning on November 1, 1995, 64 conferences were conducted for the study. Approximately two weeks after their cases were disposed, victims, offenders, and offenders' parents in the three experimental groups (control, conference, decline) were surveyed by mail, in-person interviews, or telephone interviews. Those who participated in conferences (Parts 4, 6, and 8) received a different questionnaire than those whose cases went through formal adjudication (Parts 5, 7, and 9), with similar questions to allow for comparison and some questions particular to the type of processing used on their case. Disposition data on cases were collected from five district magistrates in Bethlehem from January 1, 1993, to September 12, 1997. Data on recidivism and outcomes of the control and decline group cases were obtained from (1) the Bethlehem Police Department arrest database (Part 1) and (2) a database of records from the five district magistrates serving Bethlehem, drawn from a statewide magistrate court database compiled by the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts (Part 2). An attitudinal and work environment survey was administered to the Bethlehem Police Department on two occasions, just before the conferencing program commenced (pre-test) and eighteen months later (post-test) (Part 3). Part 1 variables include offender age, year of offense, charge code, amounts of fine and payments, crime type, offender crime category, and disposition. Part 2 collected disposition data on cases in the study and officers' observations on the conferences. Demographic variables include offender's age at current arrest, ethnicity, and gender. Other variables include type of charge, arrest, disposition, sentence, and recidivism, reason not conferenced, current recorded charge class, amounts of total fines, hours of community service, and conditions of sentence. Part 3 collected information on police attitudes and work environment before and after the conferencing program. Variables on organizational issues include ratings on communication, morale, co-workers, supervision, administration, amenities, equipment, and promotions. Variables on operational issues include ratings on danger, victims, frustration, external activities, complaints, workload, and driving. In Parts 4 to 9, researchers asked offenders, parents of offenders, and victims about their perceptions of how their cases were handled by the justice system and the fairness of the process, their attitudes and beliefs about the justice system, and their attitudes toward the victim and offender. Variables include whether the respondent was satisfied with the way the justice system handled the case, if the offender was held accountable for the offense, if meeting with the victim was helpful, if the respondent was surprised by anything in the conference, if the respondent told the victim/offender how he/she felt, if there was an opportunity to reach an agreement acceptable to all, if the offender/parents apologized, if the victim/parents had a better opinion of the offender after the conference, what the respondent's attitude toward the conference was, if the respondent would recommend a conference to others, if the offender was pressured to do all the talking, if the offender was treated with respect, if victim participation was insincere, if the respondent had a better understanding of how the victim was affected, if the victim only wanted to be paid back, and if conferences were responsive to needs.
Curated
Restricted
Early Intervention by Counsel: A Multi-Site Evaluation of the Presence of Counsel at Defendants' First Appearance (CAFA) in Court, 6 New York State counties, 2012-2016 (ICPSR 37370)
Released/updated on: 2020-11-30
Geographic coverage: United States, New York (state)
Time period: 2012-01-01--2016-01-01
This study sought to assess the impact of local programs that ensure that legal counsel is provided at first appearance (usually arraignment) in court on court decisions (such as bail or pretrial release, and consequences such as pretrial detention and booking at a local detention facility), as well as on subsequent consequences for charge reduction, disposition, and sentencing. The project collected original data from six upstate New York counties (under pseudonyms). The data were collected from indigent defense programs' case files, supplemented by data from county detention facilities on booking and release.
Demographic variables in this collection include defendant age, race, gender, and residency.
Curated
Evaluating the Virginia Court-Appointed Special Advocate (CASA) Program, 1991-1995 (ICPSR 2812)
Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: United States, Virginia
Time period: 1991-01-01--1995-01-01
In 1990, the Virginia General Assembly enacted legislation that established the Court-Appointed Special Advocate (CASA) Program, a program providing child advocates in juvenile court proceedings, especially those involving abuse and neglect. The Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS) administered this program. In this capacity, the DCJS coordinated services, provided funds, and participated in the development and dissemination of program information and regulations. Given these responsibilities, DCJS' Juvenile Services Section and the Criminal Justice Research Center Evaluation Section agreed that an assessment of the CASA program was needed. This study sought to evaluate the Virginia CASA program in order to provide a better understanding of CASA activities and program characteristics, and determine the impact of CASA intervention on its client population. Qualitative and quantitative data were collected from three sources: (1) administrative records gathered for a sample of 78 cases (Part 1) involving 164 children (Part 2) taken from the files of local juvenile courts, social service agencies, and CASA programs, (2) telephone interviews administered to judges (Part 3) presiding in all operational CASA jurisdictions across Virginia, and (3) surveys distributed to CASA social workers (Part 4) and volunteers (Part 5). Variables common to both Part 1 and Part 2 include the total number of abuse/neglect, custody, and Children in Need of Supervision/Services (CHINS) petitions, date of first petition, petition type, type of child abuse/neglect case, number and date of prior removals from home, number of out-of-home, group home, psychiatric, detention, and family/friend placements since the case opened, whether there was any alcohol or drug abuse involved, and the onset of these behaviors, whether there were any mental, intellectual, academic, or behavioral limitations or problems, dates of first and last court proceeding, date of finding (a social service agency determination of whether abuse/neglect occurred), permanency date, date of final placement, and the number of weeks a Court-Appointed Special Advocate (CASA) was on the case. Variables unique to Part 1 include the age, sex, and date of birth for up to six victims and up to three abusers, as well as whether any adult or child sibling of the victim had been legally removed from the household, the relationship of each abuser to each victim, and whether any of the victim's siblings, mother, biological father, or caretaker had a criminal history, mental illness, disabilities, or abused drugs or alcohol. Other variables include the number of orders partially or fully complied with or not complied with, the number of services ordered for each victim and abuser, and whether there were any changes in the family structure. For Part 3, judges were surveyed to determine their perceptions regarding the role of CASAs, social workers, and Guardians ad Litem (GALs) in abuse/neglect cases, the benefits of the CASA program, how successful CASA case monitoring was, how useful CASA information was, and the impact CASA programs had on the court process. Judges also recommended changes or improvements they felt were needed by the CASA program that served their court. The percent of abuse/neglect, custody, and CHINS cases that each judge presided over is also included. Demographic variables for Part 4 include the age, sex, and race of each social worker. Other variables cover the length of time worked with CASAs, the number of sexual abuse, neglect, custody, and CHINS cases worked on, and the percent of time used to appear in court, write reports, review records, interview the family and child, and speak with CASAs and GALs. The respondents' perceptions of the role of CASA, social workers, and GALs, how the CASA program was beneficial or detrimental to a child, and suggestions for changes or improvements to the CASA program complete the file. Variables for Part 5 include the number of physical abuse, neglect, custody, and CHINS cases worked on by a CASA volunteer. Additional variables include the percent of time used to investigate and monitor the child, family, foster family, the GALs, the social worker, and other CASA staff, as well as the volunteer's relationship with social workers, GALs, and judges. The age, sex, race, and educational background of each volunteer are also included.
Curated
Evaluation of Adult Urine Testing/Drug Use Surveillance Project in Washington, DC, 1984-1986 (ICPSR 9947)
Released/updated on: 1993-05-13
Geographic coverage: District of Columbia, United States
Time period: 1984-06-01--1986-12-01
These data were gathered to assess whether drug users are greater risks than nonusers for rearrest or failure to appear for scheduled court appearances while on pretrial release. The data also evaluate the relative effectiveness of periodic surveillance through urinalysis, traditional narcotic treatment, or neither in reducing rearrest and failure to appear during the pretrial period. The collection provides information on arrestees who both tested positive for drugs and were released on recognizance as well as those arrestees who tested negative but were not released on recognizance. Drugs tested for include heroin, cocaine, PCP, methadone, and amphetamines. Arrestees who were released were randomly assigned to one of three groups: weekly urine testing, referral to drug treatment, or a control condition. The data offer information on the offender's background, family and employment status, probation and parole status, pending charges, and prior convictions. Other variables include date of arrest, charge, initial release, decision, date of disposition, type of final disposition, number of subsequent arrests before trial, and number of bench warrants issued. Results of urine tests at arrest are available for about 65 percent of the total sample. For those in the experimental surveillance group, summary urine test results from the periodic testing program are available. There is no measure of treatment for the drug treatment or control groups.
Curated
Evaluation of Arizona Pretrial Services Drug Testing Programs, 1987-1989 (ICPSR 9807)
Released/updated on: 2006-01-12
Geographic coverage: United States, Arizona
Time period: 1987-01-01--1989-01-01
The purpose of this data collection was to examine the relationship between drug use and pretrial misconduct in Pima and Maricopa counties in Arizona. Data assess the effectiveness of Arizona pretrial services, which were designed to monitor those defendants who tested positive for selected drugs. The collection includes variables for drugs such as marijuana and cocaine, previous criminal history, results of urinalysis testing, pretrial misconduct, and drug monitoring. Demographic information includes defendant's sex, ethnicity, age, marital status, employment, and last grade completed.
Curated
Restricted
Evaluation of GPS Monitoring Technologies and Domestic Violence in the United States, 2001-2009 (ICPSR 33723)
Released/updated on: 2015-06-30
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 2006-07-01--2008-07-01, 2001-10-01--2007-01-01, 2008-01-01--2009-01-01
This study examines the implementation and effectiveness of Global Positioning System (GPS) monitoring technology to enforce court mandated "no contact" orders in domestic violence (DV) cases, particularly those involving intimate partner violence (IPV). The project has two components: First, a national web-based survey of agencies providing pretrial supervision examined patterns of GPS usage among electronic monitoring (EM) programs for DV cases. Second, a quasi-experimental design study of three sites across the U.S. - referred to as Midwest, West, and South - examined the impact of GPS technology on DV defendants' program violations and rearrests during the pre-adjudication period (referred to as the "short term"), and during a one-year follow-up period after case disposition (referred to as the "long term").
Curated
Evaluation of Pre-Trial Settlement Conference: Dade County, Florida, Criminal Court, 1979 (ICPSR 7710)
Released/updated on: 2005-11-04
Geographic coverage: United States, Florida
This study reports on the implementation in Dade County, Florida, of a proposal to involve, on a voluntary basis, victims, defendants, and police in a judicial plea negotiation conference. The study was supported by a grant from the National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice of the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, United States Department of Justice. Parts 1-3, Defendants, Victims, and Police files, consist of responses to questionnaires given to defendants, victims, and police. The questionnaires were administered during 20-minute interviews, conducted after the case had been completed. The interview instruments were designed to collect data on three major issues: (1) the extent to which respondents reported participation in the processing of their cases, (2) respondents' knowledge of the way their cases were processed, and (3) respondents' attitudes toward the disposition of their cases and toward the criminal justice system. Part 4 is the Conference Data File. During the pretrial settlement conference, an observer wrote down in sequence as much as possible of the verbal behavior. After the session, the observer made some subjective ratings, provided descriptive data about the conclusion of the session, and classified comments into one of the following categories: (1) Facts of the Case, (2) Prior Record, (3) Law and Practices, (4) Maximum Sentence, (5) Prediction of Trial Outcome, (6) Conference Precedent, (7) Personal Background History, and (8) Recommendations. Information in Part 5, the Case Information Data File, was drawn from court records and includes type of case, number of charges, sentence type, sentence severity (stated and perceived), seriousness of offense, date of arrest, date of arraignment, date of conference, prior incarcerations, and defendant background.
Curated
Evaluation of the Impact of System-Wide Drug Testing in Multnomah County, Oregon, 1991-1992 (ICPSR 2589)
Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: Oregon, United States
Time period: 1991-01-01--1992-10-01
The Multnomah County Drug Testing and Evaluation (DTE) program was established to help clients rid themselves of drug abusing behavior. To that end, the DTE program provided random, weekly drug tests to all clients in the program. These urinalysis tests allowed DTE to monitor each client's compliance with release conditions and progress in treatment programs, and to intervene appropriately when a client showed signs of a drug abuse problem. The DTE program supplemented drug testing with client drug evaluations and treatment recommendations, which were provided to the client's probation officer or case manager. This study was a program evaluation of two of DTE's divisions: the Pretrial Release Supervision Program (PRSP) and the probation and parole program. The pretrial division was chosen because it was the first opportunity for the criminal justice system to supervise and control the drug use of potential DTE clients. The probation and parole program was selected for three reasons: it was the largest component of the DTE program, it linked the pretrial and post-sentence DTE programs, and the experience of this program could be readily applied to the development of other such programs in other jurisdictions. The programs were evaluated using administrative data collected by corrections technicians, case managers, probation and parole officers, and the DTE central office. Part 1 (Pretrial Data) variables include dates of entry into and exit from the program, number of drug tests, number of positive tests for various drugs, type of offense and arrest date for each offense, and need assessment rating for medical, employment, legal, family, psychological, and drug addiction problems. Part 2 (Probation and Parole Data) variables include a probation or parole indicator, prior drug arrests, prior non-drug arrests, prior convictions, technical violations, drug use, and new drug crimes committed during the program. Demographic variables for both files include age, race, and gender.
Curated
Evaluation of the Washington, DC, Superior Court Drug Intervention Program, 1994-1998 (ICPSR 2853)
Released/updated on: 2000-12-04
Geographic coverage: District of Columbia, United States
Time period: 1994-01-01--1998-01-01
This study was undertaken to measure the impact of the standard, treatment, and sanction dockets, which comprise the Superior Court Drug Intervention Program (SCDIP), on drug-involved defendants in Washington, DC, while examining defendants' continued drug use and substance abuse, criminal activity, and social and economic functioning. Features common to all three dockets of the SCDIP program included early intervention, frequent drug testing, and judicial involvement in monitoring drug test results, as well as the monitoring of each defendant's progress. Data for this study were collected from four sources for defendants arrested on drug felony charges between September 1, 1994, and January 31, 1996, who had been randomly assigned to one of three drug dockets (sanction, treatment, or standard) as part of the SCDIP program. First, data were collected from the Pretrial Services Agency, which provided monthly updated drug testing records, case records, and various other administrative records for all defendants assigned to any of the three dockets. Second, data regarding prior convictions and sentencing information were collected from computer files maintained by the Washington, DC, Superior Court. Third, arrest data were taken from the Uniform Crime Reporting Program. Lastly, data on self-reported drug use, criminal and personal activities, and opinions about the program were collected from interviews conducted with defendants one year after their sentencing. Variables collected from administrative records included drug test results, eligibility date for the defendant, date the defendant started treatment, number of compliance hearings, prior conviction, arrest, and sentencing information, and program entry date. Survey questions asked of each respondent fell into one of seven categories: (1) Individual characteristics, such as gender, age, and marital status. (2) Current offenses, including whether the respondent was sentenced to probation, prison, jail, or another correctional facility for any offense and the length of sentencing, special conditions or restrictions of that sentence (e.g., electronic monitoring, mandatory drug testing, educational programs, or psychological counseling), whether any of the sentence was reduced by credit, and whether the respondent was released on bail bond or to the custody of another person. (3) Current supervision, specifically, whether the respondent was currently on probation, the number and type of contacts made with probation officers, issues discussed during the meeting, any new offenses or convictions since being on probation, outcome of any hearings, and reasons for returning back to prison, jail, or another correctional facility. (4) Criminal history, such as the number of previous arrests, age at first arrest, sentencing type, whether the respondent was a juvenile, a youthful offender, or an adult when the crime was committed, and whether any time was served for each of the following crimes: drug trafficking, drug possession, driving while intoxicated, weapons violations, robbery, sexual assault/rape, murder, other violent offenses, burglary, larceny/auto theft, fraud, property offenses, public order offenses, and probation/parole violations. (5) Socioeconomic characteristics, such as whether the respondent had a job or business, worked part- or full-time, type of job or business, yearly income, whether the respondent was looking for work, the reasons why the respondent was not looking for work, whether the respondent was living in a house, apartment, trailer, hotel, shelter, or other type of housing, whether the respondent contributed money toward rent or mortgage, number of times moved, if anyone was living with the respondent, the number and ages of any children (including step or adopted), whether child support was being paid by the respondent, who the respondent lived with when growing up, the number of siblings the respondent had, whether any of the respondent's parents spent any time in jail or prison, and whether the respondent was ever physically or sexually abused. (6) Alcohol and drug use and treatment, specifically, the type of drug used (marijuana, crack cocaine, other cocaine, heroin, PCP, and LSD), whether alcohol was consumed, the amount of each that was typically used/consumed, and whether any rehabilitation programs were attended. (7) Other services, programs, and probation conditions, such as whether any services were received for emotional or mental health problems, if any medications were prescribed, and whether the respondent was required to participate in a mental health services program, vocational training program, educational program, or community service program.
Curated
Restricted
Federal Court Cases, 1962-1964 (ICPSR 7245)
Released/updated on: 2022-09-12
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1962-01-01--1964-01-01
This study collected data from both civil and criminal federal cases tried in the fiscal years 1962-1963 and 1963-1964. Procedural, jurisdictional, and other legal information is provided, including the disposition of each case.
Curated
Restricted
Federal Court Cases: Integrated Data Base, 1970-2000 (ICPSR 8429)
Released/updated on: 2012-05-22
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1970-01-01--2000-01-01
The purpose of this data collection is to provide an official public record of the business of the federal courts. The data originate from 94 district and 12 appellate court offices throughout the United States. Information was obtained at two points in the life of a case: filing and termination. The termination data contain information on both filing and terminations, while the pending data contain only filing information. For the appellate and civil data, the unit of analysis is a single case. The unit of analysis for the criminal data is a single defendant.
Curated
Restricted
Federal Court Cases: Integrated Data Base, 2001 (ICPSR 3415)
Released/updated on: 2015-09-24
Geographic coverage: United States
The purpose of this data collection is to provide an official public record of the business of the federal courts. The data originate from 94 district and 12 appellate court offices throughout the United States. Information was obtained at two points in the life of a case: filing and termination. The termination data contain information on both filing and terminations, while the pending data contain only filing information. For the appellate and civil data, the unit of analysis is a single case. The unit of analysis for the criminal data is a single defendant.
Curated
Restricted
Federal Court Cases: Integrated Data Base, 2002 (ICPSR 4059)
Released/updated on: 2015-09-18
Geographic coverage: United States
The purpose of this data collection is to provide an official public record of the business of the federal courts. The data originate from district and appellate court offices throughout the United States. Information was obtained at two points in the life of a case: filing and termination. The termination data contain information on both filing and terminations, while the pending data contain only filing information.
Curated
Restricted
Federal Court Cases: Integrated Data Base, 2003 (ICPSR 4026)
Released/updated on: 2015-09-15
Geographic coverage: United States
The purpose of this data collection is to provide an official public record of the business of the federal courts. The data originate from district and appellate court offices throughout the United States. Information was obtained at two points in the life of a case: filing and termination. The termination data contain information on both filing and terminations, while the pending data contain only filing information.
Curated
Restricted
Federal Court Cases: Integrated Data Base, 2004 (ICPSR 4348)
Released/updated on: 2015-09-11
Geographic coverage: United States
The purpose of this data collection is to provide an official public record of the business of the federal courts. The data originate from district and appellate court offices throughout the United States. Information was obtained at two points in the life of a case: filing and termination. The termination data contain information on both filing and terminations, while the pending data contain only filing information.
Curated
Restricted
Federal Court Cases: Integrated Data Base, 2005 (ICPSR 4382)
Released/updated on: 2015-09-01
Geographic coverage: United States
The purpose of this data collection is to provide an official public record of the business of the federal courts. The data originate from district and appellate court offices throughout the United States. Information was obtained at two points in the life of a case: filing and termination. The termination data contain information on both filing and terminations, while the pending data contain only filing information.
Curated
Restricted
Federal Court Cases: Integrated Data Base, 2006 (ICPSR 4685)
Released/updated on: 2015-08-26
Geographic coverage: United States
The purpose of this data collection is to provide an official public record of the business of the federal courts. The data originate from district and appellate court offices throughout the United States. Information was obtained at two points in the life of a case: filing and termination. The termination data contain information on both filing and terminations, while the pending data contain only filing information.
Curated
Restricted
Federal Court Cases: Integrated Database, 2007 (ICPSR 22300)
Released/updated on: 2015-08-25
Geographic coverage: United States
The purpose of this data collection is to provide an official public record of the business of the federal courts. The data originate from district and appellate court offices throughout the United States. Information was obtained at two points in the life of a case: filing and termination. The termination data contain information on both filing and terminations, while the pending data contain only filing information.
Curated
Restricted
Federal Court Cases: Integrated Data Base, 2008 (ICPSR 25002)
Released/updated on: 2015-08-24
Geographic coverage: United States
The purpose of this data collection is to provide an official public record of the business of the federal courts. The data originate from district and appellate court offices throughout the United States. Information was obtained at two points in the life of a case: filing and termination. The termination data contain information on both filing and terminations, while the pending data contain only filing information.
Curated
Restricted
Federal Court Cases: Integrated Data Base, 2009 (ICPSR 29661)
Released/updated on: 2015-08-21
Geographic coverage: United States
The purpose of this data collection is to provide an official public record of the business of the federal courts. The data originate from district and appellate court offices throughout the United States. Information was obtained at two points in the life of a case: filing and termination. The termination data contain information on both filing and terminations, while the pending data contain only filing information.
Curated
Restricted
Federal Court Cases: Integrated Data Base, 2010 (ICPSR 30401)
Released/updated on: 2015-08-20
Geographic coverage: United States
The purpose of this data collection is to provide an official public record of the business of the federal courts. The data originate from district and appellate court offices throughout the United States. Information was obtained at two points in the life of appellate and civil cases: filing and termination. The termination data (archived in this data collection) contain information on both filing and terminations, while the pending data (archived as a separate data collection) contain only filing information on the most recent pending cases. The unit of analysis for the appellate and civil terminations data is the case. This collection also contains data on criminal cases in federal courts. However, the unit of analysis for the criminal data is the defendant, and a defendant can be included in several cases.
Curated
Restricted
Federal Court Cases: Integrated Data Base, 2011 (ICPSR 33622)
Released/updated on: 2015-08-20
Geographic coverage: United States
The purpose of this data collection is to provide an official public record of the business of the federal courts. The data originate from district and appellate court offices throughout the United States. Information was obtained at two points in the life of appellate and civil cases: filing and termination. The termination data (archived in this data collection) contain information on both filing and terminations, while the pending data (archived as a separate data collection) contain only filing information on the most recent pending cases. The unit of analysis for the appellate and civil terminations data is the case. This collection also contains data on criminal cases in federal courts. However, the unit of analysis for the criminal data is the defendant, and a defendant can be included in several cases.
Curated
Restricted
Federal Court Cases: Integrated Data Base, 2012 (ICPSR 34881)
Released/updated on: 2015-08-20
Geographic coverage: United States
The purpose of this data collection is to provide an official public record of the business of the federal courts. The data originate from district and appellate court offices throughout the United States. Information was obtained at two points in the life of appellate and civil cases: filing and termination. The termination data (archived in this data collection) contain information on both filing and terminations, while the pending data (archived as a separate data collection) contain only filing information on the most recent pending cases. The unit of analysis for the appellate and civil terminations data is the case. This collection also contains data on criminal cases in federal courts. However, the unit of analysis for the criminal data is the defendant, and a defendant can be included in several cases.
Curated
Restricted
Federal Court Cases: Integrated Data Base, 2013 (ICPSR 35603)
Released/updated on: 2015-08-20
Geographic coverage: United States
The purpose of this data collection is to provide an official public record of the business of the federal courts. The data originate from district and appellate court offices throughout the United States. Information was obtained at two points in the life of appellate and civil cases: filing and termination. The termination data (archived in this data collection) contain information on both filing and terminations, while the pending data (archived as a separate data collection) contain only filing information on the most recent pending cases. The unit of analysis for the appellate and civil terminations data is the case. This collection also contains data on criminal cases in federal courts. However, the unit of analysis for the criminal data is the defendant, and a defendant can be included in several cases.
Curated
Restricted
Federal Court Cases: Integrated Data Base, 2014 (ICPSR 36110)
Released/updated on: 2015-08-19
Geographic coverage: United States
The purpose of this data collection is to provide an official public record of the business of the federal courts. The data originate from district and appellate court offices throughout the United States. Information was obtained at two points in the life of appellate and civil cases: filing and termination. The termination data (archived in this data collection) contain information on both filing and terminations, while the pending data (archived as a separate data collection) contain only filing information on the most recent pending cases. The unit of analysis for the appellate and civil terminations data is the case. This collection also contains data on criminal cases in federal courts. However, the unit of analysis for the criminal data is the defendant, and a defendant can be included in several cases.
Curated
Restricted
Federal Court Cases: Integrated Data Base Appellate and Civil Pending Data, 2014 (ICPSR 29281)
Released/updated on: 2015-12-16
Geographic coverage: United States
The purpose of this data collection is to provide an official public record of the business of the federal courts. The data originate from district and appellate court offices throughout the United States. Information was obtained at two points in the life of appellate and civil cases: filing and termination. The termination data (archived as separate data collections each year) contain information on both filing and terminations, while the pending data (archived as this data collection and updated annually) contain only filing information on the most recent pending cases. The unit of analysis for the appellate and civil pending data is the case.
Curated
Restricted
Federal Court Cases: Integrated Data Base Bankruptcy Petitions, 1994 (ICPSR 4303)
Released/updated on: 2011-04-13
Geographic coverage: United States
The purpose of this data collection is to provide an official public record of the business of the federal bankruptcy courts. The data include all petitions filed under the Bankruptcy Code in the United States Bankruptcy Courts on or after October 1, 1993, and any petitions filed before October 1, 1993, that were still pending on that date. The records are organized according to the fiscal year of termination with cases still pending at the end included in a separate pending dataset. For the bankruptcy data, the unit of analysis is a single case.
Curated
Restricted
Federal Court Cases: Integrated Data Base Bankruptcy Petitions, 1995 (ICPSR 4304)
Released/updated on: 2011-04-13
Geographic coverage: United States
The purpose of this data collection is to provide an official public record of the business of the federal bankruptcy courts. The data include all petitions filed under the Bankruptcy Code in the United States Bankruptcy Courts on or after October 1, 1993, and any petitions filed before October 1, 1993, that were still pending on that date. The records are organized according to the fiscal year of termination with cases still pending at the end included in a separate pending dataset. For the bankruptcy data, the unit of analysis is a single case.
Curated
Restricted
Federal Court Cases: Integrated Data Base Bankruptcy Petitions, 1996 (ICPSR 4305)
Released/updated on: 2011-04-13
Geographic coverage: United States
The purpose of this data collection is to provide an official public record of the business of the federal bankruptcy courts. The data include all petitions filed under the Bankruptcy Code in the United States Bankruptcy Courts on or after October 1, 1993, and any petitions filed before October 1, 1993, that were still pending on that date. The records are organized according to the fiscal year of termination with cases still pending at the end included in a separate pending dataset. For the bankruptcy data, the unit of analysis is a single case.
Curated
Restricted
Federal Court Cases: Integrated Data Base Bankruptcy Petitions, 1997 (ICPSR 4306)
Released/updated on: 2011-04-13
Geographic coverage: United States
The purpose of this data collection is to provide an official public record of the business of the federal bankruptcy courts. The data include all petitions filed under the Bankruptcy Code in the United States Bankruptcy Courts on or after October 1, 1993, and any petitions filed before October 1, 1993, that were still pending on that date. The records are organized according to the fiscal year of termination with cases still pending at the end included in a separate pending data set. For the bankruptcy data, the unit of analysis is a single case.
Curated
Restricted
Federal Court Cases: Integrated Data Base Bankruptcy Petitions, 1998 (ICPSR 4086)
Released/updated on: 2011-04-12
Geographic coverage: United States
The purpose of this data collection is to provide an official public record of the business of the federal bankruptcy courts. The data includes all petitions filed under the Bankruptcy Code in the U.S. Bankruptcy Courts on or after October 1, 1993, and any petitions filed before October 1, 1993, that were still pending on that date. The records are organized according to the fiscal year of termination with cases still pending at the end included in a separate pending data set. For the bankruptcy data, the unit of analysis is a single case.
Curated
Restricted
Federal Court Cases: Integrated Data Base Bankruptcy Petitions, 1999 (ICPSR 4088)
Released/updated on: 2011-04-12
Geographic coverage: United States
The purpose of this data collection is to provide an official public record of the business of the federal bankruptcy courts. The data includes all petitions filed under the Bankruptcy Code in the U.S. Bankruptcy Courts on or after October 1, 1993, and any petitions filed before October 1, 1993, that were still pending on that date. The records are organized according to the fiscal year of termination with cases still pending at the end included in a separate pending data set. For the bankruptcy data, the unit of analysis is a single case.
Curated
Restricted
Federal Court Cases: Integrated Data Base Bankruptcy Petitions, 2000 (ICPSR 4249)
Released/updated on: 2011-04-13
Geographic coverage: United States
The purpose of this data collection is to provide an official public record of the business of the federal bankruptcy courts. The data include all petitions filed under the Bankruptcy Code in the United States Bankruptcy Courts on or after October 1, 1993, and any petitions filed before October 1, 1993, that were still pending on that date. The records in this file are organized according to the fiscal year of termination with cases still pending at the end of the year 2000 included in a separate pending dataset not currently in this collection. For the bankruptcy data, the unit of analysis is a single case.
Curated
Restricted
Federal Court Cases: Integrated Data Base Bankruptcy Petitions, 2001 (ICPSR 4250)
Released/updated on: 2011-04-13
Geographic coverage: United States
The purpose of this data collection is to provide an official public record of the business of the federal bankruptcy courts. The data include all petitions filed under the Bankruptcy Code in the United States Bankruptcy Courts on or after October 1,1993, and any petitions filed before October 1, 1993, that were still pending on that date. The records in this file are organized according to the fiscal year of termination with cases still pending at the end of the year 2001 included in a separate pending dataset, not currently in this collection. For the bankruptcy data, the unit of analysis is a single case.
Curated
Restricted
Federal Court Cases: Integrated Data Base Bankruptcy Petitions, 2002 (ICPSR 4251)
Released/updated on: 2011-04-13
Geographic coverage: United States
The purpose of this data collection is to provide an official public record of the business of the federal bankruptcy courts. The data include all petitions filed under the Bankruptcy Code in the United States Bankruptcy Courts on or after October 1, 1993, and any petitions filed before October 1, 1993, that were still pending on that date. The records in this file are organized according to the fiscal year of termination with cases still pending at the end of the year 2002 included in a separate pending dataset, not currently in this collection. For the bankruptcy data, the unit of analysis is a single case.
Curated
Restricted
Federal Court Cases: Integrated Data Base Bankruptcy Petitions, 2003 (ICPSR 4252)
Released/updated on: 2011-04-13
Geographic coverage: United States
The purpose of this data collection is to provide an official public record of the business of the federal bankruptcy courts. The data include all petitions filed under the Bankruptcy Code in the United States Bankruptcy Courts on or after October 1, 1993, and any petitions filed before October 1, 1993, that were still pending on that date. The records are organized according to the fiscal year of termination with cases still pending at the end included in a separate pending dataset. The records in Part 1, Terminations Data, 2003, include cases that terminated in the year 2003. Part 2, Pending Data, 2003, contains cases still pending in the year 2003. For the bankruptcy data, the unit of analysis is a single case.
Curated
Restricted
Federal Court Cases: Integrated Data Base Bankruptcy Petitions, 2005 (ICPSR 23080)
Released/updated on: 2011-03-08
Geographic coverage: United States
The purpose of this data collection is to provide an official public record of the business of the federal bankruptcy courts. The data include all petitions filed under the Bankruptcy Code in the United States Bankruptcy Courts on or after October 1, 2005, that were terminated in the 2005 fiscal year. For the bankruptcy data, the unit of analysis is a single case.
Curated
Restricted
Federal Court Cases: Integrated Data Base Bankruptcy Petitions, 2006 (ICPSR 23081)
Released/updated on: 2011-03-08
Geographic coverage: United States
The purpose of this data collection is to provide an official public record of the business of the federal bankruptcy courts. The data include all petitions filed under the Bankruptcy Code in the United States Bankruptcy Courts on or after October 1, 2006, that were terminated in the 2006 fiscal year. For the bankruptcy data, the unit of analysis is a single case.
Curated
Restricted
Federal Court Cases: Integrated Data Base Bankruptcy Petitions, 2007 (ICPSR 23082)
Released/updated on: 2011-03-08
Geographic coverage: United States
The purpose of this data collection is to provide an official public record
of the business of the federal bankruptcy courts. The data include all
petitions filed under the Bankruptcy Code in the United States Bankruptcy
Courts on or after October 1, 2006, and any petitions filed before October 1, 2006, that were still pending on that date. The records are organized according to the fiscal year of termination with cases still pending at the end included in a separate pending dataset. The records in Part 1, Terminations Data, 2007, include cases that terminated in the year 2007. The records in Part 2, Pending Data, 2007, include cases that were still pending as of October 1, 2007. For the bankruptcy data, the unit of analysis is a single case.
Curated
Restricted
Federal Court Cases: Integrated Data Base Bankruptcy Petitions, 2008 (ICPSR 36468)
Released/updated on: 2017-01-05
Geographic coverage: United States
In 2008, the Administrative Office of the United States Courts (AOUSC) began implementing the NewSTATS (New Streamline Timely Access to Statistics) Project with respect to bankruptcy data. The project's goals were to modernize the system for collecting, processing, analyzing, and reporting statistics of the federal court system. Based on the records for bankruptcy cases in NewSTATS, a data base for internal use in the Research Division of the Federal Judicial Center has been created. That data base is the Bankruptcy Petition NewSTATS Snapshots [BPNS] Data Base.
Curated
Restricted
Federal Court Cases: Integrated Data Base Bankruptcy Petitions, 2009 (ICPSR 36483)
Released/updated on: 2017-01-05
Geographic coverage: United States
In 2008, the Administrative Office of the United States Courts (AOUSC) began implementing the NewSTATS (New Streamline Timely Access to Statistics) Project with respect to bankruptcy data. The project's goals were to modernize the system for collecting, processing, analyzing, and reporting statistics of the federal court system. Based on the records for bankruptcy cases in NewSTATS, a data base for internal use in the Research Division of the Federal Judicial Center has been created. That data base is the Bankruptcy Petition NewSTATS Snapshots [BPNS] Data Base.
Curated
Restricted
Federal Court Cases: Integrated Data Base Bankruptcy Petitions, 2010 (ICPSR 36484)
Released/updated on: 2017-01-05
Geographic coverage: United States
In 2008, the Administrative Office of the United States Courts (AOUSC) began implementing the NewSTATS (New Streamline Timely Access to Statistics) Project with respect to bankruptcy data. The project's goals were to modernize the system for collecting, processing, analyzing, and reporting statistics of the federal court system. Based on the records for bankruptcy cases in NewSTATS, a data base for internal use in the Research Division of the Federal Judicial Center has been created. That data base is the Bankruptcy Petition NewSTATS Snapshots [BPNS] Data Base.
Curated
Restricted
Federal Court Cases: Integrated Data Base Bankruptcy Petitions, 2011 (ICPSR 36485)
Released/updated on: 2017-01-05
Geographic coverage: United States
In 2008, the Administrative Office of the United States Courts (AOUSC) began implementing the NewSTATS (New Streamline Timely Access to Statistics) Project with respect to bankruptcy data. The project's goals were to modernize the system for collecting, processing, analyzing, and reporting statistics of the federal court system. Based on the records for bankruptcy cases in NewSTATS, a data base for internal use in the Research Division of the Federal Judicial Center has been created. That data base is the Bankruptcy Petition NewSTATS Snapshots [BPNS] Data Base.
Curated
Restricted
Federal Court Cases: Integrated Data Base Bankruptcy Petitions, 2012 (ICPSR 36486)
Released/updated on: 2017-01-05
Geographic coverage: United States
In 2008, the Administrative Office of the United States Courts (AOUSC) began implementing the NewSTATS (New Streamline Timely Access to Statistics) Project with respect to bankruptcy data. The project's goals were to modernize the system for collecting, processing, analyzing, and reporting statistics of the federal court system. Based on the records for bankruptcy cases in NewSTATS, a data base for internal use in the Research Division of the Federal Judicial Center has been created. That data base is the Bankruptcy Petition NewSTATS Snapshots [BPNS] Data Base.
Curated
Restricted
Federal Court Cases: Integrated Data Base Bankruptcy Petitions, 2013 (ICPSR 36487)
Released/updated on: 2017-01-05
Geographic coverage: United States
In 2008, the Administrative Office of the United States Courts (AOUSC) began implementing the NewSTATS (New Streamline Timely Access to Statistics) Project with respect to bankruptcy data. The project's goals were to modernize the system for collecting, processing, analyzing, and reporting statistics of the federal court system. Based on the records for bankruptcy cases in NewSTATS, a data base for internal use in the Research Division of the Federal Judicial Center has been created. That data base is the Bankruptcy Petition NewSTATS Snapshots [BPNS] Data Base.
Curated
Restricted
Federal Court Cases: Integrated Data Base Bankruptcy Petitions, 2014 (ICPSR 36488)
Released/updated on: 2017-01-05
Geographic coverage: United States
In 2008, the Administrative Office of the United States Courts (AOUSC) began implementing the NewSTATS (New Streamline Timely Access to Statistics) Project with respect to bankruptcy data. The project's goals were to modernize the system for collecting, processing, analyzing, and reporting statistics of the federal court system. Based on the records for bankruptcy cases in NewSTATS, a data base for internal use in the Research Division of the Federal Judicial Center has been created. That data base is the Bankruptcy Petition NewSTATS Snapshots [BPNS] Data Base.
Curated
Restricted
Federal Court Cases: Integrated Data Base Bankruptcy Petitions, 2015 (ICPSR 36489)
Released/updated on: 2017-01-05
Geographic coverage: United States
In 2008, the Administrative Office of the United States Courts (AOUSC) began implementing the NewSTATS (New Streamline Timely Access to Statistics) Project with respect to bankruptcy data. The project's goals were to modernize the system for collecting, processing, analyzing, and reporting statistics of the federal court system. Based on the records for bankruptcy cases in NewSTATS, a data base for internal use in the Research Division of the Federal Judicial Center has been created. That data base is the Bankruptcy Petition NewSTATS Snapshots [BPNS] Data Base.
Curated
Restricted
Federal Court Cases: Integrated Data Base Bankruptcy Petitions, [United States], 2016 (ICPSR 36655)
Released/updated on: 2018-04-30
Geographic coverage: United States
In 2008, the Administrative Office of the United States Courts (AOUSC) began implementing the NewSTATS (New Streamline Timely Access to Statistics) Project with respect to bankruptcy data. The project's goals were to modernize the system for collecting, processing, analyzing, and reporting statistics of the federal court system. Based on the records for bankruptcy cases in NewSTATS, a data base for internal use in the Research Division of the Federal Judicial Center has been created. That data base is the Bankruptcy Petition NewSTATS Snapshots [BPNS] Data Base.