Showing 1 – 50 of 130 results.
Curated
Adolescent Sexual Assault Victims' Experiences with SANE-SARTs and the Criminal Justice System, 1998-2007 (ICPSR 29721)
Released/updated on: 2013-12-13
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1998-01-01--2007-01-01
The study examined adolescent sexual assault survivors' help-seeking experiences with the legal and medical systems in two Midwestern communities that have different models of Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner (SANE)/Sexual Assault Response Team (SART) interventions.
In Dataset 1 (Qualitative Victim Interviews), investigators conducted qualitative interviews with N=20 adolescent sexual assault victims 14-17 years old. From these interviews, investigators identified three distinct patterns of survivors' post-assault disclosures and their pathways to seeking help from SANE programs and the criminal justice system: voluntary (survivors' contact with the legal and medical system was by their choice), involuntary (system contact was not by choice), and situational (circumstances of the assault itself prompted involuntary disclosure). Interviews included responses that described the assault, their experience with both the SANE/SART programs and the criminal justice system, and victim and offender demographic information.
In Dataset 2 (SANE Programs Quantitative Data), investigators obtained SANE program records, police and prosecutor records, and crime lab findings for a sample of N=395 (ages 13-17) adolescent sexual assault victims who sought services from the local SANE programs in two different counties. The data collected examined victim's progress through the criminal justice system. Factors that could potentially affect case progression were also examined; age of victim, relationship to offender, assault characteristics, number of assaults on victim, and evidence collected. Differences between the two different counties' programs were also examined for their effect on the case progression.
Curated
Alternative Probation Strategies in Baltimore, Maryland (ICPSR 8355)
Released/updated on: 2006-01-12
Geographic coverage: Baltimore, United States, Maryland
The purpose of this study was to assess the relative cost-effectiveness of supervised probation, unsupervised probation, and community service. Data were collected from several sources: input-intake forms used by the State of Maryland, probation officers' case record files, Maryland state police rap sheets, FBI sources, and interviews with Maryland probationers. Non-violent, less serious offenders who normally received probation sentences of 12 months or less were offered randomly selected assignments to one of three treatment methods over a five-month period. Baseline data for probationers in each of the three samples were drawn from an intake form that was routinely completed for cases. An interim assessment of recidivism was made at the midpoint of the intervention for each probationer using information drawn from police records. Probationers were interviewed six and twelve months after probation ended. Demographic information on the probationers includes sex, race, age, birthplace, marital status, employment status, and education.
Curated
Assessment of a Multiagency Approach to Drug-Involved Gang Members in San Diego County, California, 1988-1992 (ICPSR 2022)
Released/updated on: 2002-03-05
Geographic coverage: United States, California
Time period: 1988-01-01--1992-01-01
In 1988, with funds from the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) via the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1987, a multiagency task force, Jurisdictions Unified for Drug Gang Enforcement (JUDGE), was created. Spearheaded by the San Diego County District Attorney's Office and representing a unique blend of police officers, probation officers, and deputy district attorneys working together, the JUDGE program targeted documented gang members also involved in drug use and sales. The task force incorporated an intensive supervision approach that enforced conditions of probation and drug laws and provided vertical prosecution for probation violations and new offenses involving targeted offenders. This research project sought to address the following research objectives: (1) to determine if the JUDGE program objectives were met during the grant period, (2) to assess the results of program activities, such as surveillance, special enforcement, and vertical prosecution, in terms of probation violations, arrests, pretrial custody, probation revocations, convictions, and sentences, (3) to evaluate the impact of the program on offenders as measured by recidivism and the need for probation intervention, (4) to assess the cost of JUDGE probation compared to regular probation caseloads, and (5) to provide recommendations regarding the implementation of similar programs in other jurisdictions. This research project consisted of a process evaluation and an impact assessment that focused on the first two years of the JUDGE program, when youthful offenders were the targets (1988 and 1989). The research effort focused only on new targets for whom adequate records were maintained, yielding a study size of 279. The tracking period for targets ended in 1992. For the impact assessment, the research was structured as a within-subjects design, with the comparison focusing on target youths two years before the implementation of JUDGE and the same group two years after being targeted by JUDGE. Data were compiled on the juveniles' age at target, race, sex, gang affiliation, type of target (gang member, drug history, and/or ward), status when targeted, and referrals to other agencies. Variables providing data on criminal histories include age at first contact/arrest, instant offense and disposition, highest charges for each subsequent arrest that resulted in probation supervision, drug charges, highest conviction charges, probation conditions before selection date and after JUDGE target, number of contacts by probation and JUDGE staff, number of violations for each probation condition and action taken, and new offenses during probation. For the process evaluation, case outcome data were compared to project objectives to measure compliance in terms of program implementation and results. Variables include number of violations for each probation condition and action taken, and number of failed drug tests. The consequences of increased probation supervision, including revocation, sentences, custody time, and use of vertical prosecution, were addressed by comparing the processing of cases prior to the implementation of JUDGE to case processing after JUDGE targeting.
Curated
Attitudes Toward Crime and Punishment in Vermont: Public Opinion About an Experiment With Restorative Justice, 1999 (ICPSR 3016)
Released/updated on: 2005-11-04
Geographic coverage: Vermont, United States
By the summer of 1998, the Vermont Department of Corrections (DOC) had completed three years of operational experience with "restorative justice," a concept that involves compensating victims and establishing community-based reparative boards that determine how offenders can make amends for their crimes. The purpose of this project was to update the benchmark findings from an earlier survey of Vermont residents in 1994, to assess public attitudes about the reforms and changes that had been instituted by the Vermont DOC, and to explore the possibility of expansion of responsibilities of the reparative community boards. This project involved a telephone survey of a new sample of 601 adult residents of Vermont. The interviewing was conducted on March 15-21, 1999. Respondents were asked a series of trend questions to update the 1994 findings. Respondents were also asked questions about two other programs: the diversion program, in which selected first offenders who fulfilled the terms of a community-based sanction could have their records expunged, and the furlough program, in which offenders making the transition from prison to the community were supervised for an interim period. The survey also explored whether Vermonters would like to see the responsibilities of the reparative boards expanded to include community notification and other types of cases. Residents assessed whether crime in general, violent crime, and illegal drug use had increased compared to five years prior, whether more prisons should be built, whether Vermont's jails and prisons were overcrowded, and whether violent offenders were being released before completing their sentences because of overcrowding. They commented on how often offenders in four scenarios should go to prison and how often they believed that these offenders in fact did go to prison. Respondents rated the performance of various segments of the Vermont criminal justice system and, given 15 offense scenarios, were asked whether the offender should spend time in jail or in community service and rehabilitation. In addition, respondents were asked whether anyone in their household had been a victim of a crime within the last three years and, if so, whether it was a violent crime. Demographic data include sex, employment, education, race/ethnicity, and age category of the respondent, and the county and region where the resident lived.
Curated
Automated Reporting System Pilot Project in Los Angeles, 1990 (ICPSR 9969)
Released/updated on: 2006-01-12
Geographic coverage: United States, Los Angeles
Time period: 1990-04-01--1990-12-01
The purpose of this pilot project was to determine if preliminary investigation report (PIR) data filed by patrol officers could be collected via laptop computers to allow the direct input of the data into the Los Angeles Police Department Crime and Arrest Database without adversely affecting the personnel taking or using the reports. This data collection addresses the following questions: (1) Did officers and supervisors prefer the automated reporting system (ARS) or the handwritten version of the PIR? (2) Did the ARS affect the job satisfaction or morale of officers and supervisors? (3) Did the ARS reduce the amount of time that patrol officers, supervisors, and clerks spent on paperwork? (4) Did the ARS affect the accuracy of information contained in the PIRs? (5) Did detectives and prosecuting attorneys find the ARS a more reliable source than handwritten PIRs? Officers and supervisors in two divisions of the Los Angeles Police Department, Wilshire and Hollywood, participated as control and experimental groups. The control group continued using handwritten ("existing") PIRs while the experimental group used the automated PIRs (ARS). The General Information Questionnaire collected information on each officer's rank, assignment, watch, gender, age, years with the Los Angeles Police Department, education, job morale, job demands, self-esteem, computer anxiety, and relationship with supervisor and other officers. The Job Performance Rating Form gathered data on work efforts, depth of job knowledge, work quality, oral and written skills, and capacity to learn. The Time Study Sheets collected data on investigation time, writing and editing time, travel time, approval and correction time, review time, errors by type, and data input time for both the handwritten and automated forms. The Evaluation of the Existing Form and the Evaluation of the Automated Form both queried respondents on ease of use, system satisfaction, and productivity loss. The ARS Use Questionnaire asked about ease of use, typing skills, computer skills, comfort with the system, satisfaction with training, and preference for the system. The Hollywood Detective Division ARS Use Questionnaire surveyed detectives on the system's ease of use, task improvement, support for continued use, and preference for the system. The PIR Content Evaluation Form collected data on quality of officers' observations, organization and writing skills, physical evidence, statements of victims, witnesses, and suspects, and offense classification. The Caplan Role Conflict and Role Ambiguity subscales were used in the design of the questionnaires.
Curated
Availability and Use of Intermediate Sanctions by Judges and Corrections Professionals in the United States, 1994 (ICPSR 6788)
Released/updated on: 2013-05-15
Geographic coverage: United States
This survey is part of a larger project designed to explore ways to increase the availability and use of intermediate sanctions (IS) on a national level without jeopardizing public safety. A model for an Intermediate Punishment System is suggested. The survey was undertaken to ascertain attitudes and practices concerning IS for three groups: state and federal judges (Part 3), correctional system administrators responsible for community corrections in their state or jurisdiction (Part 1), and program directors who actually operated community programs (Part 2). The units of analysis were intermediate sanctions/programs operating in jurisdictions across the United States. Data were collected on the availability and frequency of use of IS, as well as costs, client/staffing ratios, use of rehabilitative programming, respondents' opinions concerning the field's needs, and program eligibility criteria. Information was also gathered on how decisions were made to place offenders into the various programs, program outcome and whether the program was viewed as being successful (and how this was measured), and types of new programs needed.
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
Building Healthy Relationships: An Evaluation of the Fourth R Curriculum with Middle School Students in Bronx, NY (2010-2012) (ICPSR 35255)
Released/updated on: 2017-06-09
Geographic coverage: New York City, United States, New York (state)
Time period: 2010-09-01--2012-06-01
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 seeks to test the Fourth R curriculum, a curriculum that seeks to build relationship knowledge and skills, with a younger, urban population of middle school students in the Bronx, New York. Utilizing a randomized controlled trial design, this study tests the effectiveness of the Fourth R curriculum with seventh-grade students drawn from ten public middle schools in the Bronx, New York. A secondary quasi-experimental study seeks to examine diffusion of program impacts by comparing outcomes between students assigned to the experimental control sample and students in three comparison schools where no one received the Fourth R.
The study seeks to measure program impact on five primary and three secondary domains. Primary program impact domains include:
- Dating violence (victimization and perpetration)
- Sexual harassment/assault (victimization and perpetration)
- Peer violence/bullying (victimization and perpetration)
- Sexual activity
- Drug and alcohol use
- Perceived school safety
- Positive beliefs (e.g., anti-fighting/violence, rejection of gender stereotypes)
- Pro-social behaviors
This study achieved their goals through student surveys, administrator and teacher interviews, and student focus groups.
Curated
Restricted
Changing Attitudes and Motivation in Parolees (CHAMPS) Pilot Study in Dallas, Denver, and Des Moines, 2015-2016 (ICPSR 37091)
Released/updated on: 2018-09-17
Geographic coverage: Des Moines, Iowa, United States, Texas, Colorado, Denver, Dallas
Time period: 2015-04-01--2016-08-01
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 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 the implementation of a pilot parole-based intervention, known as the Next Generation of Parole Supervision (NG). Drs. Caleb Lloyd and Ralph Serin developed the NG model with funding from the National Institute of Justice (NIJ), and the National Institute of Corrections developed the NG curriculum for parole officers to implement. The Bureau of Justice Assistance funded the implementation of NG in three study sites: Dallas, Texas; Denver, Colorado; and Des Moines, Iowa.
This mixed-methods study focused on understanding how NG was implemented as it was piloted in the three sites, and assessed NG-trained parole officers' fidelity to the NG model. In order to better understand NG's implementation and the business as usual practices it was intended to replace, the study also included a second group of parole officers who were not trained in NG. The groups were not randomly assigned. Data collected for this study included interview data, parole officer questionnaires related to concepts of the NG curriculum, coaching logs providing measures of whether officers received coaching and its frequency, video recordings of parole supervision meetings, and parole caseload data.
Demographic variables included as part of this collection are parole officers' age and sex, and site location. The data collection includes 3 SAS data files:
- Parole officer-level data (archive_raf170831_po): Includes 31 cases and 26 variables.
- Video-level data (archive_raf170831_video): Includes 241 cases and 15 variables.
- Questionnaire-level data (archive_raf180719_tests): Includes 50 cases and 8 variables.
Curated
Community Policing in Madison, Wisconsin: Evaluation of Implementation and Impact, 1987-1990 (ICPSR 6480)
Released/updated on: 2005-11-04
Geographic coverage: Madison, United States, Wisconsin
Time period: 1987-01-01--1990-01-01
This study sought to evaluate the Madison, Wisconsin, Police Department's creation of a new organizational design (both structural and managerial) that was intended to support community-oriented and problem-oriented policing. One-sixth of the organization serving approximately one-sixth of the community was used as a test site for the new community policing approach. This Experimental Police District (EPD) was charged with implementing "quality policing," which emphasized quality of service delivery, quality of life in the community, and quality of life in the workplace. For the first part of the program evaluation, attitude changes among officers working in the EPD were compared with those of officers working in the rest of the police department. Part 1, Commissioned Personnel Data, Wave 1, contains responses from 269 commissioned personnel surveyed in December 1987, before the creation of the EPD. Part 2, Commissioned Personnel Data, Wave 2, consists of responses from 264 police officers who completed a Wave 2 survey in December 1988, and Part 3, Commissioned Personnel Data, Wave 3, supplies responses from 230 police officers who completed a Wave 3 survey in December 1989. Although the analysis was to be based on a panel design, efforts were made to survey all commissioned personnel during each survey administration period. Police personnel provided their assessments on how successfully quality leadership had been implemented, the extent to which they worked closely with and received feedback from other officers, the amount of their interaction with detectives, the amount of time available for problem-solving, ease of arranging schedules, safety of working conditions, satisfaction with working conditions, type of work they performed, their supervisor, commitment to the department, attitudes related to community policing and problem-solving, perception of their relationship with the community, views of human nature, attitudes toward change, attitudes toward decentralization, and demographic information. As the second part of the program evaluation, attitude changes among residents served by the EPD were compared with those of residents in the rest of the city. These data are presented in Part 4, Residents Data, Waves 1 and 2. Data for Wave 1 consist of personal interviews with a random sample of 1,166 Madison residents in February and March 1988, prior to the opening of the EPD station. During the second wave, Wave 1 respondents were interviewed by telephone in February and March 1990. Residents provided their perceptions of police presence, frequency and quality of police-citizen contacts, estimates of the magnitude of various problems in their neighborhoods, evaluation of the problem-solving efforts of the police, perception of neighborhood conditions, levels of fear of crime, personal experience of victimization, knowledge of victimization of other residents, and demographic information.
Curated
Cost Effectiveness of Misdemeanant Probation in Hamilton County, Ohio, 1981-1982 (ICPSR 8259)
Released/updated on: 2006-01-18
Geographic coverage: United States, Ohio, Cincinnati
Time period: 1981-01-01--1982-01-01
This research was designed to determine whether the supervision of misdemeanant probationers was cost-effective for increasing the level of successful probation completions in Hamilton County, Ohio. The primary objective was to examine the relationships among these factors: supervision costs, the collection of court costs, fines, and restitution, types of supervision, risk assessment, and probationer conduct for the population of probationers. Probationers were initially classified according to risk assessment and then randomly assigned to a supervision category. The probationer's risk potential was a numerical score derived from demographic background variables, prior record, and history of substance use. The DSCP (Degree of Successful Completion of Probation) was developed specifically to measure probationer conduct and to compare trends and relationships. The variables examined in the study include: risk assessment at intake, supervision level assigned, number of times the probationer was assigned to probation, start and planned termination dates, date of last status change, status at termination, degree of successful completion of probation achieved, costs incurred in administering probation, and amounts collected from each probationer for court costs, restitution, and fines. Although data were collected on 7,072 misdemeanant probation experiences, there are only 2,756 probationers included in the study. The remaining 4,316 cases were excluded due to failure of the probationer to show up for screening or for other reasons that did not meet the research criteria.
Curated
CrimeMapTutorial Workbooks and Sample Data for ArcView and MapInfo, 2000 (ICPSR 3143)
Released/updated on: 2001-04-12
Geographic coverage: United States
CrimeMapTutorial is a step-by-step tutorial for learning crime mapping using ArcView GIS or MapInfo Professional GIS. It was designed to give users a thorough introduction to most of the knowledge and skills needed to produce daily maps and spatial data queries that uniformed officers and detectives find valuable for crime prevention and enforcement. The tutorials can be used either for self-learning or in a laboratory setting. The geographic information system (GIS) and police data were supplied by the Rochester, New York, Police Department. For each mapping software package, there are three PDF tutorial workbooks and one WinZip archive containing sample data and maps. Workbook 1 was designed for GIS users who want to learn how to use a crime-mapping GIS and how to generate maps and data queries. Workbook 2 was created to assist data preparers in processing police data for use in a GIS. This includes address-matching of police incidents to place them on pin maps and aggregating crime counts by areas (like car beats) to produce area or choropleth maps. Workbook 3 was designed for map makers who want to learn how to construct useful crime maps, given police data that have already been address-matched and preprocessed by data preparers. It is estimated that the three tutorials take approximately six hours to complete in total, including exercises.
Curated
Crime Stoppers: A National Evaluation of Program Operations and Effects, [United States], 1984 (ICPSR 9349)
Released/updated on: 2006-01-12
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1984-02-01--1984-05-01
The goal of this data collection was to answer three basic questions about the Crime Stoppers (CS) program, a program encouraging citizen involvement in averting crime and apprehending suspects. First, how does Crime Stoppers work in theory and in practice? Second, what are the opinions and attitudes of program participants toward the Crime Stoppers program? Third, how do various components of the program such as rewards, anonymity, use of informants, and media participation affect criminal justice outcome measures such as citizen calls and arrests? This collection marks the first attempt to examine the operational procedures and effectiveness of Crime Stoppers programs in the United States. Police coordinators and board chairs of local Crime Stoppers programs described their perceptions of and attitudes toward the Crime Stoppers program. The Police Coordinator File includes variables such as the police coordinator's background and experience, program development and support, everyday operations and procedures, outcome statistics on citizen calls (suspects arrested, property recovered, and suspects prosecuted), reward setting and distribution, and program relations with media, law enforcement, and the board of directors. Also available in this file are data on citizen calls received by the program, the program's arrests and clearances, and the program's effects on investigation procedure. The merged file contains data from police coordinators and from Crime Stoppers board members. Other variables include city population, percent of households living in poverty, percent of white population, number of Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) Part I crimes involved, membership and performance of the board, fund raising methods, and ratings of the program.
Curated
Cross-Site Analysis and Case Study of STOP Program Grantee Perspectives on Violence Prevention and Mental Health Training Program Implementation, United States, 2021-2023 (ICPSR 38878)
Released/updated on: 2024-08-28
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 2021-01-01--2023-06-30
The Students, Teachers, and Officers Preventing (STOP) School Violence Act was enacted in 2018 to improve school safety by providing grants to states, local governments, and Indian tribes in the United States. Under this legislation, the Bureau of Justice Administration (BJA) was allocated $50 million per year to dedicate to grants for mental health and violence prevention training and education for school personnel and students, as well as the development or enhancement of threat assessment systems and crisis response teams. In the first two years, 2018 and 2019, 43 and 85 grantees were awarded funding for STOP programs, respectively. In 2020, the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) awarded funding to researchers to study the implementation of the first STOP programs. A cross-disciplinary team of researchers from the University of South Florida Child and Family Studies Department and the College of Education received an NIJ grant to study the STOP programs from the first two years of the grant program.
The research questions guiding this study were:
- How have diverse stakeholders (e.g., school administrators, school-based and community mental health professionals, teachers, student and families, law enforcement/SROs, policymakers) been involved in the various stages of implementation?
- How have violence prevention and mental health training programs reflected community needs?
- What are the perceived barriers and facilitators to implementing violence prevention and mental health training programs across grantee sites?
- How do various components of the implementation process contribute to satisfaction with implementation at different stages among stakeholders?
- What measures are in place to evaluate and inform continuous implementation processes, and where do opportunities and needs exist for incorporating feedback to strengthen overall implementation?
This mixed-methods study included a cross-site survey and a case study analysis. The cross-site survey was sent to representatives from 128 grantee U.S. agencies who were involved in implementing programs or training from STOP grants (final n=90 respondents). Questions in the survey asked about implementation factors, barriers and facilitators to implementation, the capacity of schools at each site to address mental health, satisfaction of the implementation process, and how COVID-19 has impacted the implementation of STOP programs. There was also an opportunity to share open feedback. This survey was administered in July 2021 and in July 2022. The case study was an in-depth analysis of a smaller sample of grantee agencies. The researchers conducted stakeholder interviews, meeting observations, and document review to gain insights on participant experiences with implementation of STOP programs and what social, political, and cultural factors may have affected implementation.
Curated
Cross-Site Evaluation of the Bureau of Justice Assistance Second Chance Act Adult Offender Reentry Demonstration Programs, United States, 2011-2016 (ICPSR 37042)
Released/updated on: 2021-07-29
Geographic coverage: United States, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Minnesota, California, Florida, New Jersey, Pennsylvania
Time period: 2011-01-01--2016-01-01
The cross-site evaluation of the Adult Offender Reentry Demonstration Projects (AORDP) was a seven-site study designed to 1) describe the implementation and sustainability of each AORDP project through a process evaluation, 2) determine the per capita program costs of each AORDP project through a cost study, and 3) determine the effectiveness of the programs through a multicomponent outcome study. The seven evaluation sites were located in California, Connecticut, Florida, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. The objectives of the outcome evaluation were to determine the effects of program participation on recidivism and other outcomes and assess whether program participation increased engagement in services, including substance abuse treatment and mental health services. The outcome evaluation consisted of two components:
1. Cross-site prospective study designed to collect longitudinal survey data with a sample of program participants and appropriate comparison or control subjects to assess the impact of the SCA funding on access to services and reentry outcomes, such as substance use, employment, housing, and health.
2. Site-specific recidivism analyses using administrative data to assess the impact of AORDP program participation on recidivism outcomes for all individuals enrolled in the AORDP programs and a matched comparison group in each site
Curated
Dangerous Sex Offenders: Classifying, Predicting, and Evaluating Outcomes of Clinical Treatment in Bridgewater, Massachusetts, 1982-1985 (ICPSR 8985)
Released/updated on: 2005-11-04
Geographic coverage: United States, Massachusetts, Bridgewater
Time period: 1982-01-01--1985-01-01
The purpose of this data collection was to validate two classification systems, one for rapists and one for child molesters, used in a Massachusetts treatment center for sexually aggressive offenders. Rapists and child molesters were classified as two types of sex offenders and then clinically classified into subtypes based on criteria for the two taxonomies being tested. Variables include type of traffic offenses, criminal offenses, and sex offenses charged. Data on disposition of cases are also provided, along with parole and discharge information. Offenders' post-release offenses were categorized into traffic offenses, nontraffic offenses, and sex offenses.
Curated
Divorce Mediation and Domestic Violence in the United States, 1993 (ICPSR 2561)
Released/updated on: 2005-11-04
Geographic coverage: United States
This study gathered data on policies and procedures for identifying domestic violence issues among divorcing couples and examined divorce mediation practices and policies in cases with allegations of spousal violence. Mediators and court administrators provided information on: (1) whether and how they attempted to gauge the level of domestic abuse and the capacity of divorcing parties to mediate, and (2) common adjustments to the mediation process made to enhance safety in divorce cases where domestic abuse is present. Data collection involved a collaboration with the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC) in the administration and analysis of this survey. Court programs providing divorce mediation and/or custody evaluations in 1993 were targeted. The questionnaire was mailed in late 1993 to 200 institutional members of the AFCC and active providers of family and divorce services in the National Center for State Courts database. A total of 149 public-sector divorce mediation and custody/visitation counseling providers responded. Variables include information on the rules, statutes, or guidelines under which the program operates, case handling procedures prior to mediation or custody/visitation evaluations, and procedures used when clients come to mediation. Information is also provided on the number of paid professional staff, number of custody/visitation mediations and evaluations completed, population of the jurisdiction, the program's relationship to the court, types of orientation programs for parents provided by the court, if the community had any supervised visitation services, and the city and state in which the program is located.
Curated
Drug Offender Treatment in Local Corrections in California and New York, 1991-1993 (ICPSR 6628)
Released/updated on: 2005-11-04
Geographic coverage: United States, California, New York (state)
Time period: 1991-01-01--1993-01-01
The purpose of this multisite program evaluation project was to provide detailed and systematic descriptions of participants and treatment program components for a sample of five drug treatment programs in local jails. Three of the programs were located in California: Jail Education and Treatment (JET), Deciding, Educating, Understanding, Counseling, and Evaluation (DEUCE), and Rebuilding, Educating, Awareness, Counseling, and Hope (REACH). Two programs were in New York State: Substance Abuse Intervention Division (SAID) and New Beginnings. The project was aimed at assessing program completion rates as well as 12-month post-release recidivism for program participants versus matched controls. Background information obtained about the participating offenders includes sex, race, age, education, marital status, and employment status, as well as history of drug use, previous drug treatment, mental illness, inpatient/outpatient episodes, and offenses and sentencing. Additional data cover program location, dates of release from the program and from jail, type of program termination, type of residence upon release, and anticipated post-custody treatment. Information on each conviction/disposition was obtained through state criminal information systems, and state-level criminal history data (rap sheets) were collected for both the treatment and comparison groups. The unit of analysis is arrest events.
Curated
Drugs and Police Response: Survey of Public Housing Residents in Denver, Colorado, 1989-1990 (ICPSR 6482)
Released/updated on: 1995-08-16
Geographic coverage: United States, Colorado, Denver
Time period: 1989-01-01--1990-01-01
This data collection is the result of an evaluation of the NEPHU program, conducted by the Police Foundation under the sponsorship of the National Institute of Justice (NIJ). In August 1989, the Bureau of Justice Assistance supported a grant in Denver, Colorado, to establish a special Narcotics Enforcement in Public Housing Unit (NEPHU) within the Denver Police Department. The goal of the Denver NEPHU was to reduce the availability of narcotics in and around the city's public housing areas by increasing drug arrests. NEPHU's six full-time officers made investigations and gathered intelligence leading to on-street arrests and search warrants. The unit also operated a special telephone Drug Hotline and met regularly with tenant councils in the developments to improve community relations. The program worked in cooperation with the Denver Housing Authority and the uniformed patrol division of the Denver Police Department, which increased levels of uniformed patrols to maintain high visibility in the project areas to deter conventional crime. Using a panel design, survey interviews were conducted with residents in the Quigg Newton and Curtis Park public housing units, focusing on events that occurred during the past six months. Respondents were interviewed during three time periods to examine the onset and persistence of any apparent program effects. In December 1989, interviews were completed with residents in 521 households. In June 1990, 422 respondents were interviewed in Wave 2. Wave 3 was conducted in December 1990 and included 423 respondents. In all, 642 individuals were interviewed, 283 of whom were interviewed for all three waves. Because of the evaluation's design, the data can be analyzed to reveal individual-level changes for the 283 respondents who were interviewed on all three occasions, and the data can also be used to determine a cross-section representation of the residents by including the 359 "new" persons interviewed during the course of the evaluation. Information collected includes years and months lived in the development, assessments of changes in the neighborhood, whether the respondent planned to stay in the development, interactions among residents, awareness of anti-drug programs, ranking of various problems in the development, concerns and reports of being a victim of various crimes, perceived safety of the development, assessment of drug use and availability, assessment of police activity and visibility, and personal contacts with police. The unit of analysis is the individual.
Curated
Effectiveness of a Joint Police and Social Services Response to Elder Abuse in Manhattan [New York City], New York, 1996-1997 (ICPSR 3130)
Released/updated on: 2005-11-04
Geographic coverage: New York City, United States, New York (state)
Time period: 1996-01-01--1997-01-01
This project consisted of an evaluation of an elder abuse program run by the New York Police Department and Victim Services Research. The focus of the study was domestic elder abuse, which generally refers to any of several forms of maltreatment, physical abuse, sexual abuse, psychological abuse, neglect, and/or financial exploitation of an older person. The program, conducted in New York City public housing, had two complementary parts. First, public housing projects in Manhattan were assigned to one of two levels of public education (i.e., to receive or not to receive educational materials about elder abuse). Once the public education treatment had been implemented, 403 older adult residents of the housing projects who reported elder abuse to the police during the next ten months were assigned to one of two levels of follow-up to the initial police response (i.e., to receive or not to receive a home visit) as the second part of the project. The home visit intervention consisted of a strong law enforcement response designed to prevent repeat incidents of elder abuse. A team from the Domestic Violence Intervention and Education Program (DVIEP), consisting of a police officer and a social worker, followed up on domestic violence complaints with a home visit within a few days of the initial patrol response. Victims were interviewed about new victimizations following the intervention on three occasions: six weeks after the trigger incident, six months after the trigger incident, and twelve months after the trigger incident. Interviews at the three time points were identical except for the omission of background information on the second and third interviews. Demographic data collected during the first interview included age, gender, ethnicity, education, employment, income, legal relationship with abuser, living situation, number of people in the household, and health. For each time point, data provide measures of physical, psychological, and financial abuse, knowledge of elder abuse, knowledge and use of social services, satisfaction with the police, assessment of service delivery, and self-esteem and well-being. The DVIEP databases maintained on households at each of the three participating Police Service Areas (PSAs) were searched to identify new police reports of elder abuse for households in the sample within 12 months following the trigger incident. Variables from the DVIEP databases include age, race, ethnicity, and sex of the victim and the perpetrator, relationship of perpetrator to victim, type of abuse reported, charge, whether an arrest was made, if an order of protection had been obtained, if the order of protection was violated, use of weapons, if the victim had been injured, and if the victim was taken to the hospital. Several time lapse variables between different time points are also provided.
Curated
Effectiveness of Client Specific Planning as an Alternative Sentence, 1981-1982: Washington, DC, and Fairfax, Montgomery, and Prince George Counties (ICPSR 8943)
Released/updated on: 1992-02-16
Geographic coverage: District of Columbia, United States
Time period: 1981-10-01--1982-09-30
This data collection was designed to evaluate the Client Specific Planning (CSP) program of the National Center on Institutions and Alternatives (NCIA). The CSP program offers non-incarcerative sentencing options and alternatives prepared for judges and presented by an NCIA caseworker. The study measures the impact of the program on sentence length, sentence severity, the effectiveness of the program at diverting serious felony offenders from incarceration, and the rate, type, seriousness, and timing of recidivism in a 24-month post-sentence risk period. Variables are provided for each defendant on demographic characteristics, criminal history, prior counseling experiences, prior incarceration, charges and dispositions of the recidivist arrests, and types of sentencing alternatives recommended in CSP.
Curated
Restricted
Effect of Prison Based Alcohol Treatment: Treatment and Recidivism Data from Montana, Ohio, and Texas, 2006-2012 (ICPSR 34928)
Released/updated on: 2017-02-03
Geographic coverage: Montana, United States, Texas, Ohio
Time period: 2006-07-01--2012-05-01, 2009-07-01--2012-09-01, 2008-03-01--2011-12-01
This study evaluated program design, quality of treatment delivery, and program effectiveness of three separate state sponsored alcohol specific treatment programs in prisons located in Montana, Ohio, and Texas from 2006 to 2012.
Curated
Effects of Community Policing on Tasks of Street-Level Police Officers in Ohio, 1981 and 1996 (ICPSR 2481)
Released/updated on: 2005-11-04
Geographic coverage: United States, Ohio
These data were collected to analyze the impact of community-oriented policing (COP) on job assignments of police officers in Ohio. The study compared the self-reported job tasks of police officers in 1981 to those in 1996 to determine if job tasks had changed over time, if they differed between officers in departments pursuing community policing, or if they differed between officers assigned as "community policing" officers and those having more traditional assignments. The 1981 Ohio Peace Officer Task Analysis Survey was conducted to measure police officer tasks. A total of 1,989 police officers from over 300 Ohio police agencies responded to that survey. Recognizing that community policing had not yet begun to enjoy popularity when the first sample of officers was questioned in 1981 and that the job of policing and the training needs of peace officers had changed over the past 15 years, the Ohio Office of Criminal Justice Services again conducted a task analysis survey of a sample of police officers throughout the state in 1996. The 1996 survey instrument included 23 items taken directly from the earlier survey. These 23 items are the only variables from the 1981 survey that are included in this dataset, and they form the basis of the study's comparisons. A total of 1,689 officers from 229 police departments responded to the 1996 survey. Additionally, while the 1996 Peace Officer Task Analysis survey was in the field, the local police agencies included in the survey sample were asked to complete a separate agency survey to determine if they had a community policing program. A total of 180 departments returned responses to this agency survey. Background questions for the 1981 and 1996 task analysis surveys included police officers' age, race, sex, and job satisfaction. Items concerning police officers' job tasks covered frequency of conducting field searches of arrested persons, handcuffing suspects, impounding property, participating in raids, patrolling on foot, giving street directions, mediating family disputes, and engaging in school visits. The 1996 agency questionnaire gathered data on whether the police department had a COP program or a mission statement that emphasized community involvement, whether the COP program had an actual implementation date and a full-time supervisor, whether the respondents were currently assigned as COP officers, and whether the department's COP officers had had supplemental training.
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
Simple Crosstabs
Enhancing Response to Victims: A Formative Evaluation of the Office for Victims of Crime Law Enforcement-Based Victim Services (LEV) Program, United States, 2021-2022 (ICPSR 39018)
Released/updated on: 2025-08-14
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 2021-01-01--2022-12-31
Through this formative evaluation, researchers sought to provide foundational knowledge of the law enforcement-based victim services programs funded through the Office for Victims of Crime Law Enforcement-based Victim Services (LEV) program and move the victim services field closer to being able to evaluate the effectiveness of LE-based victim services and identify best practices for service provision. The researchers' specific objectives were to (1) develop a comprehensive inventory and typology of all LEV programs, (2) develop logic models and identify core components of a subset of sites, (3) conduct an evaluability assessment in the subset of sites, (4) develop recommendations for future outcome evaluation, and (5) develop an implementation guide and fidelity measures. The data archived here include administrative data on LEV programs provided by the Training and Technical Assistance (TTA) team, a web survey of all LEV sites, and Census data that was used to describe the communities in which LEV programs were located.
Curated
Evaluating a Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) Night Drug Court in Las Cruces, New Mexico, 1997-1998 (ICPSR 3186)
Released/updated on: 2006-01-18
Geographic coverage: Las Cruces, United States, New Mexico
The purpose of this study was twofold. First, researchers wanted to assess the benefits of the driving while intoxicated (DWI) drug court established in the Las Cruces, New Mexico, Municipal Court in an effort to determine its future viability. This was accomplished by examining the behaviors and attitudes of three groups of convicted drunk-drivers and determining the extent to which these groups were different or similar. The three groups included: (1) non-alcoholic first- and second-time offenders (non-alcoholic offenders), (2) alcoholic first- and second-time DWI offenders (alcoholic offenders), and (3) chronic three-time (or more) DWI offenders (chronic offenders). The second purpose of this study was to explore police officers' attitudes toward court-based treatment programs for DWI offenders, while examining the distinguishing characteristics between police officers who support court-based programs for drunk drivers and those who are less likely to support such sanctions. Data for Part 1, Drug Court Survey Data, were collected using a survey questionnaire distributed to non-alcoholic, alcoholic, and chronic offenders. Part 1 variables include blood alcohol level, jail time, total number of prior arrests and convictions, the level of support from the respondents' family and friends, and whether the respondent thought DWI was wrong, could cause injury, or could ruin lives. Respondents were also asked whether they acted spontaneously in general, took risks, found trouble exciting, ever assaulted anyone, ever destroyed property, ever extorted money, ever sold or used drugs, thought lying or stealing was OK, ever stole a car, attempted breaking and entering, or had been a victim of extortion. Demographic variables for Part 1 include the age, gender, race, and marital status of each respondent. Data for Part 2, Police Officer Survey Data, were collected using a survey questionnaire designed to capture what police officers knew about the DWI Drug Court, where they learned about it, and what factors accounted for their attitudes toward the program. Variables for Part 2 include police officers' responses to whether DWI court was effective, whether DWI laws were successful, the perceived effect of mandatory jail time versus treatment alone, major problems seen with DWI policies, if DWI was considered dangerous, and how the officer had learned or been briefed about the drug court. Other variables include the number of DWI arrests, and whether respondents believed that reforms weaken police power, that DWI caused more work for them, that citizens have bad attitudes, that the public has too many rights, and that stiffer penalties for DWI offenders were more successful.
Curated
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
Evaluating a Multi-Disciplinary Response to Domestic Violence in Colorado Springs, 1996-1999 (ICPSR 3282)
Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: United States, Colorado, Colorado Springs
The Colorado Springs Police Department formed a nontraditional domestic violence unit in 1996 called the Domestic Violence Enhanced Response Team (DVERT). This unit involved a partnership and collaboration with the Center for the Prevention of Domestic Violence, a private, nonprofit victim advocacy organization, and 25 other city and county agencies. DVERT was unique in its focus on the safety of the victim over the arrest and prosecution of the batterer. It was also different from the traditional police model for a special unit because it was a systemic response to domestic violence situations that involved the coordination of criminal justice, social service, and community-based agencies. This study is an 18-month evaluation of the DVERT unit. It was designed to answer the following research and evaluation questions: (1) What were the activities of DVERT staff? (2) Who were the victims and perpetrators of domestic violence? (3) What were the characteristics of domestic violence-related incidents in Colorado Springs and surrounding jurisdictions? (4) What was the nature of the intervention and prevention activities of DVERT? (5) What were the effects of the intervention? (6) What was the nature and extent of the collaboration among criminal justice agencies, victim advocates, and city and county human services agencies? (7) What were the dynamics of the collaboration? and (8) How successful was the collaboration? At the time of this evaluation, the DVERT program focused on three levels of domestic violence situations: Level I included the most lethal situations in which a victim might be in serious danger, Level II included moderately lethal situations in which the victim was not in immediate danger, and Level III included lower lethality situations in which patrol officers engaged in problem-solving. Domestic violence situations came to the attention of DVERT through a variety of mechanisms. Most of the referrals came from the Center for the Prevention of Domestic Violence. Other referrals came from the Department of Human Services, the Humane Society, other law enforcement agencies, or city service agencies. Once a case was referred to DVERT, all relevant information concerning criminal and prosecution histories, advocacy, restraining orders, and human services documentation was researched by appropriate DVERT member agencies. Referral decisions were made on a weekly basis by a group of six to eight representatives from the partner agencies. From its inception in May 1996 to December 31, 1999, DVERT accepted 421 Level I cases and 541 Level II cases. Cases were closed or deactivated when DVERT staff believed that the client was safe from harm. Parts 1-4 contain data from 285 Level I DVERT cases that were closed between July 1, 1996, and December 31, 1999. Parts 5-8 contain data from 515 Level II cases from 1998 and 1999 only, because data were more complete in those two years. Data were collected from (1) police records of the perpetrator and victim, including calls for service, arrest reports, and criminal histories, (2) DVERT case files, and (3) Center for the Prevention of Domestic Violence files on victims. Coding sheets were developed to capture the information within these administrative documents. Part 1 includes data on whether the incident produced injuries or a risk to children, whether the victim, children, or animals were threatened, whether weapons were used, if there was stalking or sexual abuse, prior criminal history, and whether there was a violation of a restraining order. For Part 2 data were gathered on the date of case acceptance to the DVERT program and deactivation, if the offender was incarcerated, if the victim was in a new relationship or had moved out of the area, if the offender had moved or was in treatment, if the offender had completed a domestic violence class, and if the offender had served a sentence. Parts 3 and 4 contain information on the race, date of birth, gender, employment, and relationship to the victim or offender for the offenders and victims, respectively. Part 5 includes data on the history of emotional, physical, sexual, and child abuse, prior arrests, whether the victim took some type of action against the offender, whether substance abuse was involved, types of injuries that the victim sustained, whether medical care was necessary, whether a weapon was used, restraining order violations, and incidents of harassment, criminal trespassing, telephone threats, or kidnapping. Part 6 variables include whether the case was referred to and accepted in Level I and whether a DVERT advocate made contact on the case. Part 7 contains information on the offenders' race and gender. Part 8 includes data on the victims' date of birth, race, and gender.
Curated
Evaluating Network Sampling in Victimization Surveys in Peoria, Illinois, 1986 (ICPSR 9968)
Released/updated on: 1993-05-13
Geographic coverage: United States, Illinois, Peoria
Time period: 1986-02-01--1986-09-01
This data collection evaluates the advantages of network sampling over traditional methods in conducting crime and victimization surveys. Network sampling links population households in specified ways, for reporting purposes, in order to increase the likelihood of locating households with particular characteristics. The investigators conducted a reverse record check survey of victims and a network survey with a random sample of the victims' relatives and close friends. The researchers compared the extent to which crime victims reported their victimization experiences in a general crime and victimization interview and the extent to which a randomly selected relative or close friend of each victim reported the same victimization in the same type of interview. In addition, they examined whether significant reporting differences were evident by type of crime and by various demographic variables.
Curated
Evaluating Program Enhancements for Mentors Working with Children of Incarcerated Parents (COIP), United States, 2016-2020 (ICPSR 38055)
Released/updated on: 2022-03-30
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 2016-01-01--2020-01-01
The Children of Incarcerated Parents (COIP) Project was established as a means of evaluating mentorships between children whose parents are incarcerated and program mentors. This establishment was done as a result of the fact that over half of currently incarcerated Americans are parents, and over half of children whose parents are incarcerated are below the age of 10. The consequences of children having parents incarcerated can include family instability and possible future criminal activity of such children. The COIP Project was implemented across various mentorship programs throughout the United States with the objective of countering these issues.
Curated
Evaluating the Impact of Alternative Placement Programs for Juveniles in a Southwestern State, 1983-1995: [United States] (ICPSR 2991)
Released/updated on: 2002-02-15
Time period: 1983-01-01--1995-09-01
This study addressed the question of whether alternative correctional programs were more effective than traditional training schools in reducing recidivism among juvenile offenders. Alternative programs were defined as halfway homes, group homes, foster homes, ranches, camping programs, and specialized vocational programs, while training schools were defined as secure, restrictive custody programs in institutional settings. The goal of this study was to assess the impact of alternative program placements versus training school for a 12-year period on 266 juvenile delinquents remanded to youth facilities in a southwestern state in 1983. Subjects chosen for the study were 298 youth who had been committed by a county court to a statewide juvenile corrections program between January 1, 1983, and July 1, 1983. The sample was representative of the youth commission's population of juvenile offenders in terms of age, race, and sex. All were first time commitments, and the original commitment offense for a majority of the youth was a nonviolent property crime, such as burglary or theft. From this original sample, 32 juveniles were eliminated from the study because they were not adequately exposed to either an institutional or alternative program. The final sample consisted of 266 juvenile offenders, of which 164 were placed in institutions and 102 were placed in alternative programs. Youth were not randomly assigned to programs. Juveniles with particular characteristics were automatically assigned to certain types of programs. All violent offenders were placed in institutions. The study was designed to include a lengthy follow-up period, a focus on subject by program interaction effects, and the use of survival analysis to examine the timing of recidivism as well as its incidence. Recidivism was defined as the first arrest or parole revocation that took place within the follow-up period. The follow-up period was approximately 12 years, from the parole assignment until September 1, 1995. Data were collected primarily from the administrative records of the state youth commission. The commission also obtained additional follow-up data from the state Department of Public Safety and the state Department of Corrections. Additionally, family background data were collected from each youth's parole officer in response to a survey conducted specifically for this study in September 1994. Demographic variables include commitment age, race, and sex. Psychosocial variables include family environment and IQ. Other independent variables include program placement status, delinquency risk scales, and program adjustment measures. The dependent variable is recidivism, measured as both a discrete variable indicating whether an arrest occurred and time until first arrest offense after parole.
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
Partially restricted
Evaluation of a Coordinated Community Response to Domestic Violence in Alexandria, Virginia, 1990-1998 (ICPSR 2858)
Released/updated on: 2006-07-13
Geographic coverage: United States, Alexandria, Virginia
Time period: 1990-01-01--1998-01-01
This study was undertaken to evaluate Alexandria, Virginia's Domestic Violence Intervention Program (DVIP), which is a coordinated community response to domestic violence. Specifically, the goals of the study were (1) to determine the effectiveness of DVIP, (2) to compare victims' perceptions of program satisfaction and other program elements between the Alexandria Domestic Violence Intervention Program and domestic violence victim support services in Virginia Beach, Virginia, (3) to examine the factors related to abusers who repeatedly abuse their victims, and (4) to report the findings of attitudinal surveys of the Alexandria police department regarding the mandatory arrest policy. Data were collected from four sources. The first two sources of data were surveys conducted via telephone interviews with females living in either Alexandria, Virginia (Part 1), or Virginia Beach, Virginia (Part 2), who were victims of domestic violence assault incidents in which the police had been contacted. These surveys were designed to describe the services that the women had received, their satisfaction with those services, and their experience with subsequent abuse. For Part 3 (Alexandria Repeat Offender Data), administrative records from the Alexandria Criminal Justice Information System (CJIS) were examined in order to identify and examine the factors related to abusers who repeatedly abused their victims. The fourth source of data was a survey distributed to police officers in Alexandria (Part 4, Alexandria Police Officer Survey Data) and was developed to assess police officers' attitudes regarding the domestic violence arrest policy in Alexandria. In four rounds of interviews for Part 1 and three rounds of interviews for Part 2, victims answered questions regarding the location where the domestic violence incident occurred and if the police were involved, their perceptions of the helpfulness of the police, prosecutor, domestic violence programs, hotlines, and shelters, their relationship to the abuser, their living arrangements at the time of each interview, and whether a protective order was obtained. Also gathered was information on the types of abuse and injuries sustained by the victim, whether she sought medical care for the injuries, whether drugs or alcohol played a role in the incident(s), whether the victim had been physically abused or threatened, yelled at, had personal property destroyed, or was made to feel unsafe by the abuser, if any other programs or persons provided help to the victim and how helpful these additional services were, and whether a judge ordered services for the victim or abuser. After the initial interviews, in subsequent rounds victims were asked if they had had any contact with the abuser since the last interview, if they had experienced any major life changes, if their situation had improved or gotten worse and if so how, and what types of assistance or programs would have helped improve their situation. Demographic variables for Part 3 include offenders' race, sex, age at first criminal nondomestic violence charge, and age at first domestic violence charge. Other variables include charge number, type, initiator, disposition, and sentence of nondomestic violence charges, as well as the conditions of the sentences, imposed days, months, and years, effective days, months, and years, type of domestic violence case, victim's relationship to offender, victim's age, sex, and race, whether alcohol or drugs were involved, if children were present at the domestic violence incident, the assault method used by the offender, and the severity of the assault. For Part 4, police officers were asked whether they knew what a domestic violent incident was, whether arresting without a warrant was considered good policy, whether they were in favor of domestic violence policy as a police response, whether they thought domestic violence policy was an effective deterrent, whether officers should have discretion to arrest, and how much discretion was used to handle domestic violence calls. The number and percent of domestic violence arrests made in the previous year, percent of domestic violence calls that involved mutual combat, and the number of years each respondent worked with the Alexandria, Virginia, police department are included in the file. Demographic variables for Part 4 include the age and gender of each respondent.
Curated
Restricted
Evaluation of a Drug Testing and Graduated Sanctions Program in Delaware, 2010-2012 (ICPSR 35010)
Released/updated on: 2017-03-22
Geographic coverage: Delaware
Time period: 2010-01-01--2012-01-01
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.
The "Design Your Time" (DYT) program was designed to test, in a real world setting, the efficacy of systematically providing increased monitoring of probationers coupled with known, certain and quickly enforced sanctions to reduce substance use and increase positive probationer outcomes. Developed from a model of deterrence, the program informed eligible probationers of what exactly was required of them, what would happen to them when they failed to meet requirements (increased sanctions), and how to reduce their level of monitoring once they violated and triggered increased sanctions (reduced sanctions and garnered rewards). The program utilized a model based on deterrence in which certainty and speed, rather than immediate severity, were the key elements. It also empowered the probationer by clearly informing him or her of the elements of the program, thus allowing them to "Decide Your Time." The program focused on those offenders who tested positive for drugs at intake and involved frequent urinalysis for offenders, coupled with increasing sanctions and referral to treatment.
The collection includes 1 SPSS data file with 404 variables and 400 cases. Data from qualitative interviews with probationers, day to day observations in the probation office, qualitative interviews with the DYT probation officers conducted three months after that program launched, and a focus group with the DYT officers at the conclusion of the study are not available.
Curated
Evaluation of a Repeat Offender Unit in Phoenix, Arizona, 1987-1989 (ICPSR 9793)
Released/updated on: 1992-10-31
Geographic coverage: United States, Phoenix, Arizona
Time period: 1987-01-01--1989-01-01
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of a Repeat Offender Unit in Phoenix. Repeat Offender Programs are police-initiated procedures for patrolling and apprehending likely offenders in communities. These units typically rely on the cooperation of police and prosecutors who work together to identify, convict, and incarcerate individuals who are judged likely to commit crimes, especially serious crimes, at high rates. For this study, previous offenders were assigned either to a control or an experimental group. If an individual assigned to the experimental group was later arrested, the case received special attention by the Repeat Offender Program. Staff of the Repeat Offender Program worked closely with the county attorney's office to thoroughly document the case and to obtain victim and witness cooperation. If the individual was in the control group and was later arrested, no additional action was taken by the Program staff. Variables include assignment to the experimental or control group, jail status, probation and parole status, custody status, number of felony arrests, type of case, bond amount, number of counts against the individual, type of counts against the individual, number of prior convictions, arresting agency, case outcome, type of incarceration imposed, and length of incarceration imposed.
Curated
Evaluation of Boot Camps for Juvenile Offenders in Cleveland, Denver, and Mobile, 1992-1993 (ICPSR 6922)
Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: United States, Colorado, Ohio, Denver, Alabama, Cleveland, Mobile
Time period: 1992-01-01--1993-01-01
Boot camps, a popular alternative to standard correctional facilities, are characterized by a strong emphasis on military structure, drill, and discipline and by an abbreviated period of incarceration. In 1990, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) launched a demonstration program to develop boot camp models for juveniles and to test the feasibility and appropriateness of their implementation. In September 1991, three groups received awards to develop and implement boot camps as intermediate sanctions: the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas in Cleveland, Ohio, the Colorado Division of Youth Services in Denver, Colorado, and the Boys and Girls Clubs of Greater Mobile, Alabama. Simultaneously, the National Institute of Justice sponsored an evaluation of the implementation of the demonstration programs, focusing on the experiences of youths who entered the program during the first year of operation, from 1992 to 1993. This collection contains data from the program evaluation conducted on these three boot camps during the first year. The core of the assessment was a management information system that captured administrative data as the offenders progressed through the demonstration program. At intake, researchers collected demographic, criminal, and family and social information. Demographic information collected at intake includes age, race, education, and employment. Criminal data covers criminal history, current offense, and case information, while family and social history variables include whether the youths' parents had a criminal record, whether their family received public assistance, and whether they had delinquent friends, delinquent siblings, discipline problems at home or school, or a history of psychological problems. At the beginning and end of the boot camp term, staff rated the youths' performance on educational and behavioral measures. The youths were also surveyed about the rules of boot camp, their opinions of instructors, and their self-esteem, drug and alcohol use, and criminal behavior. At the end of the first 90 days (the residential period), data were collected on the date of graduation, infractions during boot camp, honors or awards, and special services received. Five months after graduation, youths were evaluated on their aftercare experiences. Some sites supplemented the basic management information with data collected on educational performance, employment history and expectations, physical fitness, and youth attitudes.
Curated
Evaluation of CeaseFire, a Chicago-based Violence Prevention Program, 1991-2007 (ICPSR 23880)
Released/updated on: 2015-02-25
Geographic coverage: United States, Chicago, Illinois
Time period: 1991-01-01--2006-12-01, 1998-02-01--2006-04-01, 2006-05-01--2007-08-01, 2006-09-01--2007-02-01, 2007-04-05--2007-07-19
This study evaluated CeaseFire, a program of the Chicago Project for Violence Prevention. The evaluation had both outcome and process components.
The outcome evaluation assessed the program's impact on shootings and killings in selected CeaseFire sites. Two types of crime data were compiled by the research team: Time Series Data (Dataset 1) and Shooting Incident Data (Dataset 2). Dataset 1 is comprised of aggregate month/year data on all shooting, gun murder, and persons shot incidents reported to Chicago police for CeaseFire's target beats and matched sets of comparison beats between January 1991 and December 2006, resulting in 1,332 observations. Dataset 2 consists of data on 4,828 shootings that were reported in CeaseFire's targeted police beats and in a matched set of comparison beats for two-year periods before and after the implementation of the program (February 1998 to April 2006).
The process evaluation involved assessing the program's operations and effectiveness. Researchers surveyed three groups of CeaseFire program stakeholders: employees, representatives of collaborating organizations, and clients.
The three sets of employee survey data examine such topics as their level of involvement with clients and CeaseFire activities, their assessments of their clients' problems, and their satisfaction with training and management practices. A total of 154 employees were surveyed: 23 outreach supervisors (Dataset 3), 78 outreach workers (Dataset 4), and 53 violence interrupters (Dataset 5).
The six sets of collaborating organization representatives data examine such topics as their level of familiarity and contact with the CeaseFire program, their opinions of CeaseFire clients, and their assessments of the costs and benefits of being involved with CeaseFire. A total of 230 representatives were surveyed: 20 business representatives (Dataset 6), 45 clergy representatives (Dataset 7), 26 community representatives (Dataset 8), 35 police representatives (Dataset 9), 36 school representatives (Dataset 10), and 68 service organization representatives (Dataset 11).
The Client Survey Data (Dataset 12) examine such topics as clients' involvement in the CeaseFire program, their satisfaction with aspects of life, and their opinions regarding the role of guns in neighborhood life. A total of 297 clients were interviewed.
Curated
Evaluation of Community Policing Initiatives in Jefferson County, West Virginia, 1996-1997 (ICPSR 2800)
Released/updated on: 2005-11-04
Geographic coverage: West Virginia, United States
This data collection was designed to evaluate the implementation of community policing initiatives for three police departments in Jefferson County, West Virginia: the Ranson Town Police Department, the West Virginia State Police (Jefferson County Detachment), and the Jefferson County Sheriff's Department. The evaluation was undertaken by the Free Our Citizens of Unhealthy Substances Coalition (FOCUS), a county-based group of citizens who represented all segments of the community, including businesses, churches, local law enforcement agencies, and local governments. The aim was to find answers to the following questions: (1) Can community policing have any detectable and measurable impact in a predominantly rural setting? (2) Did the police department do what they said they would do in their funding application? (3) If they were successful, what factors supported their efforts and were key to their success? and (4) If they were not successful, what problems prevented their success? The coalition conducted citizen surveys to evaluate how much of an impact community policing initiatives had in their county. In January 1996, research assistants conducted a baseline survey of 300 households in the county. Survey responses were intended to gauge residents' fear of crime and to assess how well the police were performing their duties. After one year, the coalition repeated its survey of public attitudes, and research assistants interviewed another 300 households. The research assumption was that any change in fear of crime or assessment of police performance could reasonably be attributed to these new community policing inventions. Crime reporting variables from the survey included which crime most concerned the respondent, if the respondent would report a crime he or she observed, and whether the respondent would testify about the crime in court. Variables pertaining to level of concern for specific crimes include how concerned respondents were that someone would rob or attack them, break into or vandalize their home, or try to sexually attack them/someone they cared about. Community involvement variables covered participation in community groups or activities, neighborhood associations, church, or informal social activities. Police/citizen interaction variables focused on the number of times respondents had called to report a problem to the police in the last two years, how satisfied they were with how the police handled the problem, the extent to which this police department needed improvement, whether children trusted law enforcement officers, whether police needed to respond more quickly to calls, whether the police needed improved relations with the community, and in the past year whether local police performance had improved/gotten worse. Specific crime information variables include whether the crime occurred in the respondent's neighborhood, whether he/she was the victim, if crime was serious in the respondent's neighborhood versus elsewhere, whether the respondent had considered moving as a result of crime in the neighborhood, and how personal safety had changed in the respondent's neighborhood. Variables relating to community policing include whether the respondent had heard the term "community policing" in the past year, from what source, and what community policing activities the respondent was aware of. Demographic variables include job self-classification, racial/ethnic identity, length of residency, age, gender, martial status, educational status, and respondent's town of residence.
Curated
Evaluation of Day Fines in Maricopa County, Arizona, 1991-1993 (ICPSR 2024)
Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: United States, Arizona
Time period: 1991-01-01--1993-01-01
This study sought to evaluate how well day fines work as an intermediate sanction. Day fines are a structured approach to imposing fines that considers both the offender's ability to pay and the severity of the offense. The program involves two steps: (1) a determination of the number of fine units for an offense, based on the severity of the offense, and (2) a valuation of fine units, based on the offender's net daily income, hence the name "day fines". While four jurisdictions participated in the day fines evaluation, only the site in Maricopa County, Arizona, was structured in such a way to allow for a quasi-experimental research design. Therefore, this collection only contains data from the Financial Assessment Related to Employability (FARE) day fines program in Maricopa County. The FARE program was started in 1991 and targeted felony offenders with little need for supervision or treatment -- in other words, the low risk-low need defendant. The intent of the program was to draw clients from the population of offenders who would traditionally receive routine probation, thus serving as an intermediate sanction between routine and summary probation. The major research strategy was to consider the FARE-sentenced offenders as the experimental group and to construct a similar comparison group out of the offenders sentenced by non-day fines judges. The design involved three major steps: (1) identification of 1991 and 1992 defendants who received a FARE sentence, (2) screening of sentenced defendants in non-FARE courts using FARE eligibility criteria to match the FARE participants, and (3) coding background and 12-month follow-up information for both FARE and comparison group offenders from probation and clerk files to record background information, monetary payments, and any technical violations and arrests occurring during the 12-month follow-up period. Variables in Part 1, Fines Paid Data, include the total amount of the fine and how much of the fine was applied to probation fees, reimbursement, restitution, and victim compensation. Part 2, Official Records Data, contains background information such as arrest history, marital status, education, drug use, and drug treatment. Additional information includes current arrest, recommended sentence, disposition, sentence imposed, employment and income, and risk/needs assessment. Six- and 12-month reviews collected data on supervisory status, technical violations, new arrests, payment enforcement, and payment term revisions.
Curated
Evaluation of Drug Treatment Programs at the State Correctional Institution in Chester, Pennsylvania, 2003-2004 (ICPSR 20348)
Released/updated on: 2007-12-12
Geographic coverage: Chester, United States, Pennsylvania
Time period: 2003-01-13--2004-03-23
The purpose of this project was to evaluate the alcohol and other drug (AOD) treatment programs at a specialized treatment prison, the State Correctional Institution (SCI) at Chester, Pennsylvania. The Chester prison is a 1,215-bed medium security prison for male inmates with a documented history of substance abuse. Programs included an intensive, 12-month therapeutic community (TC) drug treatment for high-need inmates and a 12-month outpatient (OP) program for inmates requiring less intensive treatment. Inmates who met eligibility criteria for the Chester facility were randomly assigned to the TC (n = 347) or OP (n = 384) program. The researchers utilized individual measures and outcome measures in this study.
Curated
Evaluation of Intensive Probation in Milwaukee, 1980-1981 (ICPSR 8276)
Released/updated on: 2006-01-18
Geographic coverage: Milwaukee, United States, Wisconsin
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the results and impact of a two-year experiment in innovative probation practices in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. After being classified according to the Wisconsin risk and needs assessment scale, individuals who had been sentenced to probation between January 2, 1980 and June 30, 1981 and had reported to the probation department for intake were randomly assigned to one of eight experimental and control groups. The experiment was limited to adult residents of Milwaukee County who were not already on probation, were not judged to be severe psychotic or severe sex-deviant cases, and were not assigned to jail work-release sentences of more than ten days followed by probation (Huber cases). There are three files in this data collection: the Reassessment file, the Admissions/Terminations file, and the Chronological file. Each case in the Reassessment and Admissions/Terminations files represents data on an individual probationer. There are 84 variables for 1343 cases in the Reassessment file and 218 variables for 1922 cases in the Admissions/Terminations file, both files have logical record lengths of 100 characters. Of the 1922 cases for which admissions data were collected (about 133 variables), 397 cases also have termination data available (an additional 85 variables). Cases in the Chronological file are records of probation agent contacts with probationers over the course of the study. There are 17 variables for 47,169 cases (contacts) in this file which includes information on 1781 probationers. As many as 270 contacts with a single probationer are recorded. This file has a logical record length of 80.
Curated
Evaluation of Law Enforcement Training for Domestic Violence Cases in a Southwestern City in Texas, 1997-1999 (ICPSR 3400)
Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: United States, Texas
Time period: 1997-01-01--1999-01-01
This study was an outcome evaluation of the effects of the Duluth Domestic Abuse Intervention Project Training Model for Law Enforcement Response on police officer attitudes toward domestic violence. Data on the effectiveness of the training were collected by means of an attitude survey of law enforcement officers (Part 1). Additionally, two experimental designs (Part 2) were implemented to test the effects of the Duluth model training on (1) time spent by police officers at the scene of a domestic violence incident, and (2) the number of convictions. Variables for Part 1 include the assigned research group and respondents' level of agreement with various statements, such as: alcohol is the primary cause of family violence, men are more likely than women to be aggressive, only mentally ill people batter their families, mandatory arrest of offenders is the best way to reduce repeat episodes of violence, family violence is a private matter, law enforcement policies are ineffective for preventing family violence, children of single-parent, female-headed families are abused more than children of dual-parent households, and prosecution of an offender is unlikely regardless of how well a victim cooperates. Index scores calculated from groupings of various variables are included as well as whether the respondent found training interesting, relevant, well-organized, and useful. Demographic variables for each respondent include race, gender, age, and assignment and position in the police department. Variables for Part 2 include whether the domestic violence case occurred before or after training, to which test group the case belongs, the amount of time in minutes spent on the domestic violence scene, and whether the case resulted in a conviction.
Curated
Evaluation of Multi-Jurisdictional Task Forces in the United States, 1999-2000 (ICPSR 3865)
Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1999-01-01--2000-01-01
Since the inception of the Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance Program in 1988, a large proportion of formula grant program funds has been allocated by state administrative agencies (SAA) to support multi-jurisdictional drug task forces (MJTFs). MJTFs are a subset of law enforcement task forces that were created in order to target the illegal distribution of drugs at the local and regional levels. While many policymakers, researchers, and practitioners express confidence in the task force approach generally, there remains insufficient understanding of the possible community and organizational impact of individual MJTFs and the kinds of evaluation methodologies that can elicit such information. The goal of this project was to identify several methodologies that could be used by state planning agencies, task forces, and others to assess the work of MJTFs. This project consisted of two surveys that were designed to ascertain the extent to which state administrative agencies (SAAs) and multi-jurisdictional drug task forces (MJTFs) collected various kinds of process and outcome information and conducted evaluations of task forces.
Curated
Evaluation of Prison-Based Drug Treatment in Pennsylvania, 2000-2001 (ICPSR 3540)
Released/updated on: 2003-06-19
Geographic coverage: United States, Pennsylvania
The purpose of this study was to examine multiple treatment process measures and post-release outcomes for inmates who participated in Therapeutic Community (TC) drug treatment programs or comparison groups provided by the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections at five state prisons. The project attempted to examine more closely the relationships among inmate characteristics, treatment process, and treatment outcomes than previous studies in order to explore critical issues in prison-based drug treatment programming and policies. Researchers examined in-treatment measures and multiple post-release outcomes for inmates who participated in TC drug treatment programs or comparison groups at five state prisons: Graterford, Houtzdale, Cresson, Waymart, and Huntingdon. Matched comparison groups were made up of TC-eligible inmates who participated in less intensive forms of treatment (e.g., short-term drug education and outpatient treatment groups) due to a shortage of intensive treatment slots at the five institutions. Included in the treatment sample were all current TC residents as of January 1, 2000. New subjects were added to the study as they were admitted to treatment programs. Between January 1 and November 30, 2000, data on all inmates admitted to or discharged from alcohol or drug treatment programs were collected on a monthly basis. Monthly tracking was continued throughout the study to determine treatment outcomes (e.g., successful vs. unsuccessful). TC clients were asked to complete additional self-report measures that tapped psychological constructs and inmate perceptions of the treatment experience, and TC counselors were asked to complete periodic reassessments of each inmate's participation in treatment. Self-reports of treatment process and psychological functioning were gathered within 30 days after admission, again after six months, again at the end of 12 months, and again at discharge if the inmate remained in TC longer than 12 months. Counselor ratings of inmate participation in treatment were similarly gathered one month, six months, and 12 months following admission to treatment. After release, both treatment and comparison groups were tracked over time to monitor rearrest, reincarceration, drug use, and employment. Measures can be broken down into the following four categories and their sources: (1) Inmate Background Factors were collected from the Pennsylvania Additive Classification System (PACT), the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections Screening Instrument (PACSI), and the TCU (Texas Christian University) Drug Screen. (2) Institutional Indicators: Impacts Internal to the Prison Environment were collected from the Department of Corrections Misconduct Database, research and program records, and TCU Resident Evaluation of Self and Treatment (REST) forms. (3) Intermediate or "Proximal" Outcomes: Reductions in Risk for Drug Use and Criminal Behavior were collected from research and program records, TCU Counselor Rating of Client (CRC) forms, and TCU Resident Evaluation of Self and Treatment (REST) forms. (4) Post-Release Indicators: Inmate Behavior Upon Release from Prison were collected from the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, Pennsylvania state police records provided by the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency (PCCD), and the Department of Corrections inmate records system.
Curated
Evaluation of SAFEChildren, a Family-Focused Prevention Program in Chicago, Illinois, 2006-2010 (ICPSR 33101)
Released/updated on: 2015-05-12
Geographic coverage: United States, Chicago, Illinois
Time period: 2007-03-08--2008-06-04, 2006-09-01--2010-06-01
Schools and Families Educating Children (SAFEChildren) is a family-focused program designed to aid families residing in high risk communities with child development during the child's transition to school. The program has the goal of building protection and impeding risk trajectories for aggression, violence, and school failure. The program utilizes multiple family groups (four to six families) combined with reading tutoring for the child. The SAFE Effectiveness Trial (SAFE-E) involved community providers delivering the family group intervention and upper grade students delivering the tutoring program. The trial took place between 2006 and 2010, and involved two age cohorts of children. Collaborating with two community mental health agencies and six elementary schools serving high-poverty, high-crime neighborhoods in Chicago, Illinois, families were randomly assigned to intervention groups of four to six families during their child's first grade year. Children also received tutoring from tutors selected from the upper grades of the child's school. Assessments were collected prior to, during and after the intervention to assess developmental influences, fidelity, process, and implementation characteristics that might affect impact. The purpose of these assessments was to examine the relation of implementation qualities to variation in intervention effects. Quality of implementation was expected to affect short and long-term impact of the intervention, focusing on three primary areas: (1) fidelity of implementation of the program, (2) provider characteristics, such as tutors' reading levels, and attitudes and orientation of the family intervention providers, and (3) quality of support for implementation. The data are from fidelity and process measures developed for this study and measures completed by parents, teachers, and children over four waves of measurement spanning two years, beginning in the fall of each child's first grade year.
Curated
Restricted
Evaluation of Services to Domestic Minor Victims of Human Trafficking; 2011-2013 (ICPSR 35252)
Released/updated on: 2017-06-09
Geographic coverage: New York City, San Francisco, United States, Chicago, Illinois, California, New York (state)
Time period: 2011-01-01--2013-06-01
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 was a process evaluation of three programs funded by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) Office for Victims of Crime (OVC) to identify and provide services to victims of sex and labor trafficking who are U.S citizens and lawful permanent residents (LPR) under the age of 18. The three programs evaluated in this study were:
- The Standing Against Global Exploitation Everywhere (SAGE) Project
- The Salvation Army Trafficking Outreach Program and Intervention Techniques (STOP-IT) program
- The Streetwork Project at Safe Horizon
Curated
Restricted
Evaluation of Seven Second Chance Act Adult Demonstration Grantees, December 2001-September 2014 (ICPSR 36992)
Released/updated on: 2018-07-31
Geographic coverage: San Francisco, Oregon, United States, Oklahoma, Kentucky, South Dakota, California, Pennsylvania
Time period: 2001-12-01--2014-09-01
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 evaluates the impacts of re-entry programs developed by seven grantees awarded funds under the Second Chance Act (SCA) Adult Demonstration Program to reduce recidivism by addressing the challenges faced by adults returning to their communities after incarceration.
The collection contains 3 SAS data files: admin30.sas(n=966; 111 variables), MIS.sas(n=606; 48 variables), and survey.sas(n=789; 273 variables) and 1 SAS syntax file.
Curated
Evaluation of the Bureau of Justice Assistance Sexual Assault Kit Initiative, United States, 2018 (ICPSR 37897)
Released/updated on: 2022-03-30
Geographic coverage: United States
Since 2015, the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) has funded sites to engage in reforms intended to improve the national response to sexual assault cases. The goals of this initiative are to (1) create a coordinated community response that ensures just resolution to unsubmitted sexual assault kit (SAK) cases through a victim-centered approach and (2) build jurisdictions' capacity to prevent the development of conditions that lead to high numbers of unsubmitted sexual assault kits. Site efforts to address these issues include agencies such as law enforcement, prosecution, forensic laboratories, and victim advocacy service organizations. Westat was awarded a contract by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) to assess components of BJA's Sexual Assault Kit Initiative (SAKI). The study includes (1) an evaluability assessment of 17 sites to determine their readiness for an evaluation, (2) a process evaluation and system reform assessment of the 17 sites, (3) a feasibility assessment of using case level data for an outcome evaluation, and analysis of a subset of unsubmitted SAK cases to identify how characteristics of incidents, offenders, and victims are associated with case processing decisions and outcomes, and (4) development of a long-term outcome evaluation plan.
Two sources of data are archived with NAJCD: (1) coded qualitative data from primarily on-site interviews the Westat Team conducted in 2018 with stakeholders from 17 of the fiscal year (FY) 2015 SAKI grantees and 2 private lab facilities and 2) quantitative case-level data from the 2 FY 2015 SAKI grantees on SAKI cases associated with previously unsubmitted sexual assault kits that were determined to contain foreign DNA or biological evidence through laboratory testing. The interview data file contains coded data from 172 interviews the research team conducted with one or more agency representatives regarding their organization's goals, strategies, and activities for processing sexual assault kits, and associated lessons learned, challenges, and expected outcomes. The quantitative case-level data file includes case-level information on 576 sexual assault kits determined to have DNA and associated cases included in the 2 sites' SAKI inventories. The case-level data captures information on case or offense-level information (e.g., date of offense, date offense reported to police, number of victims and suspects involved, investigation and prosecution activities), victim-level information (e.g., victim age, sex, race, participation in investigation), and suspect-level information (e.g., suspect's age, race, sex, criminal history).
Curated
Restricted
Evaluation of the Bureau of Justice Assistance's Indian Alcohol and Substance Abuse Demonstration Programs, 2002-2006 (ICPSR 25741)
Released/updated on: 2015-01-20
Geographic coverage: United States, Washington
Time period: 2002-01-01--2006-01-01
The purpose of this study was to determine whether the Lummi Nation's Community Mobilization Against Drugs (CMAD) Initiative successfully achieved its four stated goals, which were to reduce illicit drug trafficking, reduce rates of substance use disorder and addiction, prevent drug abuse and underage drinking among youth, and mobilize the community in all aspects of prevention, intervention, and suppression of alcohol and drug use, drug abuse, and drug trafficking. The study also aimed to evaluate whether the outcomes of the demonstration project had application for other tribal communities confronting similar public safety issues related to substance abuse. Qualitative information from focus group interviews was collected. Six focus groups were held with individuals representing the following populations: service providers, policy makers, adult clients and family members, youth, traditional tribal healers, and community members. In addition to the focus groups, the evaluation team conducted an interview session with two traditional providers who preferred this format. All focus groups were conducted on-site at Lummi by two trained moderators from the evaluation team. There were six different sets of questions, one for each group. Each set included 9 to 10 open-ended questions, which addressed knowledge and impact of the Community Mobilized Against Drugs (CMAD) Initiative; issues or problems with the Initiative; how the community viewed its actions; the importance and inclusion of a cultural perspective (traditional healers and others) in implementing various aspects of the CMAD Initiative; and how the Initiative had affected work and networking capabilities, policy making decisions, and/or treatment. Participants were also asked to think about what they would like CMAD to address and about their perceptions and definitions of some of the service barriers they may be experiencing (clients, community, and/or youth). All of the focus groups were openly audio taped with full knowledge and agreement of the participants.
Curated
Evaluation of the Children at Risk Program in Austin, Texas, Bridgeport, Connecticut, Memphis, Tennessee, Savannah, Georgia, and Seattle, Washington, 1993-1997 (ICPSR 2686)
Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: Bridgeport, Seattle, Savannah, United States, Texas, Tennessee, Connecticut, Memphis, Georgia, Austin, Washington
Time period: 1993-01-01--1997-01-01
The Children at Risk (CAR) Program was a comprehensive, neighborhood-based strategy for preventing drug use, delinquency, and other problem behaviors among high-risk youth living in severely distressed neighborhoods. The goal of this research project was to evaluate the long-term impact of the CAR program using experimental and quasi-experimental group comparisons. Experimental comparisons of the treatment and control groups selected within target neighborhoods examined the impact of CAR services on individual youths and their families. These services included intensive case management, family services, mentoring, and incentives. Quasi-experimental comparisons were needed in each city because control group youths in the CAR sites were exposed to the effects of neighborhood interventions, such as enhanced community policing and enforcement activities and some expanded court services, and may have taken part in some of the recreational activities after school. CAR programs in five cities -- Austin, TX, Bridgeport, CT, Memphis, TN, Seattle, WA, and Savannah, GA -- took part in this evaluation. In the CAR target areas, juveniles were identified by case managers who contacted schools and the courts to identify youths known to be at risk. Random assignment to the treatment or control group was made at the level of the family so that siblings would be assigned to the same group. A quasi-experimental group of juveniles who met the CAR eligibility risk requirements, but lived in other severely distressed neighborhoods, was selected during the second year of the evaluation in cities that continued intake of new CAR participants into the second year. In these comparison neighborhoods, youths eligible for the quasi-experimental sample were identified either by CAR staff, cooperating agencies, or the staff of the middle schools they attended. Baseline interviews with youths and caretakers were conducted between January 1993 and May 1994, during the month following recruitment. The end-of-program interviews were conducted approximately two years later, between December 1994 and May 1996. The follow-up interviews with youths were conducted one year after the program period ended, between December 1995 and May 1997. Once each year, records were collected from the police, courts, and schools. Part 1 provides demographic data on each youth, including age at intake, gender, ethnicity, relationship of caretaker to youth, and youth's risk factors for poor school performance, poor school behavior, family problems, or personal problems. Additional variables provide information on household size, including number and type of children in the household, and number and type of adults in the household. Part 2 provides data from all three youth interviews (baseline, end-of-program, and follow-up). Questions were asked about the youth's attitudes toward school and amount of homework, participation in various activities (school activities, team sports, clubs or groups, other organized activities, religious services, odd jobs or household chores), curfews and bedtimes, who assisted the youth with various tasks, attitudes about the future, seriousness of various problems the youth might have had over the past year and who he or she turned to for help, number of times the youth's household had moved, how long the youth had lived with the caretaker, various criminal activities in the neighborhood and the youth's concerns about victimization, opinions on various statements about the police, occasions of skipping school and why, if the youth thought he or she would be promoted to the next grade, would graduate from high school, or would go to college, knowledge of children engaging in various problem activities and if the youth was pressured to join them, and experiences with and attitudes toward consumption of cigarettes, alcohol, and various drugs. Three sections of the questionnaire were completed by the youths. Section A asked questions about the youth's attitudes toward various statements about self, life, the home environment, rules, and norms. Section B asked questions about the number of times that various crimes had been committed against the youth, his or her sexual activity, number of times the youth ran away from home, number of times he or she had committed various criminal acts, and what weapons he or she had carried. Items in Section C covered the youth's alcohol and drug use, and participation in drug sales. Part 3 provides data from both caretaker interviews (baseline and end-of-program). Questions elicited the caretaker's assessments of the presence of various positive and negative neighborhood characteristics, safety of the child in the neighborhood, attitudes toward and interactions with the police, if the caretaker had been arrested, had been on probation, or in jail, whether various crimes had been committed against the caretaker or others in the household in the past year, activities that the youth currently participated in, curfews set by the caretaker, if the caretaker had visited the school for various reasons, school performance or problems by the youth and the youth's siblings, amount of the caretaker's involvement with activities, clubs, and groups, the caretaker's financial, medical, and personal problems and assistance received in the past year, if he or she was not able to obtain help, why not, and information on the caretaker's education, employment, income level, income sources, and where he or she sought medical treatment for themselves or for the youth. Two sections of the data collection instruments were completed by the caretaker. Section A dealt with the youth's personal problems or problems with others, and the youth's friends. Additional questions focused on the family's interactions, rules, and norms. Section B items asked about the caretaker's alcohol and drug use, and any alcohol and drug use or criminal justice involvement by others in the household older than the youth. Part 4 consists of data from schools, police, and courts. School data include the youth's grades, grade-point average (GPA), absentee rate, reasons for absences, and whether the youth was promoted each school year. Data from police records include police contacts, detentions, violent offenses, drug-related offenses, and arrests prior to recruitment in the CAR program and in Years 1-4 after recruitment, court contacts and charges prior to recruitment and in Years 1-4 after recruitment, and how the charges were disposed.