Showing 1 – 14 of 14 results.
Curated
Simple Crosstabs
National Survey of Tribal Court Systems, 2014 (ICPSR 38409)
Released/updated on: 2022-03-30
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 2014-01-01--2014-12-31
The National Survey of Tribal Court Systems (NSTCS) is the first complete enumeration of tribal court systems operating in the United States and gathers administrative and operational information from tribal court systems, prosecutors' offices, and indigent defense providers operating in the United States. The NSTCS helps fulfill BJS's legislative mandate under the Tribal Law and Order Act of 2010 (TLOA; P.L. 111-211, 124 Stat. 2258 § 251(b)) to establish and implement a tribal crime data collection system. Data for the NSTCS were collected by Kauffman & Associates, Inc., an American Indian- and woman-owned management consulting firm, in collaboration with the Tribal Law and Policy Institute.
The National Survey of Tribal Court Systems (NSTCS) consists of three surveys specific to tribal court systems in the lower 48 states, Alaska Native villages, and the Code of Federal Regulations Courts (CFR Courts) operated by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). Due to data collection challenges and the limited number of Alaska Native villages and CFR Courts that participated in this collection, the Tribal Courts in United States, 2014, report, data file and documentation include information only on tribal court systems in the lower 48 states.
Data for the 2014 NSTCS were collected through mail, email, and telephone nonresponse follow-up. Data on the number and type of tribal court systems were obtained from all eligible federally recognized tribes. The final universe of eligible respondents in the lower 48 states included 234 tribal court systems, of which 196 (83.8%) participated in the survey.
Curated
Restricted
Examining the Effectiveness of Indigent Defense Team Services: A Multisite Evaluation of Holistic Defense in Practice, Kentucky, Minnesota, Rhode Island, 2015-2018 (ICPSR 37361)
Released/updated on: 2021-05-25
Geographic coverage: Rhode Island, United States, Kentucky, Minnesota
Time period: 2016-06-01--2017-06-12
The goals of this project were to: describe the implementation of holistic defense principles in three indigent defense programs; measure each program's impact on pretrial court practices, manner of disposition, sentencing, and other case outcomes; and explore an appropriate methodology to assess the cost-efficiency of these programs in comparison with traditional criminal defense practice. Researchers collected data on both holistic and traditional defense delivery via interviews, surveys, focus groups, observation during site visits, and administrative data from public defender and court information systems. This evaluation was conducted in three research sites: Rhode Island Public Defender (Providence office); Minnesota Public Defender (Minneapolis office); and the Kentucky Department of Public Advocacy (Bowling Green office). The evaluation focused on adult criminal cases. A process evaluation examined how holistic defense has been implemented in each site. The impact evaluation used a quasi-experimental design that includes matched comparison groups and alternative statistical models to examine the relative impact of holistic defense on a range of outcomes, controlling for defendant characteristics. The project investigated the parameters necessary to conduct a cost-efficiency analysis within the context of holistic defense and, to the extent possible, began to estimate the costs/benefits of holistic defense services. In addition to data sets for archiving and a summary report to NIJ, anticipated work products include professional conference presentations, manuscripts for submission to professional journals, and research briefs.
Curated
Restricted
Early Intervention by Counsel: A Multi-Site Evaluation of the Presence of Counsel at Defendants' First Appearance (CAFA) in Court, 6 New York State counties, 2012-2016 (ICPSR 37370)
Released/updated on: 2020-11-30
Geographic coverage: United States, New York (state)
Time period: 2012-01-01--2016-12-31
This study sought to assess the impact of local programs that ensure that legal counsel is provided at first appearance (usually arraignment) in court on court decisions (such as bail or pretrial release, and consequences such as pretrial detention and booking at a local detention facility), as well as on subsequent consequences for charge reduction, disposition, and sentencing. The project collected original data from six upstate New York counties (under pseudonyms). The data were collected from indigent defense programs' case files, supplemented by data from county detention facilities on booking and release.
Demographic variables in this collection include defendant age, race, gender, and residency.
Curated
Simple Crosstabs
National Survey of Indigent Defense Systems (NSIDS) State-Administered Data, 2013 (ICPSR 36831)
Released/updated on: 2017-10-02
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 2012-01-01--2013-12-31
The National Survey of Indigent Defense Systems (NSIDS) collected nationwide data in order to: (1) identify the number and characteristics of publicly financed indigent defense systems and agencies in the United States, (2) measure how legal services were provided to indigent criminal defendants in terms of caseloads, workloads, policies, and practices, and (3) describe the types of offenses handled by indigent defense system organizations. The study was initially designed to permit measurable statistical estimates at the national level for each region of the United States, for individual states, and for the 100 most populous counties, including the District of Columbia. However, due to resource and financial constraints, the 1999 Survey of Indigent Defense Systems (ICPSR 3081) was scaled back to collect indigent criminal defense data at the trial level for (1) the 100 most populous counties, (2) 197 counties outside the 100 most populous counties, and (3) states that entirely funded indigent criminal defense services.
The 2013 NSIDS was the first census of all state- and county-administered indigent defense systems. It was also the first collection of data focusing on criminal defense and civil, juvenile, and appellate representation. The NSIDS furthers the work of the 2007 Census of Public Defender Offices (CPDO) and the 1999 Survey of Indigent Defense Systems.
Curated
Restricted
Effects of Defense Counsel on Homicide Case Outcomes in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 1995-2004 [United States] (ICPSR 32541)
Released/updated on: 2012-09-21
Geographic coverage: United States, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Time period: 1994-01-01--2005-12-31
This study measured the difference that defense counsel made to the outcome of homicide and death penalty cases. One in five indigent murder defendants in Philadelphia were randomly assigned representation by the Defender Association of Philadelphia while the remainder received court-appointed private attorneys. This study's research design utilized this random assignment to measure how defense counsel affected murder case outcomes. The research team collected data on 3,157 defendants charged with murder in Philadelphia Municipal Court between 1995-2004, using records provided by the Philadelphia Courts (First Judicial District of Pennsylvania). Data were also obtained from the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, the Pennsylvania Unified Judicial System web portal, the National Corrections Reporting Program, and the 2000 Census. This study contains a total of 47 variables including public defender representation, defendant demographics, ZIP code characteristics, prior criminal history, case characteristics, case outcomes, and case handling procedures.
Curated
Partially restricted
Influence of Eyewitness Memory Factors on Plea Bargaining Decisions by Prosecution and Defense Attorneys in California, 2010-2011 (ICPSR 32181)
Released/updated on: 2012-07-31
Geographic coverage: United States, California
Time period: 2010-01-01--2011-12-31
The purpose of the study was to assess how the strength of eyewitness evidence affects plea bargaining decisions by prosecutors and defense attorneys. Surveys were administered to 93 defense attorneys and 46 prosecutors from matched counties in California. On the questionnaire, each participant was asked four background questions and read four versions of a crime scenario in which two specific eyewitness factors -- (a) same- versus cross-race identification and (b) prior contact or not -- were experimentally manipulated in a factorial design. The scenarios described a store robbery in which identification by one eyewitness was the only evidence against the defendant. After reading each scenario, attorneys were asked to respond to five questions in light of the facts presented. The study contains 28 variables including background data on the study participants and responses to questions relating to four crime scenarios that differ in terms of the details of the eyewitness evidence.
Curated
Partially restricted
Evaluation of the Hawaii Opportunity Probation with Enforcement (HOPE) Community Supervision Strategy, 2007-2009 (ICPSR 27921)
Released/updated on: 2011-07-06
Geographic coverage: United States, Honolulu, Hawaii
Time period: 2007-01-01--2009-12-31
The purpose of the study was to evaluate the Hawaii Opportunity Probation with Enforcement (HOPE) community supervision strategy for substance-abusing probationers. The study involved the administration of key stakeholder surveys as part of a process evaluation of the HOPE program and the comparison of HOPE probationers with control-group probationers on two primary outcome measures: no-shows for probation appointments and positive urine tests for illicit-substance use. For Part 1 and Part 2, data were collected from administrative data sources. Missed Appointments Data (Part 1) were collected from 2007 to 2009 on a total of 1,174 probationers including 1,078 HOPE probationers, 78 comparison probationers, and 18 probationers for which study group information was not available. Specifically, for Part 1, the research team compiled data on the proportion of missed appointments in the three-month period before the study start date (baseline), in the three-month period following baseline, and in the six-month period following baseline. Drug Test Results Data (Part 2) were collected from 2007 to 2009 on the same 1,174 probationers. Specifically, for Part 2, the research team compiled data on the proportion of positive urine tests in the three-month period before the study start date (baseline), in the three-month period following baseline, and in the six-month period following baseline. Stakeholder survey data were collected from September 2008 through March 2009 on 50 Integrated Community Sanctions or "Specialized Unit" probationers (Part 3), 28 probationers in treatment (Part 4), 16 probationers in jail (Part 5), 20 probation officers in the Integrated Community Sanctions Unit (Part 6), 11 public defenders (Part 7), 12 prosecutors (Part 8), 7 judges (Part 9), and 11 court staff (Part 10). Part 1 contains a total of eight variables including group (high intensity or control), demographics, and mean missed appointments scores for three periods. Part 2 contains a total of eight variables including group (high intensity or control), demographics, and mean positive urine tests for illicit-substance use scores for three periods. The Integrated Community Sanctions Probationers Survey Data (Part 3), the Probationers in Treatment Survey Data (Part 4), and the Probationers in Jail Survey Data (Part 5) each include variables about the respondent's general perceptions and opinions of the HOPE program. Part 3 contains 24 variables, Part 4 contains 30 variables, and Part 5 contains 30 variables. The Probation Officers Survey Data (Part 6), Public Defenders Survey Data (Part 7), Prosecutors Survey Data (Part 8), Judges Survey Data (Part 9), and Court Staff Survey Data (Part 10) include variables about workload issues and the respondent's general perceptions and opinions of the HOPE program. Part 6 contains 65 variables, Part 7 contains 45 variables, Part 8 contains 55 variables, Part 9 contains 36 variables, and Part 10 contains 36 variables.
Curated
Census of Public Defender Offices: State Programs, 2007 (ICPSR 29501)
Released/updated on: 2011-05-13
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 2007-01-01--2007-12-31
The Bureau of Justice Statistics' (BJS) 2007 Census of Public Defender Offices (CPDO) collected data from public defender offices located across 49 states and the District of Columbia. Public defender offices are one of three methods through which states and localities ensure that indigent defendants are granted the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment right to counsel. (In addition to defender offices, indigent defense services may also be provided by court-assigned private counsel or by a contract system in which private attorneys contractually agree to take on a specified number of indigent defendants or indigent defense cases.) Public defender offices have a salaried staff of full- or part-time attorneys who represent indigent defendants and are employed as direct government employees or through a public, nonprofit organization. Public defenders play an important role in the United States criminal justice system. Data from prior BJS surveys on indigent defense representation indicate that most criminal defendants rely on some form of publicly provided defense counsel, primarily public defenders. Although the United States Supreme Court has mandated that the states provide counsel for indigent persons accused of crime, documentation on the nature and provision of these services has not been readily available. States have devised various systems, rules of organization, and funding mechanisms for indigent defense programs. While the operation and funding of public defender offices varies across states, public defender offices can be generally classified as being part of either a state program or a county-based system. The 22 state public defender programs functioned entirely under the direction of a central administrative office that funded and administered all the public defender offices in the state. For the 28 states with county-based offices, indigent defense services were administered at the county or local jurisdictional level and funded principally by the county or through a combination of county and state funds. The CPDO collected data from both state- and county-based offices. All public defender offices that were principally funded by state or local governments and provided general criminal defense services, conflict services, or capital case representation were within the scope of the study. Federal public defender offices and offices that provided primarily contract or assigned counsel services with private attorneys were excluded from the data collection. In addition, public defender offices that were principally funded by a tribal government, or provided primarily appellate or juvenile services were outside the scope of the project and were also excluded. The CPDO gathered information on public defender office staffing, expenditures, attorney training, standards and guidelines, and caseloads, including the number and type of cases received by the offices. The data collected by the CPDO can be compared to and analyzed against many of the existing national standards for the provision of indigent defense services.
Curated
Legal Representation Data, 1970 (ICPSR 7540)
Released/updated on: 2009-11-19
Time period: 1970-01-01--1970-12-31
This data collection contains legal representation information gathered in a 1970 survey of 474 attorneys across the United States, which garnered 221 usable responses. The research objectives included: (1) determining the relationship between the behavior of the attorneys in representing indigent or unpopular clients and the attitudes, specialties, backgrounds, and environments of the attorneys, (2) arriving at some policy recommendations for increasing the representation of indigent and unpopular clients, and (3) analyzing the joint causation phenomenon whereby neither favorable attitudes nor favorable opportunities alone lead to representation of the unpopular, but the combination of both together does so substantially. Survey information gathered includes respondents' attitudes toward: (1) the legal profession, (2) unpopular or indigent clients, (3) sociopolitical issues regarding the poor, and (4) the system of legal representation. Respondents were asked for their experiences when representing unpopular or indigent clients and to give reasons they might not choose to represent such clients. Background information includes characteristics of the respondent's community as well as respondent's race, gender, natality, father's occupation, political party affiliation, political offices held, religious preference, type of practice, and percent of clients from ethnic and racial minorities.
Curated
Partially restricted
Understanding Court Culture and Improving Court Performance in 12 Courts in California, Florida, and Minnesota, 2002 (ICPSR 20366)
Released/updated on: 2008-08-25
Geographic coverage: United States, Minnesota, California, Florida
Time period: 2002-04-01--2002-08-31
The purpose of this study was to examine the organizational culture in 12 felony criminal trial courts selected in 3 states and to gauge prosecuting and public defender attorneys' views on how well the courts in which they practice achieve the goals of access, fairness, and managerial effectiveness. Data on organizational culture in each of the 12 courts (Part 1) were obtained by administering the Court Culture Assessment Instrument (CCAI) to all judges with a felony criminal court docket and to all senior court administrators. A total of 224 respondents completed the questionnaire. Additionally, surveys were conducted of prosecuting attorneys (Part 2) and public defender attorneys (Part 3) to gauge their views on how well the courts in which they practice achieve the goals of access, fairness, and managerial effectiveness. A total of 334 prosecuting attorneys and 260 public defense attorneys completed the 46-item trial court process survey. Part 1 contains 40 variables pertaining to 5 dimensions of current and preferred court culture. Variables in Part 2 and Part 3 each include seven items from a jurisdictional practice scale, eight items from a procedural fairness scale, seven items from a resource scale, nine items from a management scale, nine items from a practitioner competence scale, and six items from a court access scale.
Curated
Study of Race, Crime, and Social Policy in Oakland, California, 1976-1982 (ICPSR 9961)
Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: United States, California, Oakland
Time period: 1976-01-01--1982-12-31
In 1980, the National Institute of Justice awarded a grant to the Cornell University College of Human Ecology for the establishment of the Center for the Study of Race, Crime, and Social Policy in Oakland, California. This center mounted a long-term research project that sought to explain the wide variation in crime statistics by race and ethnicity. Using information from eight ethnic communities in Oakland, California, representing working- and middle-class Black, White, Chinese, and Hispanic groups, as well as additional data from Oakland's justice systems and local organizations, the center conducted empirical research to describe the criminalization process and to explore the relationship between race and crime. The differences in observed patterns and levels of crime were analyzed in terms of: (1) the abilities of local ethnic communities to contribute to, resist, neutralize, or otherwise affect the criminalization of its members, (2) the impacts of criminal justice policies on ethnic communities and their members, and (3) the cumulative impacts of criminal justice agency decisions on the processing of individuals in the system. Administrative records data were gathered from two sources, the Alameda County Criminal Oriented Records Production System (CORPUS) (Part 1) and the Oakland District Attorney Legal Information System (DALITE) (Part 2). In addition to collecting administrative data, the researchers also surveyed residents (Part 3), police officers (Part 4), and public defenders and district attorneys (Part 5). The eight study areas included a middle- and low-income pair of census tracts for each of the four racial/ethnic groups: white, Black, Hispanic, and Asian. Part 1, Criminal Oriented Records Production System (CORPUS) Data, contains information on offenders' most serious felony and misdemeanor arrests, dispositions, offense codes, bail arrangements, fines, jail terms, and pleas for both current and prior arrests in Alameda County. Demographic variables include age, sex, race, and marital status. Variables in Part 2, District Attorney Legal Information System (DALITE) Data, include current and prior charges, days from offense to charge, disposition, and arrest, plea agreement conditions, final results from both municipal court and superior court, sentence outcomes, date and outcome of arraignment, disposition, and sentence, number and type of enhancements, numbers of convictions, mistrials, acquittals, insanity pleas, and dismissals, and factors that determined the prison term. For Part 3, Oakland Community Crime Survey Data, researchers interviewed 1,930 Oakland residents from eight communities. Information was gathered from community residents on the quality of schools, shopping, and transportation in their neighborhoods, the neighborhood's racial composition, neighborhood problems, such as noise, abandoned buildings, and drugs, level of crime in the neighborhood, chances of being victimized, how respondents would describe certain types of criminals in terms of age, race, education, and work history, community involvement, crime prevention measures, the performance of the police, judges, and attorneys, victimization experiences, and fear of certain types of crimes. Demographic variables include age, sex, race, and family status. For Part 4, Oakland Police Department Survey Data, Oakland County police officers were asked about why they joined the police force, how they perceived their role, aspects of a good and a bad police officer, why they believed crime was down, and how they would describe certain beats in terms of drug availability, crime rates, socioeconomic status, number of juveniles, potential for violence, residential versus commercial, and degree of danger. Officers were also asked about problems particular neighborhoods were experiencing, strategies for reducing crime, difficulties in doing police work well, and work conditions. Demographic variables include age, sex, race, marital status, level of education, and years on the force. In Part 5, Public Defender/District Attorney Survey Data, public defenders and district attorneys were queried regarding which offenses were increasing most rapidly in Oakland, and they were asked to rank certain offenses in terms of seriousness. Respondents were also asked about the public's influence on criminal justice agencies and on the performance of certain criminal justice agencies. Respondents were presented with a list of crimes and asked how typical these offenses were and what factors influenced their decisions about such cases (e.g., intent, motive, evidence, behavior, prior history, injury or loss, substance abuse, emotional trauma). Other variables measured how often and under what circumstances the public defender and client and the public defender and the district attorney agreed on the case, defendant characteristics in terms of who should not be put on the stand, the effects of Proposition 8, public defender and district attorney plea guidelines, attorney discretion, and advantageous and disadvantageous characteristics of a defendant. Demographic variables include age, sex, race, marital status, religion, years of experience, and area of responsibility.
Curated
National Indigent Criminal Defense Survey, 1982 (ICPSR 8417)
Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1982-01-01--1982-12-31
This survey was conducted to provide national-level data on basic information such as system types, funding sources, costs, and caseloads of indigent defense programs for defense practitioners, policymakers, and planners in the criminal justice system. The goal of the survey was to provide data that could begin to answer questions regarding the nature and scope of indigent service delivery. Specifically, the three basic objectives were to provide descriptive data, to assess the level of response to defense service delivery requirements, and to facilitate further research.
Curated
National Survey of Indigent Defense Systems (NSIDS), 1999 (ICPSR 3081)
Released/updated on: 2006-01-18
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1999-01-01--2000-12-31
This survey collected nationwide data in order to: (1) identify the number and characteristics of publicly financed indigent defense systems and agencies in the United States, (2) measure how legal services were provided to indigent criminal defendants in terms of caseloads, workloads, policies, and practices, and (3) describe the types of offenses handled by indigent defense system organizations. The study was initially designed to permit measurable statistical estimates at the national level for each region of the United States, for individual states, and for the 100 most populous counties, including the District of Columbia. However, due to resource and financial constraints, the study was scaled back to collect indigent criminal defense data at the trial level for (1) the 100 most populous counties, (2) 197 counties outside the 100 most populous counties, and (3) states that entirely funded indigent criminal defense services.
Curated
National Justice Agency List, 1980 (ICPSR 7858)
Released/updated on: 2005-11-04
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1970-01-01--1980-12-31
The National Justice Agency List is a master name and address file created and maintained by the United States Bureau of the Census for the Bureau of Justice Statistics. The file was first created in 1970, and the Census Bureau has continued to maintain and expand the file. The master file contains information for ten separate sectors: prosecution and civil attorneys, public defenders, law enforcement, courts, probation and parole, juvenile corrections, local adult corrections, state adult corrections, other justice agencies, and federal and Indian tribal agencies. ICPSR has separated the master file into ten subfiles, corresponding to the ten sectors in the master file. Each file has variables containing the names and addresses of agencies in that sector and information relevant only to the agencies within the sector. Court (Part 1) variables include court structure, type of jurisdiction, and the location of court records. State Adult Correctional Facilities (Part 2) variables include type of institution, agency employment size, sex of inmates, and funding code. Public Defender Agencies (Part 3) variables include type of agency, type of cases handled, agency employment size, and funding code. Probation and Parole Agencies (Part 4) variables include type of system, agency client caseload, agency employment size, and funding code. "Other" Agencies (Part 5) variables include type of services and agency employment size. Local Jails (Part 6) variables include sex of inmates, number of female inmates, inmate population, and funding code. Prosecution and Civil Attorney Agencies (Part 7) variables include type of agency, types of cases prosecuted, agency employment size, number of attorneys, and funding code. Federal and Indian Tribal Agencies (Part 8) variables include type of justice sector, employment size, and funding code. Law Enforcement Agencies (Part 9) variables include type of agency, employment size, and number of sworn police. Juvenile Detention and Correctional Facilities (Part 10) variables include type of facility, sex of residents, resident population, and employment size.