Search results

This study examines two counties in Oregon (Multnomah and Yamhill) that have utilized a pre-adjudication risk assessment (PAA) to inform criminal case negotiation since 2014. This study seeks to answer these core questions:

• has the introduction of a PAA into the court decision-making process impacted racial and ethnic disparities in sentencing outcomes over time in each county;
• does one PAA process appear to produce more promising results in impacting racial/ethnic disparities;
• using interviews and visual observations, how does the PAA influence case discussion and negotiation, decision-making, and workgroup norms and culture;
• does validation of the PAA tool yield significant mean score differences across racial groups and/or predictive biases?

A number of jurisdictions have turned to pre-adjudication risk assessments (PAA) as a tool to potentially lower or stabilize incarceration rates by identifying the best suitable cases for community-based supervision. Questions have been raised about using risk assessment tools to help with the negotiation of sentencing outcomes in the pre-adjudication stages of criminal cases, particularly the potential for exacerbating disparate racial/ethnic sentencing outcomes.

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 project sought to study the District Attorney of New York's (DANY) current practices by addressing the complex relationship between prosecutorial decision making and racial and ethnic justice in felony and misdemeanor cases closed in New York County in 2010-2011. Using a mixed-methods approach, administrative records from the DANY case-management systems and prosecutorial interviews were examined to study case acceptance for prosecution, pretrial detention and bail determination, case dismissal, plea offers, and sentencing. Researchers developed five hypotheses for the data collected:

1. Blacks and Latinos are more likely to have their cases accepted for prosecution than similarly situated white defendants.
2. Blacks and Latinos are more likely to be held in pretrial detention and less likely to be released on bail.
3. Blacks and Latinos are less likely to have cases dismissed.
4. Blacks and Latinos are less likely to receive a plea offer to a lesser charge and more likely to receive custodial sentence offers.
5. Blacks and Latinos are more likely to be sentenced to custodial punishments.

All criminal activity of the defendant was examined, as well as their demographics and prior history, the location of the crime. Information on the Assistant District Attorney (ADA) was examined as well, including their demographics and caseload in order to more thoroughly understand the catalysts and trends in decision making.

The purpose of the Census of Juveniles on Probation (CJP) was to collect individual-level data about youth on probation, including their numbers and characteristics. The CJP survey asked respondents to report the total number of juveniles on formal probation within their reporting jurisdiction on the reference date of October 24, 2012.

For each youth on probation, responding agencies were asked to provide the following information: sex, date of birth, race, most serious offense, state and county where most serious offense was committed, and the state and county where the juvenile resided on the census reference date.

This data collection contains the national data.

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 purpose of this study was to investigate violence and aggression committed by nursing home residents that is directed toward other residents, referred to here as resident-to-resident elder mistreatment (R-REM). Resident-to-resident mistreatment (R-REM) was defined as: negative and aggressive physical, sexual, or verbal interactions between long term care residents, that in a community setting would likely be construed as unwelcome and have high potential to cause physical or psychological distress in the recipient.

The goals of this project were to: enhance institutional recognition of R-REM; examine the convergence of R-REM reports across different methodologies; identify the most accurate mechanism for detecting and reporting R-REM; develop profiles of persons involved with R-REM by reporting source; investigate existing R-REM policies, and; develop institutional guidelines for reporting R-REM episodes. Also, the project team sought to answer the following research questions: (1) Will the reporting of R-REM differ by source? (2) Which reporting methods will show the highest level of convergence and accuracy in reporting? (3) What resident characteristics or profiles will predict R-REM across the differing reporting sources? (4) What are the existing guidelines and/or institutional policies for reporting R-REM? To achieve these goals, the researcher conducted this study over a two week period in five urban and five suburban New York City facilities. Resident-to-resident abuse information was derived from five sources: (1) resident interviews (2) staff informants (3) observational data (behavior sheets) (4) resident chart reviews (5) incident and accident reports.

In this secondary analysis, the research team used publicly available federal sentencing data from the United States Sentencing Commission (USSC) to measure racial disparities for multiple race groups and stages of sentencing across time (fiscal years 1999-2021). They sought to answer the following research questions:

1. Do racial disparities vary across 3 stages of federal sentencing and over time? If so, how?
2. During which years do the measured racial disparities have a statistically significant decrease?
3. Which policies likely impacted these decreases the most? What are the commonalities between them?

To answer the research questions, the research team measured racial disparities between matched cases across three stages of federal sentencing, represented by two elements each; identified at which points in time the disparities changed significantly using time series plots and structured break analyses; and used this information to systematically review federal policies to identify which might have contributed to significant decreases in racial disparities.

This collection contains 1 analytic dataset (n = 1,281,732) containing 27 key variables for all fiscal years and the code/syntax used to complete the secondary analysis:

• 5 files to compile and clean the original data and produce matched datasets (3 R, 1 SAS, 1 Stata)
• 6 files to analyze sentences by race (all R)
• 4 files to analyze sentences by federal sentencing guideline (all R)
• 11 files to analyze sentences by circuit court (all R)

Please refer to the Data Sources metadata field and accompanying documentation for details on obtaining the original data.

This two-phase study examined factors influencing decisions that lead from a school-based incident to exclusionary discipline, an arrest, and a referral to the juvenile court. The research team hypothesized that multiple external factors such as race identity, socioeconomic status, and others would negatively impact the decision-maker, and generate harsher punishments for those who are in these vulnerable groups. Phase 1 involved interviewing groups of key stakeholders including school administrators, district administrators, discipline coordinators, juvenile court judges and other staff, law enforcement officers, Positive Behavior Intervention Support (PBIS) coordinators, and child welfare agencies to understand their approaches to behavior management. Phase 2 involved secondary analysis of data from local school districts and the juvenile court with jurisdiction in two counties.