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 investigates experiences surrounding hate and bias crimes and incidents and reasons and factors affecting reporting and under-reporting among youth and adults in LGBT, immigrant, Hispanic, Black, and Muslim communities in New Jersey and Los Angeles County, California. The collection includes 1 SPSS data file (QB_FinalDataset-Revised.sav (n=1,326; 513 variables)). The collection also contains 24 qualitative data files of transcripts from focus groups and interviews with key informants, which are not included in this release.

Under New York State’s Hate Crime Law (Penal Law Article 485), a person commits a hate crime when one of a specified set of offenses is committed targeting a victim because of a perception or belief about their race, color, national origin, ancestry, gender, religion, religious practice, age, disability, or sexual orientation, or when such an act is committed as a result of that type of perception or belief. These types of crimes can target an individual, a group of individuals, or public or private property. DCJS submits hate crime incident data to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program. Information collected includes number of victims, number of offenders, type of bias motivation, and type of victim.

This study addressed questions related to potential geographic and racial disparity in the investigation and prosecution of federal capital cases and examined the process by which criminal cases, specially homicide cases, enter the federal criminal justice system. The primary method of data collection used was face-to-face interviews of key criminal justice officials within each district included in the study. Between 2000 and 2004, the researchers visited nine federal districts and interviewed all actors in the state and federal criminal justice systems who potentially would play a role in determining whether a homicide case was investigated and prosecuted in the state or federal systems. The study focused on homicide cases because federal homicides represented the offense of conviction in all capital case convictions in the federal system under the 2000 and 2001 DOJ reports (see U.S. Department of Justice, "The Federal Death Penalty System: A Statistical Survey (1988-2000)," Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, September 12, 2000, and U.S. Department of Justice, "The Federal Death Penalty System: Supplementary Data, Analysis and Revised Protocols for Capital Case Review," Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, June 6, 2001). In addition, federally related homicides are frequently involved with drug, gang, and/or organized crime investigations. Using 11 standardized interview protocols, developed in consultation with members of the project's advisory group, research staff interviewed local investigative agencies (police chief or his/her representative, section heads for homicide, drug, gang, or organized crime units as applicable to the agency structure), federal investigative agencies (Special Agent-in-Charge or designee, section heads of relevant units), local prosecutors (District Attorney, Assistant District Attorney, including the line attorneys and section heads), and defense attorneys who practiced in federal court. Due to the extensive number of issues to be covered with the U.S. Attorneys' Offices, interviews were conducted with: (1) the U.S. Attorney or designated representative, (2) section heads, and (3) Assistant U.S. Attorneys (AUSAs) within the respective sections. Because the U.S. Attorneys were appointed following the change in the U.S. Presidency in 2000, a slightly altered U.S. Attorney questionnaire was designed for interviews with the former U.S. Attorney who was in office during the study period of 1995 through 2000. In some instances, because the project focus was on issues and processes from 1995 through 2000, a second individual with longer tenure was chosen to be interviewed simultaneously when the head or section head was newer to the position. In some instances when a key respondent was unavailable during the site visit and no acceptable alternative could be identified, arrangements were made to complete the interview by telephone after the visit. The interviews included questions related to the nature of the local crime problem, agency crime priorities, perceived benefits of the federal over the local process, local and federal resources, nature and target of joint task forces, relationships between and among agencies, policy and agreements, definitions and understanding of federal jurisdiction, federal investigative strategies, case flow, and attitudes toward the death penalty.

This study surveyed immigrant and non-immigrant populations residing in high Latino population communities in order to: Assess the nature and pattern of bias motivated victimization. Explore the co-occurrence of bias motivated victimization with other forms of victimization. Measure reporting and help-seeking behaviors of individuals who experience bias motivated victimization. Identify cultural factors which may contribute to the risk of bias victimization. Evaluate the effect of bias victimization on negative psychosocial outcomes relative to other forms of victimization. The study's sample was a community sample of 910 respondents which included male and female Latino adults across three metropolitan areas within the conterminous United States. These respondents completed the survey in one of two ways. One set of respondents completed the survey on a tablet with the help of the research team, while the other group self-administered the survey on their own mobile device. The method used to complete the survey was randomly selected. A third option (paper and pencil with an administrator) was initially included but was removed early in the survey's deployment. The survey was administered from May 2018 to March 2019 in the respondent's preferred language (English or Spanish). This collection contains 1,620 variables, and includes derived variables for several scales used in the questionnaire. Bias victimization measures considered both hate crimes (e.g. physical assault) and non-criminal bias events (e.g. racial slurs) and allowed the respondent to report multiple incidents, perpetrators, and types of bias victimization. The respondents were asked about their help-seeking and reporting behaviors for the experience of bias victimization they considered to be the most severe and the measures considered both formal (e.g. contacting the police) and informal (e.g. communicating with family) help-seeking behaviors. The victimization scale measured exposure to traumatic events (e.g. witnessing a murder) as well as experiences of victimization (e.g. physical assault). Acculturation and enculturation scales measured topics such as the respondent's use of Spanish and English and their consumption of media in both languages. The variables pertaining to acculturative stress considered factors such as feelings of social isolation, experiences of racism, and conflict with family members. The variables for mental health outcomes measured symptoms of anger, anxiety, depression, and disassociation.

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. Within the past fifteen years, policymakers across the country have increasingly supported criminal justice reforms designed to reduce the scope of mass incarceration in favor of less costly, more evidence-based approaches to preventing and responding to crime. One of the primary reform efforts is the Justice Reinvestment Initiative (JRI), a public-private partnership through which state governments work to diagnose the primary drivers of their state incarceration rates, reform their sentencing policies to send fewer nonviolent offenders to prison, and reinvest the saved money that used to go into prisons into alternatives to incarceration, instead. This mixed-methods study sought to assess public opinion about the justice reinvestment paradigm of reform and to determine whether exposure to racialized and race-neutral cues affects people's willingness to allocate money into criminal justice institutions versus community-based social services in order to reduce and prevent crime.

A dataset of crimes that occurred in the designated time period that are being investigated as hate crimes. In APD's opinion these cases have met the FBI's definition of a hate crime, as well as the State's and Federal Law's definition of a hate crime. The ultimate decision to prosecute lies with the appropriate County District Attorney. AUSTIN POLICE DEPARTMENT DATA DISCLAIMER 1. The data provided are for informational use only and may differ from official APD crime data. 2. APD’s crime database is continuously updated, so reports run at different times may produce different results. Care should be taken when comparing against other reports as different data collection methods and different data sources may have been used. 3. The Austin Police Department does not assume any liability for any decision made or action taken or not taken by the recipient in reliance upon any information or data provided. In APD's opinion these cases have met the FBI's definition as well as the State's definition and Federal hate crime law of a hate crime and are being investigated as such. The ultimate decision to prosecute lies with the appropriate County District Attorney.

The purpose of this project was to examine possible defendant and victim race effects in capital decisions in the federal system. Per the terms of their grant, the researchers selected cases that were handled under the revised Death Penalty Protocol of 1995 and were processed during Attorney General Janet Reno's term in office. The researchers began the project by examining a sample of Department of Justice Capital Case Unit (CCU) case files. These files contained documents submitted by the United States Attorney's Office (USAO), a copy of the indictment, a copy of the Attorney General's Review Committee on Capital Cases (AGRC's) draft and final memorandum to the Attorney General (AG), and a copy of the AG's decision letter. Next, they created a list of the types of data that would be feasible and desirable to collect and constructed a case abstraction form and coding rules for recording data on victims, defendants, and case characteristics from the CCU's hard-copy case files. The record abstractors did not have access to information about defendant or victim gender or race. Victim and defendant race and gender data were obtained from the CCU's electronic files. Five specially trained coders used the case abstraction forms to record and enter salient information in the CCU hard-copy files into a database. Coders worked on only one case at a time. The resulting database contains 312 cases for which defendant- and victim-race data were available for the 94 federal judicial districts. These cases were received by the CCU between January 1, 1995 and July 31, 2000, and for which the AG at the time had made a decision about whether to seek the death penalty prior to December 31, 2000. The 312 cases includes a total of 652 defendants (see SAMPLING for cases not included). The AG made a seek/not-seek decision for 600 of the defendants, with the difference between the counts stemming mainly from defendants pleading guilty prior to the AG making a charging decision. The database was structured to allow researchers to examine two stages in the federal prosecution process, namely the USAO recommendation to seek or not to seek the death penalty and the final AG charging decision. Finally, dispositions (e.g., sentence imposed) were obtained for all but 12 of the defendants in the database. Variables include data about the defendants and victims such as age, gender, race/ethnicity, employment, education, marital status, and the relationship between the defendant and victim. Data are provided on the defendant's citizenship (United States citizen, not United States citizen), place of birth (United States born, foreign born), offense dates, statute code, counts for the ten most serious offenses committed, defendant histories of alcohol abuse, drug abuse, mental illness, physical or sexual abuse as a child, serious head injury, intelligence (IQ), or other claims made in the case. Information is included for up to 13 USAO assessments and 13 AGRC assessments of statutory and non-statutory aggravating factors and mitigating factors. Victim characteristics included living situation and other reported factors, such as being a good citizen, attending school, past abuse by the defendant, gross size difference between the victim and defendant, if the victim was pregnant, if the victim had a physical handicap, mental or emotional problems or developmental disability, and the victim's present or former status (e.g., police informant, prison inmate, law enforment officer). Data are also provided for up to 13 factors each regarding the place and nature of the killing, defendant motive, coperpetrators, weapons, injuries, witnesses, and forensic and other evidence.

The goal of this study is to enhance public safety and community well-being through effective identification, investigation, and prosecution of anti-LGBTQ hate crimes in Miami. The investigators examined victimization experiences, victim and offender characteristics, crime reporting outcomes, victimization consequences, case processing, as well as the criminal justice system's challenges and opportunities for reform. The project focuses on the hate crime victimization within Miami's Latine community.

This data collection effort is an investigation of criminological and sociological factors within the Black community with a focus on the alleged high incidence of violent crime committed by Blacks. Four communities within Atlanta, Georgia, and four within Washington, DC, were selected for the study. Two communities in each area were designated high-crime areas, the other two low-crime areas. Variables include the respondents' opinions on the relationship of race and socioeconomic class to crime, their fear of crime and experiences with crime, and contacts and attitudes toward the police. Demographic data include respondents' gender and religion.