This data collection examines the ways in which victim harm affects decisions regarding arrest, prosecution, and sentencing, and the impact of these decisions on the victim's perception of the criminal justice system. Five types of offenses were studied: homicide, sexual assault, burglary, robbery, and aggravated assault. The victim file contains information on personal characteristics, results of victimization, involvement in case processing, use of victim assistance service, satisfaction with case outcomes, and opinions about the court system. The police file and the prosecutor file variables cover personal background, screening decisions on scenario cases, communication with victims, and opinions about the role of victims in the criminal justice system. The prosecutor file also includes sentencing recommendations on the scenarios. Data in the judge file cover personal background, sentencing recommendations on the scenario cases, communications with victims, sources of information regarding victim harm, and opinions about the role of victims in the criminal justice system.

This data collection examines victim assistance programs that are operated by law enforcement agencies, prosecutor's offices, and independent assistance agencies. Victim assistance programs came into being when it was discovered that, in addition to the physical, emotional, and financial impact of a crime, victims often experience a "second victimization" because of insensitive treatment by the criminal justice system. Specifically, this study sought to answer the following questions: (1) What are the current staffing levels of victim assistance programs? (2) What types of victims come to the attention of the programs? (3) What types of services are provided to victims? and (4) What are the operational and training needs of victim assistance programs? The survey was sent to 519 police departments, sheriff departments, and prosecutor's offices identified as having victim assistance programs. Also, 172 independent full-service agencies that were believed to provide referral or direct services to victims (not just advocacy) were also sent surveys. Variables on staffing levels include the number of full-time, part-time, and volunteer personnel, and the education and years of experience of paid staff. Victim information includes the number of victims served for various types of crime, and the percent of victims served identified by race/ethnicity and by age characteristics (under 16 years old, 17-64 years old, and over 65 years old). Variables about services include percent estimates on the number of victims receiving various types of assistance, such as information on their rights, information on criminal justice processes, "next-day" crisis counseling, short-term supportive counseling, or transportation. Other data gathered include the number of victims for which the agency arranged emergency loans, accompanied to line-ups, police or prosecutor interviews, or court, assisted in applying for state victim compensation, prepared victim impact statements, notified of court dates or parole hearings, or made referrals to social service agencies or mental health agencies. Information is also presented on training provided to criminal justice, medical, mental health, or other victim assistance agency personnel, and whether the agency conducted community or public school education programs. Agencies ranked their need for more timely victim notification of various criminal justice events, improvement or implementation of various forms of victim and public protection, and improvement of victim participation in various stages of the criminal justice process. Agencies also provided information on training objectives for their agency, number of hours of mandatory pre-service and in-service training, types of information provided during the training of their staff, sources for their training, and the priority of additional types of training for their staff. Agency variables include type of agency, year started, and budget information.

This study explored the new roles of state and local law enforcement agencies and the changing conditions that came about as a result of the events of September 11, 2001. In order to examine the impact of terrorism on state and local police agencies, the research team developed a survey that was administered to all state police, highway patrol agencies, and general-purpose state bureaus of investigation and a sample population of 400 local police and sheriff agencies in the spring of 2004. The survey asked these state and local law enforcement agencies questions concerning how their allocation of resources, homeland security responsibilities, and interactions with other agencies had changed since September 11, 2001.

The purpose of the study was to investigate the role and impact of forensic science evidence on the criminal justice process. The study utilized a prospective analysis of official record data that followed criminal cases in five jurisdictions (Los Angeles County, California; Indianapolis, Indiana; Evansville, Indiana; Fort Wayne, Indiana; and South Bend, Indiana) from the time of police incident report to final criminal disposition. The data were based on a random sample of the population of reported crime incidents between 2003 and 2006, stratified by crime type and jurisdiction. A total of 4,205 cases were sampled including 859 aggravated assaults, 1,263 burglaries, 400 homicides, 602 rapes, and 1,081 robberies. Descriptive and impact data were collected from three sources: police incident and investigation reports, crime lab reports, and prosecutor case files. The data contain a total of 175 variables including site, crime type, forensic variables, criminal offense variables, and crime dispositions variables.

The purpose of this data collection was to assess the effects of victim impact statements on sentencing decisions and on victim satisfaction with the criminal justice system. Victims were randomly assigned to one of three experimental conditions: (1) Victims were interviewed, with an impact statement written and immediately distributed to the prosecutor, defense attorney, and judge on the case, (2) Victims were interviewed to assess impact but no statement was written, and (3) Victims were assigned to a control condition in which there was no interview or statement. Subsequent interviews evaluated victims' perceptions of their role in the proceedings and their satisfaction with the outcome. Data were also recorded on charges filed against the defendants (both the arraignment and final charges), sentences, and special conditions of sentences. Standard demographic information was gathered as well. The remaining variables fall into two categories. The first category includes questions about the defendant(s) in the case. For all defendants in each case (up to six per victim) the researchers recorded information on the nature and severity of the arraignment charges and final charges, and on the sentence received. Additional information was recorded for the first and second defendants in a case. This included information on special conditions of the sentence such as a drug treatment program or restraining order. Orders to pay restitution were noted. Also recorded was information on the defendant's status with the criminal justice system, including number of prior convictions and number of open cases against the defendant. Finally, whether the Victim Impact Statement appeared in the assistant district attorney's file on the case and whether the statement had been opened were noted. The second category of variables includes information about the victim's reactions to the crime and the criminal justice system. Victims were asked to assess the impact the crime had on them in terms of physical injury, financial losses, psychological effect, and behavioral effect (i.e., changes in behavior resulting from the experience). They were also questioned about their experiences with the criminal justice system. The researchers inquired about their participation in the sentencing decision, their satisfaction with the outcome, and how they felt they had been treated by various court officials. Victims were asked whether they felt that court officials were aware of and were concerned about the effect the crime had on them. They were also asked whether victims should have a greater role in the court proceedings and whether court officials should be aware of victim impact as part of the sentencing procedure. Finally, the researchers investigated whether the victims believed that going to court was a waste of time.

This study examined the impacts of jurisdictions' domestic violence policies on violent behavior of family members and intimate partners, on the likelihood that the police discovered an incident, and on the likelihood that the police made an arrest. The research combined two datasets. Part 1 contains information on police, prosecution policies, and local victim services. Informants within the local agencies of the 50 largest cities in the United States were contacted and asked to complete a survey inventorying policies and activities by type and year of implementation. Data from completed surveys covered 48 cities from 1976 to 1996. Part 2 contains data on domestic violence laws. Data on state statutes from 1976 to 1997 that related to protection orders were collected by a legal expert for all 50 states and the District of Columbia.